To end the war against Apple, Facebook should stop presenting itself as the arbiter of small businesses

Facebook and Apple are both giant firms that have given tough times to each other over the past years. However, the a new war started when Apple brought updates to its security privacy. Facebook claimed that Apple is using its position and control to affect the small business negatively and intends to indirectly force them to leave the market.

Facebook is running a campaign against Apple to tell small businesses that it supports their claim and the updated OS policies are affecting all small businesses in America. Facebook offering sympathies to small businesses facing loss due to Apple's updated policies, yet reports suggest that Facebook presented unsealed documents to the court in which it said that it is selling ad targeting which produce no significant results.

According to the documents, Facebook managers admitted basic mistakes in ad targeting capabilities. Additionally, the data behind the targeting criterion was nothing more than 'crap', and simultaneously: ads were viewed by the audience in less than the expected time.

The owner of a small business known as Investor village formed a suit to seek class-action certification in federal court - against Apple. While quoting the case to the court, Investor village said that it hoped to target a broader audience buying Facebook ads. Unfortunately, they were of no use to him because he still lacked resources for advertising on Facebook ads. He further added to his claim that among those who saw his ads, 40 percent of them were either not earning $250,000 each year, or were not qualified to have a college degree. In some cases, the absence of both requirements was faced by various users. The owner of Investor village was himself a witness to say that not even a single Facebook user could meet the targeting criteria that was set for Facebook ads.

Thus, it is quite obvious that companies advertising policies were overhyped yet underrated. Well, to support its views and claims, the company replied to this by saying that this is presented out of context. The company used the legal discovery process to suppress the documents. The company further attempted to use an excuse in court - of the documents being confidential and creating serious problems for it if competitors might get to know about it. The company miserably failed to convince the court for allowing the company to bring changes to the documents and ordered to unseal them documents with minor rephrasing possible.

Photo: Elijah Nouvelage / REUTERS
Previous Post Next Post