[bluetidepro]

I had the same thought.

Think of when you go to an NBA game and they give out some sort of "freebie". I would imagine those game "freebies" cost much more than $3000, and regardless of that, with Facebook you are potentially reaching the 1M+ fans where as those game "freebies" might only be handed out to a measly 5K. It seems like a no-brainer to use Facebook to reach 1M+ fans at that price, vs what they traditionally pay for other forms of marketing.

Also, you could easily be selective on what sort of post validates for a $3K (post) promotion. Not all posts are worth promoting to every one of your fans, doing so would just weaken the brand image (in my eyes).

[patrickk]

The problem is that you got that reach before for free. It's the change that's upset people. If Twitter started charging companies for tweeting there would be a similar backlash.

People feel betrayed by a company desperate for new revenue.

[bluetidepro]

Yeah, very true. That makes much more sense why people are upset. However, I still think they should just take a step back and just look at the cost of more "traditional" alternatives that, what it seems like, are never even questioned for their price to value ratio. An extreme example would be how the Ford Explorer launch on Facebook generated more traffic than a Super Bowl ad [1].

[1] http://www.socialsyntax.net/2012/02/facebook-trumped-super-b...