{"id":1859,"date":"2007-10-30T15:00:44","date_gmt":"2007-10-30T19:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mathewingram.com\/work\/2007\/10\/30\/facebook-and-google-intent-vs-relevance\/"},"modified":"2007-10-30T15:00:44","modified_gmt":"2007-10-30T19:00:44","slug":"facebook-and-google-intent-vs-relevance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/2007\/10\/30\/facebook-and-google-intent-vs-relevance\/","title":{"rendered":"Facebook and Google: Intent vs. relevance"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Full credit to Eric Eldon of VentureBeat for the nice piece of link-bait that he <a href=\"http:\/\/venturebeat.com\/2007\/10\/29\/cookie-tracking-how-facebook-could-be-worth-100-billion\/\">posted this morning<\/a> about how Facebook &#8220;could&#8221; be worth $100-billion, a topic that has spent the better part of today <a href=\"http:\/\/www.techmeme.com\/071030\/p28#a071030p28\">climbing up<\/a> Techmeme. But it&#8217;s too bad that the bubble-math in the headline (which Eric actually blames on Lee Lorenzen of Altura Ventures, a Facebook-only VC, based on <a href=\"http:\/\/blog.adonomics.com\/2007\/10\/24\/microsoft-expects-at-least-7x-return-on-their-recent-facebook-investment\/\">this post<\/a>) tends to obscure Eric&#8217;s point.<\/p>\n<p>The point (I think) is that a targeted advertising network &#8212; based on Facebook&#8217;s database of user profiles and demographic data, combined with the use of cookies that would generate ads even outside of Facebook&#8217;s network &#8212; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.techcrunch.com\/2007\/10\/30\/facebooks-social-ad-network-what-we-think-we-know-so-far\/\">could produce<\/a> a much higher payoff than the site&#8217;s current attempts at advertising are doing. I&#8217;m not an advertising guy, but I think there is probably a lot to that theory (although there <a href=\"http:\/\/www.zoliblog.com\/2007\/10\/30\/dirty-cookies-and-facebook-insanity\/\">are flaws<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>Unfortunately, everyone wants to talk about how Facebook is building <a href=\"http:\/\/www.allfacebook.com\/2007\/10\/breaking-facebook-launching-the-google-adwords-killer\/\">&#8220;a Google killer,&#8221;<\/a> and how the search-advertising giant with the $200-billion market cap is &#8220;afraid&#8221; of the as-yet-unreleased Facebook ad program &#8212; as Lee Lorenzen argues <a href=\"http:\/\/blog.adonomics.com\/2007\/10\/29\/google-threatened-as-facebook-microsoft-announces-fbcash-facebook-enhanced-open-source-adsense\/\">here.<\/a> That&#8217;s almost certainly nonsense, of course. Still, there is a potential battle of sorts heating up. <\/p>\n<p>I think of it as a battle between &#8220;intent&#8221; and &#8220;relevance.&#8221; Google&#8217;s power comes from the fact that when you search for a keyword, there&#8217;s a good chance you&#8217;re going to be open to advertising that is related to that &#8212; i.e., your search betrays your intent. Facebook&#8217;s power <a href=\"http:\/\/www.readwriteweb.com\/archives\/facebook_social_ads_cookies.php\">could come from<\/a> its knowledge of your profile, your behaviour, your demographics, your interests. That could make its ads more relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Even if there is such a battle, does that suddenly make Facebook worth $100-billion, or $10-billion, or even $1-billion? Who knows.<\/p>\n<div class=\"syndication-links\"><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Full credit to Eric Eldon of VentureBeat for the nice piece of link-bait that he posted this morning about how Facebook &#8220;could&#8221; be worth $100-billion, a topic that has spent the better part of today climbing up Techmeme. But it&#8217;s too bad that the bubble-math in the headline (which Eric actually blames on Lee Lorenzen &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/2007\/10\/30\/facebook-and-google-intent-vs-relevance\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Facebook and Google: Intent vs. relevance&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crsspst_to_mathewingramblogwordpresscom":false,"mf2_syndication":[],"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1859","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1859"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1859\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}