Tuesday, May 25, 2010

What Your Facebook Page is Worth...To Vitrue

Social media people love them some grading tools--you know, the kind that show you what your Twinfluence or Twitter grade are, or how popular your blog is, or even how good your Foursquare "mojo" is.

So naturally they're all going crazy for Vitrue's "Social Page Evaluator" which allegedly reveals how much a Facebook page is worth. Of course I was curious to see what value the tool assigned to the Facebook Page I manage, so I plugged in the url. According to Vitrue, the Page's main failing is in the Short URL category. This is what the evaluator says about short urls:
URLs should be short and easy to type. Making them that way increases the chance that a visitor will click on them. However, public URL shorteners don't include your brand in the URL, and some services like bit.ly allow the general public to see your brand's traffic!

Um, since when is the use of short urls is one of the determining factors of a Facebook Page's success? And using bit.ly lets people see your brand's traffic so you should be spending money on a branded url shortner? Hm, wonder if Vitrue is in the business of selling branded urls? (in case you don't want to watch that video, the answer is yes; branded short urls are one of the main selling features of their product).

So basically, the Vitrue Social Page Evaluator is nothing more than an advertisement for their Social Relationship Manager.

a) Who cares whether people can see how many people are clicking on your links (as Vitrue warns can be done if you use bit.ly) and

b) Why does nobody question this whole "tool" disguised as a clever ad for why you need Vitrue's product? Instead, people are gleefully pointing others to this awesome tool that lets you determine the value of your Facebook page! Ok, actually, at least one person does recognize the BS factor of this tool, but most people blindly promote this calculator as if it's not just an ad for Vitrue's product and actually provides a result of some value. Including Mashable, which is disappointing.

No comments: