Post by account_disabled on Dec 21, 2023 3:36:04 GMT
Most of the articles that articles which come out in exact search on “facebook is dead”) revealed nothing to me, learned nothing and entered into the “putaclic” box (I wrote most of them correctly, so not all). Some also relied on this catchphrase to explain that Facebook's natural Reach was becoming almost zero. It was also a great discovery: Facebook is a commercial company, listed, with shareholders and which must therefore generate turnover and be profitable. This means that you have a commercial activity and you want to be visible on Facebook, you will have to pay. This surprised many people (even today) but Facebook, LinkedIn and Co are not going to promote the natural reach of your professional content while they offer you paid solutions to achieve this.
Analysis of “Facebook is dead” What is the basis (often) for saying that Facebook is dead? Most Email Data of the web providers or consultants I have met use Google trends. Google trends is a tool offered by Google which indicates, in relation to a base of 100, an evolution, on a given geographical market and a period of time, of queries made by Internet users on the search engine. And, indeed, when we look at the term “facebook” with the sorting criteria “in all countries” and “from 2004 to date”, clearly: “it’s boring” and with the shortcuts that some are familiar with, it quickly turns into “facebook is dead”. The curve is approximately the same for France or the United States. And when we see such a curve, it’s clear: Facebook is dead! I'm not inventing anything. I am not caricaturing.
A few months ago I saw a webinar in which a web “influencer” did this demo and gave this speech based on these elements. Personally, I don't really understand this shortcut. Drawing the conclusion from this curve that “Facebook is dead” is indicative of ignorance at best, incompetence or intellectual fraud at worst: Ignorance: we are not digital specialists, ignorance is legitimate. Incompetence: we claim to know the subject when this is not the case. Intellectual fraud: we know very well what is behind this curve, but we do not take it into account, to serve our purpose. What does this curve tell us? This curve just tells us that, since December 2012,
Analysis of “Facebook is dead” What is the basis (often) for saying that Facebook is dead? Most Email Data of the web providers or consultants I have met use Google trends. Google trends is a tool offered by Google which indicates, in relation to a base of 100, an evolution, on a given geographical market and a period of time, of queries made by Internet users on the search engine. And, indeed, when we look at the term “facebook” with the sorting criteria “in all countries” and “from 2004 to date”, clearly: “it’s boring” and with the shortcuts that some are familiar with, it quickly turns into “facebook is dead”. The curve is approximately the same for France or the United States. And when we see such a curve, it’s clear: Facebook is dead! I'm not inventing anything. I am not caricaturing.
A few months ago I saw a webinar in which a web “influencer” did this demo and gave this speech based on these elements. Personally, I don't really understand this shortcut. Drawing the conclusion from this curve that “Facebook is dead” is indicative of ignorance at best, incompetence or intellectual fraud at worst: Ignorance: we are not digital specialists, ignorance is legitimate. Incompetence: we claim to know the subject when this is not the case. Intellectual fraud: we know very well what is behind this curve, but we do not take it into account, to serve our purpose. What does this curve tell us? This curve just tells us that, since December 2012,