According to Wired’s article, “Most Users Still Don't Know How Facebook Advertising Works,” Facebook claims that anyone can control their ad preference settings. However, Wired references a Pew Research Center survey, which showed that a majority of users in the United States were unaware that Facebook was tracking their behavior to determine their interests and traits. Participants of the survey expressed that they were uncomfortable with the assumptions Facebook made about them. The survey also showed that most users weren’t aware that ad preferences settings even existed on Facebook and roughly half were not comfortable with the fact that Facebook was generating a list of their interests and traits at all (Matsakis, 2019). Users are still unsure of how the social network’s targeted advertising method works. It is clear that the majority of Facebook users still have a lot to learn when it comes to their data and how it is utilized for advertising. Increasing user engagement with ad preference settings may help users gain a deeper understanding about their data’s relationship with Facebook’s advertising objectives.

 

Harvard Business Review’s “Ads That Don’t Overstep” explains how research has shown that targeted ads significantly improve users’ response to ads, and that success rates of ads drop when marketers don’t have access to user data. However, the article also mentions that research shows that users do not react well when they feel surveilled. It alluded to a study, which showed that when a law in the Netherlands forced sites to inform their users that their behavior was being tracked, ads’ click-through rates dropped. It also talked about how Target’s targeted ad practices caused ads for maternity-related products to be shown to a teenager who Target’s algorithms assumed was pregnant. The teenager’s father was infuriated at the company, just to find out that his daughter was indeed pregnant. This targeted advertising incident caused a huge public relations scandal for Target, and consumers were completely outraged (John, Leslie, et al, 2017). With these specific incidents in mind, it is crucial that Facebook value transparency in their practices and create an environment where its users feel comfortable sharing their data and more importantly, feel in control of it.

 

Another huge issue is that America doesn’t trust Facebook. Vox’s “Mark Zuckerberg defends and clarifies Facebook’s ad-targeting practices — kind of” references how according to a Verge survey by Reticle Research, Facebook is the least trusted of the big tech companies because users are perceiving the company to be fixated on secrecy. Users often say they are “creeped out” by the information Facebook has collected about them because there is an underlying notion that Facebook is not being transparent with us (Tiffany, 2019). The Verge mentions in “America Doesn’t Trust Facebook” that there are large gaps in the public’s understanding of how Facebook works (Newton, 2017). All in all, users don’t trust Facebook and are unaware of how it’s using their personal information.

 

Our value proposition in reference to our redesigned interface promise increased accessibility and high transparency, which results in increased user trust, a satisfying user-experience, and increased revenue for the Facebook business.

 

Understanding this value proposition starts with segmenting end-users into two groups of user personas that we consider fundamental to understand as we construct the changes needed to optimize user engagement. One type of persona is already sold on the idea of targeted advertising; this end-user is already convinced targeted advertising is a benefit within the total Facebook user-experience. Contrarily, the other type of user persona is skeptical of targeted ads, believing that Facebook’s targeted native advertising and banner advertising is “both creepy and off-putting if they believe that the firm violated their privacy,” Tucker continues, “these privacy concerns may lead to “reactance,” such that consumers resist the ad's appeal” (Tucker, 2014, p. 546). In other words, Tucker’s observations indicate that targeted advertising is only effective when consumer’s believe their privacy is protected. Assuring privacy protection to this skeptical end-user persona is the first step of the design-phase to increasing engagement with ad-preference settings. Our design specs will primarily consider transparency about Facebook’s compliance with General Data Protection laws and high accessibility via homepage controls–which will convince the end-user facebook is not trying to “hide” anything.  Tucker elaborates on the benefits of privacy control settings in relation to targeted ads, referring to past research studies that confirm with “this enhancement of perceived control over privacy, users were nearly twice as likely to click on personalized ads,” (Tucker, 2014, p. 546). Claussen, Kretschmer, and Mayrhofen considers the positive outcomes of a satisfied user who engages with targeted advertising in his research article, “The Effects of Rewarding User-Engagement: The Case for Facebook Apps.” When the user personalizes their ad-preference control settings, Claussen, et al. implies the end-user will see apps more aligned with their personal interests on their homepage. These apps can be from both Facebook’s owned platform, as well as advertisements from third-party brands. Claussen, et al. assume that user’s will be more motivated to click on ads related to their personal interests, and such, “consequently, the more users engage with apps, the more page impressions or time Facebook can sell to advertiser,” (Claussen, et al., 2013, p. 190 ).

 

On average, Facebook charges third-party advertisers $0.97 CPC (cost per click), meaning that the value we deliver on ad-setting engagement will ultimately work to increase EBITDA for the Facebook business (“How Much Does Facebook Advertising Cost,” 2020). In terms of user experience, a meta-analysis on the effect of user-engagement in system success affirmed the positive impact of user-engagement in system success. Among the studies that analyzed user-engagement, the mean effect size was found to be 0.457. According to the analysis, “studies that investigated user involvement typically found a large correlation of user involvement with system success” (Hwang & Thorn, 1998, p. 233).

 

Overall, we can see that the more that Facebook encourages user-engagement, the more successful their system will be.

 

 

Works Cited

​

“How Much Does Facebook Advertising Cost in 2020?” WebFX, WebFX, 1 Feb. 2020, www.webfx.com/social-media/how-much-does-facebook-advertising-cost.html.

 

Hwang, MI, and RG Thorn. “The Effect of User Engagement on System Success: A Meta-Analytical Integration of Research Findings.” INFORMATION & MANAGEMENT, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 229–236. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edswss&AN=000079041400004&site=eds-live&scope=site. Accessed 1 Mar. 2020.

 

John, Leslie, et al. “Targeting Ads Without Creeping Out Your Customers.” Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business Review, 21 Dec. 2017, hbr.org/2018/01/ads-that-dont-overstep.

 

Jörg Claussen, et al. “The Effects of Rewarding User Engagement: The Case of Facebook Apps.” Information Systems Research, vol. 24, no. 1, 2013, p. 186. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1287/isre.1120.0467.

 

Matsakis, Louise. “Most Users Still Don't Know How Facebook Advertising Works.” Wired, Wired, 16 Jan. 2019, www.wired.com/story/facebook-ads-pew-survey/.

 

Newton, Casey. “America Doesn't Trust Facebook.” The Verge, The Verge, 27 Oct. 2017, www.theverge.com/2017/10/27/16552620/facebook-trust-survey-usage-popularity-fake-news.

 

Tiffany, Kaitlyn. “Mark Zuckerberg Defends and Clarifies Facebook's Ad-Targeting Practices - Kind Of.” Vox, Vox, 25 Jan. 2019, www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/1/17/18187025/facebook-ad-targeting-categories-pew-survey?fbclid=IwAR0B98UpeThOFk0pC1wK1RwB3aZ6dxmzMebD-THbJ_cKkw45IPClbxE6FEQ.

 

Tucker, Catherine E. “Social Networks, Personalized Advertising, and Privacy Controls.” Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), vol. 51, no. 5, Oct. 2014, pp. 546–562. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0355.