LC

I pretty much agree- I've tried my own share of small business/direct to consumer marketing on hyper-niche places. A lot of the stuff I buy, for things I am passionate about and really research, use exactly this technique. And it's exactly the kind of stuff you mention, usually small-sized/high-priced goods. Stuff like really nice leather wallets made by a dude in a workshop in the middle of nowhere, etc. Custom stuff made by an artisan or whatnot. Cue the artisan ice cube jokes...haha No offense taken! I used to work in the big ad world so I probably talk too much like a d*bag about it. Anyways, I'll take a contact-high any day of the week.

FB is different. Because of the unique nature of what Facebook does and what kind of data they collect (and the perceived value of that data), they have had the ability to put more controls around how their data/analytics are validated. There are far more partners in the space who can drop tags on campaigns running through Google (for example) to keep their reporting numbers more honest. To be fair, Google is showing signs of moving towards FB's approach. As that happens more, comparisons will be even more valid between the two.

I misunderstood your earlier post! Sorry :D Oh...you mean DRM as in direct response marketing. Yeah, I mean I'm talking about the digital marketing industry. The marketing around online newsletters are pocket change to these guys...the big branded campaigns is where the real money is. The tension between clients/agencies vs. the online platforms they market on, how this relationship plays out will move a lot of resources around.

When you're spending $15M/mo on a branding campaign across 10 online platforms it absolutely matters. Do you say that what numbers a company reports doesn't matter, when you are allocating investment dollars between competing investments? Of course not. Companies must report using a common standard - GAAP. They have auditors who provide assurance over numbers like revenue, margins, etc. You have no insight into what Facebook's self-reported metrics mean, and have no confidence when comparing them vs. competitors. Of course that matters when determining where to allocate ad dollars. I'm not talking about some dude with a small business spending 10K on an adwords campaign who can easily measure results. I'm talking about huge clients and their agencies trying to manage very complicated campaigns, where digital spend may only be 5-20%. Even within just digital, with all the attributions that go into trying to measure the success of a campaign, it becomes extremely complicated to gain insight. When facebook essentially FVCKS you on the data, making your job much more difficult, it is easy to see why savvy marketers do not like working with them.

"the eonomics"? what metrics are you talking about? and frankly, data rights is a pretty tangential field. facebook data cant really be compared to other outlets, one of the big problems. just fyi, my info is coming from analysts at the largest digital agencies and tech co's out there, who have been running 8 figure campaigns for all types of verticals, cpg, auto, telecom, etc. for over 5 years. they're the ones responsible for the oreo ads people see on FB, to use an example mentioned previously.

For big campaigns, facebook is lovely to present to c-levels because facebook themselves is able to sell such a good story. Effective? Nobody knows. Facebook tells you they have a great ROI. Facebook tells you they have great engagement. Facebook controls what information they give to advertisers. But the reality is, you have no metrics to compare to other outlets. You don't even know how they calculate their metrics. You can't drop pixels on anything to confirm what they report. How do they measure their ROI? How do they measure engagement? How do they build their audiences? You have no idea. Facebook controls everything in and out of facebook. The third parties who have tried to estimate these metrics report they are lower than what FB reports (albeit it is just an estimation and you could further question conflict of interest). The fact remains that you can't confirm anything facebook reports to you. So when the salesman from facebook tells you facebook is a great marketing tool, if you believe him, then you think Facebook is effective. If you ask him to prove it, he won't. My friend thinks there only two digital spots which are useful: paid google search, and facebook news feed. In my opinion, facebook news feed might be useful for branding. Might be. For conversion or engagement I'm not sold. But it's an easy story to sell.

Say you get a $10m budget from WeddingCo targeting 25-34F in NYC, interested in wedding dresses, who went to an Ivy League college, and have a dog. Well what if there's only $7m worth of that audience available? You're not going to let that money go to waste, so you reach out to Publishers to see who can spend that extra $3m for you. Oh I agree with this. I'm not arguing the spend isn't there. I'm just saying the ROI on facebook sucks. A big reason people are buying facebook ads is exactly the reason you mention: they have to spend that extra 3M. I've got a response to this but I want to confirm the info...last I heard (about a year ago) was that FB's policies were literally the definition of the gray area in data sharing, and they were screwing the agencies and buyers. But need to confirm that is still up-to-date info.

What's the best for them then? I will ask and report back :)

There is enough data out there that is contrary to what you have heard imo. Careful...there are a few big issues with this report. The first 15 pages address the Consumer/Retail advertising industry (aka the VAST majority of the industry) - you will note they only report increased spend on advertising, and increased revenue from facebook/google. What is sorely lacking is any assessment of whether this increased spend is leading to one of two things: increased conversions or increased engagement. This is of course what advertisers measure their success by. The only place the word "engagement" or "conversion" appear, is the B2B section: In the 2016 “State of Marketing” report, Salesforce reported that 83% of high-performing marketers are using CRM to power their digital advertising. Then from the “Salesforce Advertising Index, Q1 2016,” advertisers who had CRM-powered advertising on Facebook had a 47% higher engagement rate than those with just standard targeting Of course, Salesforce sells CRM services to Business customers. And this metric they provide is less meaningful: it does not compare facebook engagement vs. non-facebook engagement. It is just saying, for everyone already dumping ads on facebook, you have more success if you use our CRM services. I may very well be wrong when I claim that facebook advertising is pretty useless, but what you have referenced does not support it.

Interesting: most people in the digital marketing industry that I have spoken to (digital agencies, programmatic buyers, DMPs/DSPs) - they have all said that facebook is pretty much the worst. Poor results on all metrics and they are the worst company to work with.

I wish you guys the best of luck raising $$. I'm still too poor to justify the expense...one day I hope I can contribue meaningfully. You guys are top-of-the-list quality. My wife and I sponsor education where we can, in poor areas of the world and also in poor areas of NYC, but you guys have a great cause. Hopefully some well-off members can realize the great deal you are offering! :D

FYI: Calling the COBF forum excellent and somehow better than "lesser" forums i.e. yahoo, is the exact type of insular/echo chamber structure that the article is warning us about. Food for thought

Can't argue with that :)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can speak for myself: I remember posting maybe...1-2 years ago about how I was 25% cash. Cue the regular reasons: market highs, potential overvaluation, lack of opportunities, dry powder, etc. Looking back, I think I only held cash out of fear. Maybe that is easy to say with 20/20 hindsight. I don't know. But all 4 of those reasons are bullshit: The first 2 are flat out guesses on the overall level of the economy. Essentially a macro call. So even calling yourself a value investor, ignoring the "macro" etc., I still fall into making a macro call and disguising it to myself. Fear. The second 2 are not real reasons either. Let's say I need cash. Sell something. Let's say I find an incredible opportunity. Sell something. Well, I paid for my decision (in opportunity cost), and am only realizing it a year+ later. Stupido :D

First, from an outcome-oriented analysis: I think only Baupost has been able to actually post "great" return while holding a sizeable chunk of cash relative to the portfolio size. And what Klarman invests in, I have no idea what his thinking is so I can't comment on that. Maybe he's just that damn brilliant. The dude is holding 20% cash and beating the market in weird pharma stocks. But otherwise, I can't think of an investor holding 20+% cash and outperforming. We're no Baupost or Klarman, and we manage a fraction of what they manage, but we've averaged at least 20% cash historically and beat the market from May 2005 when we launched. Bull market, bear market, bull market, sideways market, bull market...we just keep chugging along. And you can check it for yourself in our Annual Reports by simply adding cash at brokers to any T-bill securities we held! Yet, like so many managers, we struggle to find partners and keep the ones we have. Go figure! Cheers! I hereby amend my statement: only Baupost and Corner Market Capital :)

I realize I have an issue with holding cash as "downside protection". This probably jives with racemize's white paper on holding cash. First, from an outcome-oriented analysis: I think only Baupost has been able to actually post "great" return while holding a sizeable chunk of cash relative to the portfolio size. And what Klarman invests in, I have no idea what his thinking is so I can't comment on that. Maybe he's just that damn brilliant. The dude is holding 20% cash and beating the market in weird pharma stocks. But otherwise, I can't think of an investor holding 20+% cash and outperforming. Second, from a process-oriented perspective: First let me refer back to Buffett's partnership letters (maybe too cultish, bear with me). My recollection may be poor, but I think I recall this (correct me if I am wrong, please): Even back in his day, his downside protection was conservative BUSINESSES. Not conservative position sizing. His idea was, "let me be fully invested, but I will invest in "generals" (i.e. my non-arbitrage/control positions) that I think will fall LESS during a downturn". Equal upside compared to the market in general, less downside. I think this gives you options. Over the long-term, the market will rise. Cash sucks in the long-term. So in theory, your portfolio will rise with the market. When a crash hits, your portfolio does not tank as much. On a relative basis, you can then deploy more capital vs. your peers. This was always my understanding of his approach. Look for stable cash flows first (which protect your downside) and let the general rise of the market do the rest. So that is what I understand as a conservative investment approach. Holding onto 20+% cash (or whatever percentage) seems like a really poor decision. The critic could say: I am looking at the past 5-10 year bull market and saying "well of course you want to be fully invested". That may be true. Look forward to the board's thoughts.

I spent a few years doing the deep value/net net/etc...all the stuff the value icons have written about. Didn't motivate me. Buffett gets excited learning the ins and outs of every business he comes across. I get excited playing basketball but I'm no NBA player. I dumbed down my strategy. I expect to make a decent return. I'll never be disgustingly wealthy, but I'll also never spend hours reading 10k footnotes again. That's just me.

I go with unread posts and work my way thru.

The devolution is nearly complete, racemize. Politics, to gender, to race...we just need to hit religion in order to reach rock bottom.

I mean, at some point the chickens come home to roost. Eventually either the accounting winds down or your accountant becomes complicit.

Absolutely correct! I should have removed the "tied up" assets from the valuation...will lower the IV!

Thanks marlin :)

I have a 4-5 year record and it's ~12%/year. I'm pretty much mediocre :D

Premfan, I still have no idea what you mean by reframe. :)

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good lyching!