Companies like Facebook are the primary beneficiaries of targeted advertising, and the benefits to the wider US economy, small businesses and individuals are “marginal,” according to internal Meta Platforms surveys presented during trial today in an antitrust suit brought by the US Federal Trade Commission.
Companies like Facebook are the primary beneficiaries of targeted advertising, and the benefits to the wider US economy, small businesses and individuals are “marginal,” according to internal Meta Platforms surveys presented during trial today in an antitrust suit brought by the US Federal Trade Commission.“Both consumers and policy elites believe that the primary beneficiaries of personalized advertising are companies like Facebook,” according to internal company research from 2021 that included interviews, focus groups and a survey of 3,500 consumers.
A summary of the findings from that research found most respondents — which included a “proprietary” focus group of 20 “Elites/DC Insiders,” small business owners, “news-informed consumers” and a “general population” of consumers — “do not organically link Facebook’s targeted ads with boosting the economy or supporting small business, and believe that benefits for individuals are marginal.”
Curtiss Cobb, Meta’s vice president of research, testified today about work conducted by the Demography and Survey Science team that he leads at the company.
Cobb said the DSS team he oversees is a centralized group of approximately 65 social scientists whose expertise informs research across Meta’s family of apps.
“In the US this year, FB has slid to the 21st place and falls behind all other tech companies we measured,” according to a 2020 update on so-called “sentiment metrics” that Meta uses to measure whether its users feel the company cares about its users and offers products benefiting society.
Cobb also faced questions about other research at the company, including findings from 2016 that Facebook’s core value proposition is “robustly anchored” on “keeping up with friends and family.”
His testimony came toward the end of the day's proceedings which were dominated by testimony from TikTok executive Adam Presser revolving around the competitive dynamics distinguishing personal social networks from other digital platforms (see here).
The seal adorning internal Meta DSS presentations — which include updates on metrics tracked on a daily basis by Meta’s “main tracking survey,” or MTS — feature a motto that begins: “Let’s all just strongly agree to strongly disagree.”
— Privacy —
Cobb spent some of his time on the stand today attempting to distance himself from an August 2016 presentation that followed up a meeting involving Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, broadly known within the company as a “Zuck Review.”
DSS research, which includes measurement of the reputation of Meta’s brand, is regularly shared with senior executives, including Zuckerberg, according to Cobb.
“Privacy is the single biggest detractor in our CAU surveys,” the 2016 document said, referring to the “Cares About Users” metric.
CAU has been the “main sentiment metric” tracked by the company since 2014, according to Cobb.
The 2016 presentation also outlined Meta’s strategy to respond by “speaking to people about privacy in a caring way.”
“This has a risk of drawing more attention to Privacy concerns and confusions, leading to more PR/memes and to setting downgrades that impact product value,” the document said.
Cobb testified today that he was not the author of passages in the document, prompting FTC attorney Albert Teng to press him about the fact that his name appeared on the document's cover page.
One internal DSS report presented to Cobb today included analysis of evidence from “5 empirical strategies” measuring whether sentiment toward Facebook affected revenue and engagement on the platform.
Cobb testified today that he still thought this 2019 research was “very good.”
The report homed in on a massive 2018 data privacy scandal involving UK political data-mining company Cambridge Analytica. The FTC is hoping to use the scandal to prove that, even though Facebook users were upset about their data being shared, it didn’t affect the tech giant because it is a monopoly (see here).
Cambridge Analytica was the “most extreme” shock affecting sentiment toward Facebook at that time, the document said.
“CA is the most likely significant event that would have had a negative impact on both revenue and engagement,” according to the “highly confidential” presentation.
The results of the DSS team’s inquiry failed to detect “significant and consistent effects of sentiment (or adverse events) on these metrics,” the report said.
“Despite plummeting user sentiment as a result of Cambridge Analytica ... your team could detect no significant and consistent effect on revenue,” Teng asked Cobb, raising his voice and emphasizing several words with hand gestures as he proceeded with his fourth attempt at the question late in the day.
After Cobb still answered in the negative, Teng pulled up a deposition transcript.
Boasberg cut short additional back and forth between Cobb and Teng as the FTC attorney attempted to impeach Cobb’s testimony.
Cobb’s prior statement during his deposition “will be considered for its truth and for the witness’s credibility,” Boasberg said before wrapping up today’s proceedings early and beating a hasty retreat from the courtroom while Cobb remained on the stand.
Please e-mail editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.