fb Facebook Charging $100 to Message Mark Zuckerberg

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

Facebook Charging $100 to Message Mark Zuckerberg

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

[cooky560 Veteran]

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

1. Restrict people who aren't "Friends" or "Friends of Friends" from messaging you at all. (Hence bye bye spam)
   
2. 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
   
3. Allow friends unlimited free messages as per now
   
4. 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.
   
5. As part of 4, stop merging chat and messages, it's stupid and unhelpful.
   
6. As part of 1, remove the forced sign up for facebook e-mail with [email protected], most the addresses are stupidly unusable ([email protected] anyone? (not mine)), and are open to spam abuse like all webmail.
   
7. 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
   
8. 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
   
9. 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

[Noir Angel]

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

[Draconian Guppy]

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

[Hum]

I guess Mark needs some lunch money. :rolleyes:

[123456789A]

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

1. Restrict people who aren't "Friends" or "Friends of Friends" from messaging you at all. (Hence bye bye spam)
   
2. 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
   
3. Allow friends unlimited free messages as per now
   
4. 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.
   
5. As part of 4, stop merging chat and messages, it's stupid and unhelpful.
   
6. As part of 1, remove the forced sign up for facebook e-mail with [email protected], most the addresses are stupidly unusable ([email protected] anyone? (not mine)), and are open to spam abuse like all webmail.
   
7. 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
   
8. 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
   
9. 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.

[S7R1K3R]

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

[insanelyapple]

I guess Mark needs some lunch money. :rolleyes:

It's in his blood...

[Scorbing]

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.

[insanelyapple]

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.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

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.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

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.

[testman]

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.

[Guth]

anyone else not use Facebook? :)

[LaP]

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.

[mps69]

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.

While I agree with Skype is great way to see people while your talking to them. Great way to reassure parents when their kids are on the other side of the country how they are doing, eating etc.

Meanwhile just catching up with friends, email has been around for many years and works perfectly well. I can't see why using FB to keep in touch offers anything different. Plus there are plenty of IM clients out there that offer more if that's your thing too.

[Xoligy]

Old news: https://www.neowin.net/news/facebook-charges-100-to-send-a-message-apparently

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

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.

just email...

Skype is neat if you want to see the person. I use it to talk to my sister.

[LaP]

While I agree with Skype is great way to see people while your talking to them. Great way to reassure parents when their kids are on the other side of the country how they are doing, eating etc.

Meanwhile just catching up with friends, email has been around for many years and works perfectly well. I can't see why using FB to keep in touch offers anything different. Plus there are plenty of IM clients out there that offer more if that's your thing too.

Well it let people share important events in their life without the need to bother everyone everytime.

I have a big family. 26 uncles/aunts. About 100 cousins. Couple of friends. They are all scattered over north america. NY, Quebec, Ontario, BC, Florida, California, Vermont and France.

It's just not realistic to contact everyone everytime you have something to share. Even by mail it requires to send more than 100 mails everytime and bother people with things that might not interest them.

This year i left my job and accepted a new one. Sending over 100 mails just to tell that fells 1990 to me. It's more simple to post the information on my facebook so people who cares can see it.

[LUTZIFER]

Some people say the stupidest things.

I didn't even think people really used email anymore, other than getting subscribed stuff and notifications.

Email isn't even close to being something good for socializing or keeping up with family/friends.

Way too slow, plus the chance of the person reading it is slim to none, more than likely not right away, that's for sure.

I'm not even a fan of Facebook, but like I've said before, if that's where your friends and family are, then you have to be also.

And as for the topic here, if Marc wants to charge 100 bucks, good for him. I would, then at least he wont get a ton of em.

And Facebook should charge something for people that are not a contact to send you a message.

[Syanide]

They've really turned desperate.

[Glassed Silver]

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.

Doesn't mean Facebook can't be replaced with alternatives or even services predating Facebook.

Instant Messaging and emailing come to mind.

Heck, even a blog for sharing your holiday pictures to friends and family without sending dozens of emails.

Way more personal, too.

I do use Facebook, but I think it's mostly a "hey look at my cool life" billboard rather than a proper communication tool.

I like the theory of the service, but hmm...

Very related video:

Glassed Silver:ios

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

I will totally admit, until I read this, I never knew about the Other inbox myself. :laugh: Not a big Facebooker myself, been using it more as a result of finding it really helpful during Hurricane Sandy, to keep track of friends and family and get updates on power, etc., but I really did not know about the Other box until reading this article.

I had 21 messages, and I have to say, they were not messages I really care either way that i read or not. So it does a decent job with the filtering.

As far as charging $100 to send a message, really hope this is some sort of joke.

[McKay]

Imagine paying $100 asking him something and he replies "Yes".

[n_K]

Lovely, mark's taking a page out of UK politician's books!

'?10,000 for lunch and to 'suggest' a new law, yes, I shall copy that!'