Facebook is a damn business, Google+ is competition. The fact that this ad was blocked isn't really news, it's just how business plays out. It's not in Facebook's interest at all to run this.
I routinely find myself astonished at how people think the online world should work. Everything should be free, don't charge for anything, let your competitors advertise in your space, ads are the devil, business plan is to make money through advertising... seriously people, the hell?
People respond to a story like this because it belies an attitude of weakness/protectionism from Facebook, not so much because of some kind of moral outrage about how things "should" be.
This is different; Google created an advertisement solution for the entire web and pushed it as such, necessitating that it be fairly open and non-judging.
Facebook's exists solely on their website, and while some will try to argue that Facebook has by and large become "the web" for people, the point is that it's still their site, their rules, their game, and in turn you play by their rules. They don't hide this fact in the slightest.
It's simply good business for Facebook to block these ads.
I'm not sure if I follow that logic. Why wouldn't it similarly be good business for Google to block all ads to Facebook and Twitter across their entire network at this point?
Maybe if they blocked their ads on the internet, but it just doesn't seem like there is much difference in blocking bing from advertizing on google.com and facebook blocking ads for google+. I think Facebook has even more market share in social than google has in search, and both are decisions about advertizing on their own destination pages with their own in-house advertizing systems.
I don't know that they do. I keep getting an advertisement for "alternatives to adsense" in my Google ads.
The only exception, such as it is, would be that Google booted Copiepresse after that company sued them. They claim to be required to do so by court order, though Copiepresse disputes this. I haven't read the court order myself, so I don't know, but I can easily see it being badly worded.
Googles policy is totally opposite to Facebooks. If Google (still having the biggest web search engine as their driving product) would block facebook, then I would not support Google, because it is against their policy. FB never said they were not about business. And from the business point of view G+ advertisment on FB is "evil".
If Google says "Let's play the game like gentlemen" I expect a gentlemens game from them.
Of course I'd love to see G+ beat FB. I hope that helps u to see, that I merely am against this kind of "under the belt hits". As long as G+ stays true to it's word of "don't be evil" I absolutely support them over FB.
I'm well aware of what the article says, thanks. If I ran a Ford lot, I wouldn't want someone selling their Chevy on it, as it can send any number of messages that downplay the quality and/or relevancy of my wares.
Except I see plenty of car dealers that sell used cars from different manufacturers on their lot. There's even an Acura dealer in my town who dedicates the entire front row of their lot to selling used cars that are always something other than an Acura. To a dealer, a car sale is a car sale.
Right, Facebook is a business, and they were being paid to run an advertisement. It turns out that the ad (albeit indirectly) is for their competition. Blocking on the presumed basis that the advertisement may encourage users to leave Facebook is bad business. The advertisement is legal and honest, but the problem is that it 'might' cause people to leave Facebook. I think we all 'get' that Facebook is running a business, but this practice is anti-competitive.
Oh yeah? This is just bussines? Well, then maybe Google Search should be starting redirecting users to Google+ every time someone clicks a Facebook link.
I'm sorry, but that is a terrible analogy. Redirecting a link is blatantly deceitful and dishonest. Not to mention we are talking about advertising space here, not search results.
The comparison would be if Google did not allow Facebook to advertise in Google. Either way, I think it's hard to compare their advertising spaces due to their very different natures.
No one here mentioned the likely reason that the ads were blocked by the ad review system (a combination of ML and people in India or something). I don't know exactly how it works, but I'm pretty sure it is risky for Facebook to allow ads to run with trademarks that the advertiser does not own.
The Google+ logo is a trademark.
Can he try running an ad with just his face? It still might get disabled (in which case it probably is for competitive reasons) but I suspect that would take a lot longer... Especially if he doesn't say Google+.
"I have moved to another social network. Click here to find me now" would likely get past filters.
A million times this. I bet, with their volume, very few ads would make it to the human-review stage at Facebook. This was most likely caught by an automated filter that didn't like something (e.g., the trademark image) about the ad.
Never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to stupidity, or in this case, naive artificial intelligence.
"My Facebook ad is live! Last night I found a message from +Michael Lee Johnson where he mentioned that his Facebook ad promoting his Google+ account was suspended after running for about an hour. I wanted to find out if Facebook would approve my ad.
Any publisher can refuse any ad they want, and Facebook's advertising guidelines make it clear that they can "refuse ads at any time for any reason, including our determination that they promote competing products or services or negatively affect our business or relationship with our users."
Since +Mark Zuckerberg said that he did not see Google+ as a competing product, I wanted to test their advertising guidelines and it looks like Mark was right. Facebook does not see Google+ as a competing product as my ad was approved.
Now they can take my $ from the clicks of my ad. Congrats Facebook, but I still want my friends to know I moved to: http://Profiles.Google.com/SocialJulio "
Not to mention there are probably issues with trademarks and running ads to a specific person (a friend tried to link to his own profile and his ad was blocked).
If Facebook were confident that they make a better product, they'd embrace competition as a sort of self-check in the system. They'd spend a day or two to adapt their already-developed you-can-download-your-whole-account feature to allow customers to switch to Google+, if they desire.
But they won't do this. Their reluctance underscores their belief that they don't make a product superior to Google's; if they did, they'd have no problem with these advertisements.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Facebook's reputation and brand equity is perhaps their second most cherished asset (second to their user base). A move like blocking Google advertisements will result in even more bad press when they really need to focus on delivering a better product.
In the end, however, I think Facebook will become obsolete. It's a technology like any other, and I think it has become too big for it to be everything to everyone. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
You would never expect to find Mercedes ads on BMW's website. Also everybody knows that u don't need to look for Windows advertisments on apple.com. So I think it is also quite normal, that Facebook doesn't want to advertise G+ on their website.
I know quite a few newspapers that have no problem selling ad space to their competitors and have done just that. Your comparison to companies that don’t even sell ad space doesn’t make any sense.
This is an astonishing display of cowardice on Facebook’s part (if it is indeed true).
If I google "facebook games" I see a few AdWords listed. If a Google user clicks those ads, it's not like that will drive the user away from Google search. But if someone on Facebook has an ad that reads "Julio Fernandez moved to Google+ ...", then that is driving users away from Facebook. I don't see why a company should facilitate a mass exodus toward a competing service. I don't use Facebook and think they're kind of creepy, but I can't fault them for this.
Google+ is not Facebook. Nor it will ever be. The only hope google has is not to make a better facebook, but to change rules of the game.
There will be no exodus from facebook. Evolution moves at its own pace, regardless of facebook or google. Only those that go in step with evolution will flourish.
As such exodus from facebook will never happen. Though young and bright - most lucrative section of advertising market might just go and do something else.
Restriction seems to always backfire as in this case, it may well play out.
Downvotes should be reserved for off-topic or badly-expressed comments. If you disagree, click "reply" and educate me.
There will be no exodus from facebook.
It is likely that this ad ban was instigated by watching Facebook pageviews plummet, and by watching contagious defection spread through their userbase.
Etc. This is quite common for many companies to have some sort of representation on FaceBook. And they try to advertise themselves there. And people can FB-like them etc.
Indeed. But on the other hand I don't think Google would disallow or block ads for Facebook. Their strategies differ. Google thrives with an open web, Facebook is a walled garden. But yeah, no scandal here.
Considering their primary source of revenue[1] is from advertising, I wouldn't think Google would disallow or block ads from Facebook (or anyone with a competing product, to be honest...)
Facebooks primary revenue source also is advertizing. And they generally do not seem opposed to other sites (competing with them for users) linking to them (they've littered half the net with their like buttons), only vice versa.
What exactly is more 'open web' about Google+ than Facebook? It seems to be focussed on keeping you on Google properties - not linking different sites together.
It seems to me that twitter are the ones supporting the open web now.
Indeed; was coming here to say that. If you have the strong belief you are the best (and you should) then you don't care; it's income and the competitor is not as good as you anyway.
Those comparisons aren't quite appropriate because as far as I can tell, these are individuals advertising their G+ profiles on FB, not Google advertising the entire G+ product.
I completely agree. It's crazy to think that Facebook would willingly advertise a major competitor during its launch period!
It's minor ad revenue vs users and I think users win here.
What others have noted here needs to be considered. It's not the fact that Facebook is blocking ads that point to google plus, it's that they (apparently) have chosen a particular competitor and applied a completely different set of rules that others are not bound to. That, by definition is anti-competitive. I'm not lawyer, and certainly wikipedia should be taken with a healthy dose of common sense, but these are the first two sentences of the entry on United States antitrust law:
"The United States antitrust law is the body of laws that prohibits anti-competitive behavior (monopoly) and unfair business practices. Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
Antitrust is EXACTLY the same thing that Google is now being investigated for by the department of justice... by promoting an unfair pricing / ranking schematic against competitors by ensuring their own ads are listed higher than those of the competition. (Yelp, I believe).
If I were facebook, would I find a way to stop Google+ ads? You're damned right I would, but I would be subject to the same scrutiny of those who comment here.
I'd be curious if they'd allow such an ad for a Facebook profile, possibly they disallowed it because it was inappropriate to the target user group (for example you're not allowed to target dating sites to people in a relationship). Especially if the guy chose to run it as CPC, Facebook will have no commercial interest in running an ad which will get a negligible amount of clicks.
Not approving ads for G+ I can understand. However Facebook has a history of blocking shares, even through private messages, of any site they don't like, and that's wrong
I routinely find myself astonished at how people think the online world should work. Everything should be free, don't charge for anything, let your competitors advertise in your space, ads are the devil, business plan is to make money through advertising... seriously people, the hell?