Jump to content



Photo

Facebook Charging $100 to Message Mark Zuckerberg

fb monetisation

  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 +Frank B.

Frank B.

    Member N° 1,302

  • 23,675 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • Location: Frankfurt, DE
  • OS: OS X 10.10
  • Phone: iPhone 6

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:09

Facebook Charging $100 to Message Mark Zuckerberg

Posted Image

We knew Facebook was eager for new revenue streams. We just didn't know they were this eager.

If you try to send founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg a message on Facebook, Mashable discovered Thursday, the social network may offer to keep the message out of his "Other" Inbox — for a cool $100.

In our tests from multiple accounts, it appeared to be the case that users only get this message if they'renot one of Zuck's 16 million followers. That, however, could still be coincidental.

Keen Facebook observers will recognize this as a variant on the $1 pay-to-message plan that the social network has been experimenting with for months. The company indicated at the time that it would be experimenting with other prices, so it's possible we're starting to see the fruits of that.
There were sporadic reports in December of Facebook charging various people $100 for the service, but this is the first time we've seen it — and certainly the first time we've seen it applied to the founder.

The "Other" inbox is Facebook's dumping ground for all messages it guesses you won't want to read urgently. It's been controversial for some time, as most users are entirely unaware of its existence — and many have been known to discover messages they really wish they'd read at the time, such as job offers.

The $1 pay-to-message test was first announced in December, and was described by the company as a test. It allows anyone to message any other person's inbox directly for that one-time fee, whether they are friends or not. It was derided by some users as Facebook spam. (However, it is only possible to receive one such message per week.)

Here's what Facebook had to say in a statement from a spokesperson: "We are testing some extreme price points to see what works to filter spam."

Can you see a situation in which you'd pay the extreme price point of $100? Let us know in the comments.


Source: Mashable


#2 Richard C.

Richard C.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,652 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 05
  • Location: Around
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro & Mac OSX
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 11 January 2013 - 13:17

Regardless of it's intention I think this is a terrible idea. Facebook should simply:
  • Restrict people who aren't "Friends" or "Friends of Friends" from messaging you at all. (Hence bye bye spam)
  • Allow Friends of Friends to message you for free for a limited number of messages, perhaps to explain their connection so they can add you and then
  • Allow friends unlimited free messages as per now
  • Remove the capability for Applications to message your inbox, in any capacity whatsoever, keep using the Jabber protocol to allow chat clients to be unaffected by this change.
  • As part of 4, stop merging chat and messages, it's stupid and unhelpful.
  • As part of 1, remove the forced sign up for facebook e-mail with username@facebook.com, most the addresses are stupidly unusable (3626362626@facebook.com anyone? (not mine)), and are open to spam abuse like all webmail.
  • As part of 2, allow this number to be set by the user, including the option to allow unlimited messages, or no messages from "friends of friends" at all
  • As part of 1, restrict people and companies who add friends to advertise to them, from sending messages (or make wall posts on the victims walls) at all for a certain period as punishment for spamming users
  • As part of 1, add a feature allowing users to write a brief summary in the "Add friend" dialog so they can suggest a reason for adding them, incase a user isn't a "Friend of friend". This was previously possible before the Timeline approach anyway, so it should be no trouble to re-use the relevant code.
Costs no money and sorts out all the problems, as well as removing the need for the "Other" folder

#3 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,992 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 13:18

Given that he's unlikely to listen to most messages anyway there's no way i'd pay it.

#4 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • 15,159 posts
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 11 January 2013 - 13:31

Posted Image

OMG OMG OMG OMG that means now i can finally send him a message and that means for $100 i'm guaranteed it will reach his inbox, along with million others?! OMG OMG OMG OMG OM

#5 Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,997 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 11 January 2013 - 13:33

I guess Mark needs some lunch money. :rolleyes:

#6 Enron

Enron

    Windows for Workgroups

  • 9,998 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 11
  • OS: Windows 8.1 U1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900

Posted 11 January 2013 - 13:35

Regardless of it's intention I think this is a terrible idea. Facebook should simply:

  • Restrict people who aren't "Friends" or "Friends of Friends" from messaging you at all. (Hence bye bye spam)
  • Allow Friends of Friends to message you for free for a limited number of messages, perhaps to explain their connection so they can add you and then
  • Allow friends unlimited free messages as per now
  • Remove the capability for Applications to message your inbox, in any capacity whatsoever, keep using the Jabber protocol to allow chat clients to be unaffected by this change.
  • As part of 4, stop merging chat and messages, it's stupid and unhelpful.
  • As part of 1, remove the forced sign up for facebook e-mail with username@facebook.com, most the addresses are stupidly unusable (3626362626@facebook.com anyone? (not mine)), and are open to spam abuse like all webmail.
  • As part of 2, allow this number to be set by the user, including the option to allow unlimited messages, or no messages from "friends of friends" at all
  • As part of 1, restrict people and companies who add friends to advertise to them, from sending messages (or make wall posts on the victims walls) at all for a certain period as punishment for spamming users
  • As part of 1, add a feature allowing users to write a brief summary in the "Add friend" dialog so they can suggest a reason for adding them, incase a user isn't a "Friend of friend". This was previously possible before the Timeline approach anyway, so it should be no trouble to re-use the relevant code.
Costs no money and sorts out all the problems, as well as removing the need for the "Other" folder


Enough of this friend nonsense. I say we just delete Facebook and use email. I don't get spam emails anyway.

#7 S7R1K3R

S7R1K3R

    Neowinian

  • 1,005 posts
  • Joined: 17-January 02

Posted 11 January 2013 - 13:39

Maybe this is where the 'revenue' source comes from? Should we buying stock now?

#8 insanelyapple

insanelyapple

    Neowinian

  • 809 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 06
  • Location: Biggest village in Europe

Posted 11 January 2013 - 13:40

I guess Mark needs some lunch money. :rolleyes:


It's in his blood...

#9 Scorbing

Scorbing

    Halo Master

  • 6,520 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 01
  • Location: Florida
  • OS: Win 7 Pro, OSX 10.8, Ubuntu 12.10
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 2

Posted 11 January 2013 - 13:41

Yeah...Like he's gonna read your message and reply to you...LOL...What a joke. The minute he sees that message he will delete it and you will be $100 in the hole.

And Enron, yes I agree with you 100%. I think Facebook is stupid and nothing but an excuse service to breach your privacy and learn everything they can about you and everyone you know. A very dangerous place to be sharing your personal life on.

#10 insanelyapple

insanelyapple

    Neowinian

  • 809 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 06
  • Location: Biggest village in Europe

Posted 11 January 2013 - 13:50

And Enron, yes I agree with you 100%. I think Facebook is stupid and nothing but an excuse service to breach your privacy and learn everything they can about you and everyone you know. A very dangerous place to be sharing your personal life on.


Someone said that Facebook reached the goal that communist governments wanted years ago - to create a database of citizens, their lives, needs, fears etc.

#11 Jason S.

Jason S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 12,100 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 03
  • Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 11 January 2013 - 13:52

We need to start a movement to stop using and supporting facebook. it's a harsh addiction, but i believe that you can overcome it.

#12 +zhiVago

zhiVago

    Pax Orbis

  • 9,319 posts
  • Joined: 04-October 01
  • Location: The Heartland
  • OS: Windows Seven

Posted 11 January 2013 - 14:10

Can you see a situation in which you'd pay the extreme price point of $100? Let us know in the comments.


In relative terms, if you need to have a letter/document/parcel sent quickly to someone on the other side of the planet, then I'd say a hundred dollars is about an average price DHL or Fedex would charge you; it's certainly not extreme.

I, personally, wouldn't pay $100 for a one-way e-mail. However, if the price entailed a reply, then I'd be ready to pay even more for such an option. To ask some guru a question, why not? Warren Baffett charges like half a million for a chance to have a lunch with him.

#13 testman

testman

    Neowinian

  • 1,103 posts
  • Joined: 06-April 05

Posted 11 January 2013 - 14:16

The "$100 a message" thing was already posted on Neowin a few weeks ago. That said, they said that they're testing it and experimenting with different price points. It actually wouldn't surprise me if they either let a select amount of users (in this case Mark Zuckerberg - it could be someone equally famous) set a price (with a higher top price for famous people) or Facebook simply set one price that is higher for celebs.

#14 Guth

Guth

    Alba Gu Bráth

  • 811 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 05
  • Location: Scotland
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia

Posted 11 January 2013 - 14:26

anyone else not use Facebook? :)

#15 LaP

LaP

    Forget about it

  • 6,077 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 06
  • Location: Quebec City, Canada
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro Update 1

Posted 11 January 2013 - 14:37

You guys do realise web sites like facebook can be useful right ?

One of my best friend is now living in France. Another of my best friend is now living in BC, Canada. I have a lot of family living in USA. Facebook and skype is a great way to keep in touch with everyone without spending money on long distance calls. It's a great tool with a terrible UI.