• myrstad

    As I understand it, this analysis from Danny Sullivan, has no logic: “If you take the current figures as proposed, where organic page reach is only 6%, then that suggests 94% of Facebook’s news feed is made up of something else.” Why is there no logic in this statement? Because a reach of 6% is a post reach compared to the total size of the brands fan community, and NOT how our total newsfeed is divided into different kinds of content. My hypothesis right now is that 1) brands have a plummet in organic reach 2) “quality” media have an increased organic reach and 3) personal profiles have minor changes in organic reach. So the question still is imminent: What should brands do about it? My take: Diversify your social network strategies and revitalize your owned media.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Yes, that’s the point I’m making. You can’t take post-specific figures and then say they’re representative of a coming “Facebook Zero” for page reach. If Facebook Zero really happened, then if organic posts are never seen, what is. As I explained, it’s obviously not ads — our feeds aren’t full of ads. So what is filling it up, if individual posts aren’t getting as much exposure? We don’t know — but it could be that while individual posts are seen less, in aggregate a brands total most are being seen more.

  • myrstad

    I agree with you, Danny, that there is no “zero”, and probably will not be. But also, there is no 94%, compared to the 6%. Let’s make a hypothesis: 1) Brands posts have a reach of 6%, 2) Personal profiles have a post reach of 16% (Facebook’s “old” statement about reach, and 3) Media brands have a reach above 16%. Maybe “all posts” have a reach lower than 16%, because of increased posting, but still with a change in the reach of different kinds of “organic publishers”. Do you get my point?

  • http://cashwithatrueconscience.com/rbblog Ryan Biddulph

    Agreed Greg. Good note on overreacting and the over reliance on 1 channel too. I released on FB pages long before the organic reach drop because I saw more prospering traffic channels for my niche. Smart share!

  • mikeschwede

    If you criticise a (doubtless bumpy) study (in some details), you should have a more structured and logical argumentation than the study. Which isn’t actually. Even some arguments like the better news delivery is underlining the arguments of Ogilvy and not yours.

  • http://www.vipcases.co.uk/ VIP Cases

    One of my pages now has 3.5 mill fans and we have defiantly seen the drop in organic reach per post. I do have to say though, Facebook are getting cleverer at showing RELEVANT content to fans that want to see it. Although the reach is lower, it seems to be going out to the people most likely to engage. I now just need to work out how to craft every update so it fits this logic.

  • donthe

    It’s Facebook’s version of Google’s Panda algorithm, and that’s paraphrasing a Matt Cutts tweet from several months ago.
    That’s what I’m seeing right now. I own and manage 4 Facebook Brand/Website pages, one of them is getting as much reach as it wants and is growing by 10,000 likes a week , 90% of those likes are coming from Facebook “Page Suggestions”, the other 3 can post the exact same content to a very similar audience and reach less than 100 visitors. It’s like they are pandalized.
    Just my feelings from what I am seeing. Anyone else?

  • http://www.yamanoor.com/ Yamanoor Srihari

    You can posture all you want. For some content, organic reach has literally hit zero. And not just for the big pages.

  • PepperSpray

    Agreed. Ogilvy is bumpy, but what is the counterpoint here?

  • PepperSpray

    FB is going to let it go to zero. or tell you it went to zero. They draw the line, we (managers) feel that we’ve already committed x amount of time and effort to this “curated” audience, so we pay to keep going. Or you say fuck it and don’t support FB. I’m already advising my clients to limit the FB posts, DO NOT PAY FOR ADS OR PROMOTE POSTS and lets find other channels. We’ve already got a nice reach over the past few years with little to no outright spend (besides man hours), so lets find another channel that’s free. If we are going on pure cost-based analysis, then we won with FB…if we stop now and spend no money. Thanks FB! Was fun while it lasted.

  • simonsorel

    You should read the captions of their info graphics. They only checked 100 fansites with an average of 480.000 fans for that analysis. For me, these are the big players. And we already know that the big fansites don’t work well on facebook (maybe because of all the participants of all the sweepstakes).

  • szevasz

    yeah, that shit just hit the 1-2%….