We all know that buying Facebook likes is a bad practice, right? But can a high number of "likes" influence people to think positively about your brand, no matter how you got them? In the article below, the author makes the case that not buying likes when your competitors are, puts you at a competitive disadvantage.

Thoughts?

businessesgrow.com

Disclaimer: I didn't read the whole post, but wanted to share my thoughts regardless.

There was a study done this past year about how "social proof" influences site visitors. The study was very well done from what I remember and the results were solid. They found that there's a certain threshold where the number of "Likes" a page has doesn't affect how that page/brand is perceived. I can't remember what the number was.

But it makes sense when you think about it: too few "Likes" can make your content look fresh, or boring. Lots of "Likes" makes it look interesting, but that won't increase the likelihood of anyone else sharing it.

Buying "Likes" only hurts the producer, it skews any chance at gauging whether they've done a good job or not.

Interesting. My main disagreement with the author is that I think he's created a false hypothetical situation. The article is based on the idea that, if your competitors are buying likes and you aren't, you're putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage. But I'm not sure that's right.

I agree that lots of likes can make you look good, but how many people are making a buying decision based on the number of likes a product has on Facebook? - "I was going to go to Beans and Brews for coffee, but Starbucks has way more likes, so I guess I'll go there."

Is this really a factor people use when making a purchasing decision? Maybe there are tons of these people out there; I just don't know them.

I don't think this is any different than other types of marketing. In the short term, most of what you do will have a small impact and whether you go with a more "shady" strategy or a totally kosher one won't really make a difference. In fact, in the short term, the shady tactics might even perform better. But the kosher route will typically do much better in the long run. I won't give examples unless someone disagrees, but there are plenty of them.

Anyways, I think the same idea applies to this tactic. Maybe buying likes would make your page look more credible in the short run, but if you take the time to build a real social following you will have better engagement and your work will have a greater impact in the long run.

We had to make this decision with the YLS social profiles. Did we want to continue using the "In Good Measure" accounts that had a decent following or did we want to start fresh and build a following of real people who had interests in our niche? We made the decision to start fresh - I still think it was the right one.

Mark Schaefer, the author, responded to me on Twitter. Here is his comment and my response.

asteriskcontent.com

I don't like the idea of Buying "Likes" It doesn't work with the Facebook edge rank system at all. My main reasoning for this is as a content creator for the brands I manage on Facebook it the less "Real" people I have that have "Liked" the page the less engagement I will get.

I ran a contest for a brand and a few people started to buy votes. Our numbers started to soar but as I started to investigate they were people using voter exchanges and buying votes. I tried to talk to them and find out more and it ended up turning into a big fiasco.

My boss kept pushing it doesn't matter we are getting tons of "Likes"

Then a few months later when I'm not getting enough engagement and people clicking through to our Blogs and website they asked

me what I was doing wrong and I needed to change my strategy but that isn't the case if you have a page filled with fake "Likes"

I don't think you are doing yourself or the business any good by buying "Likes" and you need to be upfront with you clients that social media marketing isn't what they are used to. More "Likes" does not equal more business but that is my soapbox.

This aggravates me. It's a shady tactic that can work in certain situations for sure (to follow-up to my original response here and James' reply).

Say you're traveling to a city you've never been to before. You want a cup of coffee and there aren't any big-name brands nearby, just local shops. Suddenly the shop that has more "Likes" is a bit more appealing, right?

When you consider digital experiences I'm not sure it's the same, but it could be. So depending on your business type and goals, buying favorable social impressions may actually do you well, but what happens when the customer who is visiting your shop because of all of the "Likes" encounters a really horrible experience? You've suddenly lost an opportunity to learn and grow.

I agree with you Tanner. I am more inclined to look at a review on yelp most of the time.

Just because I work in Social Media I understand always putting the best front when trying to engage users. I think know what others think helps with my choice. Not how many "Likes" the page has but I am not the average consumer. I think Mashable just posted an article yesterday about the top 10 brands that didn't use social media this year. I have yet to check it out.

I agree with both of you, so I guess the real crux of the matter is, do potential customers even use "likes" as a reliable indicator of popularity or quality? Perhaps "likes" are just white noise and any value we think we get from them is imaginary. I'd love to see a survey or case study on actual customer perceptions of "likes."

To carry on this discussion, it's interesting to note that the upcoming generation of Internet-savvy users aren't really on Facebook anymore. They're sharing content through more personable means, like SnapChat or IM. What does that mean for the value of a "Like" then?

I think you're right-on James: more and more these "social signals" may becoming just white noise to the majority of users. At least, with public signals.

We've had share buttons for years now, do you think they'll ever "go away?"

Makes me want to test removing them on my own blog and observing the impact.

You know, interestingly, I came across this post today--an interview with a 10th grader about social media--that indicates that Facebook is quickly losing cache with younger users, who would rather use SnapChat, Instagram, or Facetime to connect with their peers. And, although she doesn't say this directly, I suspect that share buttons mean absolutely nothing to her and her friends.

Of course, not everyone is targeting 10th grade girls, but those 10th graders are going to determine what the next move in the social web looks like.

Personally, I believe Facebook will go the way of MySpace within the next 2-4 years. So why waste time trying to impress users who are paying less and less attention to the signals it produces?