Feedback For Affiliates From A Call With Facebook. (11)
I just saw this interesting post from Justin Brooke.
I SPOKE WITH FACEBOOK AGAIN TODAY!!
This was call #2 with their policy team aka "the police" who are responsible for all disapprovals and terminations.
I got VERY clear answers...
First let me tell you who I was on the phone with because it even surprised me. No it wasn't Zuck!
It was Brian Hopkins, head of the ads integrity team and a few of his top team members.
So this wasn't some low ranking FB tech on the phone. This was one of the policy makers.
The 2nd thing you should know is what he told me is very polarizing. It is going to draw a line in the sand and many marketers are going to have to make big changes or go elsewhere.
Here are my takeaways...
1.) Their Agenda
They strongly believe that advertising can improve the Facebook user experience. That is the over arching mission they have set out to prove as well as enforce.
He specifically said multiple times that they have no issue with direct response or affiliates. Only an issue of proving that advertising can and should improve the Facebook user experience.
So when creating your campaigns think of Brian and ask yourself "Would Brian think this campaign improves the FB user experience or detracts from it?"
2.) Trust is #1 for policy team
His exact words were "We have a zero tolerance policy for advertisers who break the trust relationship between FB and it's users."
Examples he gave were ads that use images that have nothing to do with the offer or ad copy. Ads that use fear or hype. Landing pages that don't disclose the business model. Videos with no player controls and force the user to wait.
3.) FB ads for affiliate marketers
He mentioned multiple times that they have no issue with affiliate marketers. The issue they have is when affiliates use misleading ads, hypey copy, irrelevant images, fake images, low quality images, and landing pages that don't disclose their business model or trick the user.
He even said that they believe FB ads are one of the strongest tools for affiliate marketers and they care a lot about keeping it that way.
4.) How they handle user complaints
He said that when a user X's out your ads or requests to hide them they use that as a signal to investigate your account.
If they get complaints but your ads aren't misleading and your landing pages clearly disclose your business model and you're not doing anything to trick/mislead/deceive/frustrate the user then you're fine.
However, he also made it sound like his team rarely sees complaints on campaigns that are trustworthy and transparent.
5.) Vague acct termination notices
They are working on a better system. However, he explained that from their side there are soooo many different scenarios. Tens of thousands. That they just don't have the resources to give an accurate detailed reasoning for every termination.
He said acct terminations are usually a result of something you are doing is breaking the trust relationship and in their eyes that's not a business model issue it's an ethics issue.
6.) Moderating comments
It is ok to remove nasty or spammy comments. However, deleting all negative responses is frowned upon. It looks like you are hiding something or trying to deceive the users.
7.) VSL'S and squeeze pages
They are ok with list building and sales videos. They are not ok with list building pages that do not clearly identify the business and it's model.
Same with VSL'S that make it hard to immediately identify the business name and model.
When I explained what a VSL was (page with just a video, autoplay, no player controls and order button hidden) he said all of that breaks the user trust relationship.
So there you have it. Clear answers to what causes acct terminations."
Wow, this is absolute gold. Clear answers from FB!
This is great stuff and it's something which I've suspected for a long time - that FB isn't anti-affiliate or anti-direct-response, they are just anti-experience-degradation, period. Their users come first over all things - investors, advertisers and businesses/page owners/developers be damned.
Finally some clear answers!
However, is all common sense stuff, you just need to put yourself in FB shoes: their most precious asset are their users, everything else is secondary. Without users there's no graph, no value, nothing. So they need to go to great lengths to protect them.
Now, I was coming to the forum to ask about point F of their terms:
Anyone care to explain a bit what that point means, practically?
Thanks!
^^ The Business Manager sorts this. You make a new grey ads account per client/advertiser, so all is well.
^^ The Business Manager sorts this. You make a new grey ads account per client/advertiser, so all is well.
Originally Posted by Mr Green
Hmmmmmmmmmm on #6. Something I do every time. Maybe I should just post positive comments and like that comment xx amount of times so it stays on top 
Originally Posted by creathinker
I have to somewhat agree here. That imposes a lot of creative limitations as to what you can actually do with your advertising. It almost nullifies your ability to get profitable with FB, being 100% whitehat.
I figure the markets out there that can still possibly do well would be gaming, fb-app installs, ??dating?? .. all of which is just speculation since I don't do any FB atm.
I've seen an increase in Male Muscle ads on my timeline the past few weeks though, no clue how those are slipping through the cracks.
Yeh muscle is everywhere right now. I see it like this ...you want to make a lot of money deal with the bullshit that comes with it. set up a team all over the country, with different IP address, different cards that are all linked to geographically ...manage there profiles through a VPN and when you have a 100 accounts who gives a shit if a couple get banned. get each a account to a $2500 a day spending limit but only spend 2k have a 100 of those and you can dump 200k a day into marketing.
PS, a good cloaker never hurt anybody
Justin is the man! Is he a member here?
Home > Paid Traffic Sources > Facebook & Instagram