[gtd]

I didn't have sympathy for Facebook when their traditional ads turned out to be worthless and the price fell through the floor. Likewise I don't have sympathy for businesses who feel entitled to free distribution on Facebook and don't like it when Facebook tries to monetize.

The bottom line is that people don't come to Facebook because of brands. Rather brands come to Facebook because that's where the people are.

The fact that at one point a business convinced a user to click a Like button does not provide anything approaching a symmetrical benefit to Facebook. Sure, Facebook is always happy to add content, but that marginal value of that content is nowhere near as important to Facebook as the distribution is to the brands. Facebook's primary asset is an engaged user base, and it's the social exchange that engages users. Meanwhile if businesses are pursuing any social media strategy, where can they get anything approaching the reach of Facebook? Even if another startup comes up with the reach, they'll be in the same monetization boat as Facebook and certainly will make decisions that piss off someone.

[loceng]

It's not really free distribution though. People are on the internet, and Facebook is on top of the internet; People aren't stuck on Facebook. I disagree with the importance to Facebook of having brands integrating with Facebook. A 'Like' button on a brands' website is extremely valuable to Facebook's brand, to strengthening that ecosystem, etc. - and is one mechanism the brand used to promote Facebook and getting them into their 'live newsletter.'

[gtd]

How is it not free distribution?

[loceng]

Facebook alone didn't cover all costs of bringing users, and keeping them, on the platform. Businesses spent money too, marketing dollars, marketing space, etc..