Embeddable posts – a significant shift in strategy for Facebook

It was announced today that Facebook is starting to roll out functionality for publishers to embed public posts onto websites (similar to how tweets can currently be embedded). It is not yet available to all Facebook users, but the company says there will be ‘broader availability’. CNN, Huffington Post, Bleacher Report, People Magazine, and Mashable are the first media outlets to get access.

Embedded Posts will only work with public messages, no matter if it’s a status update, Instagram photo, video, etc. To see if it can be embedded, hover over the audience selector (it’s a globe icon). If it is marked as public, click on the “Embed Post” option in the dropdown menu. It will display HTML code that you can copy and insert onto your website — similar to what you would find with Instagram.

Once inserted onto a site, visitors can interact with it similar to how they would in their Facebook timeline. This surely will help aid in the discovery of new content, especially if your site is a heavily trafficked one. These posts will show not only text, but pictures, videos, hashtags, and any other content supported by the platform — it’s almost like having an iFrame of Facebook occupying a piece of real estate.

The Next Web

This feels like a big shift in strategy for Facebook. You will now have the capability to easily take content from the social network and place it outside their walled garden. This signals a move away from everything happening on the Facebook platform towards a realisation that there could be advantages to their content being spread more widely across the web. Of course, publishers have been screen-grabbing this content for a long time, but now Facebook is playing catch-up and as a bonus has the potential to benefit from increased engagement. It seems to fit in with a long-term trend of Facebook courting big media.

Pay walls, strategy and content…

Yesterday’s New York Times’ announcement has solidified a few things in my head.

Here goes…

1. I need to get this one out of the way first, what type of long-term, strategic planning is going on in the New York Times Co that it got rid of NYT Select three years ago and the more than 220,000 subscribers that went with it only to introduce a new pay model now. I understand there are differences between the two models but it would have made for a nice customer base to start off with.

More importantly though, this indecisiveness about whether online content should or should not be paid for is becoming more confusing to the consumer by the day. This is not helping the industry in the long run.  It is good NYT has decided their content, be it in print or online, has value that should paid for, I just wish they had decided earlier and stuck to it. Trends in advertising, while of course important, should not be the determining factor as they may have been with the Select decision.

2. With that out of the way, I think it is good that it is not a straight pay wall. Although metering could just lead to reduced news consumption by NYT.com readers (and generally if this was to be replicated across the industry), I would rather have fewer readers and more revenue than the unsustainable position of lots of readers and no revenue.

3. Now is a time of survival for newspapers/organisations – they have to try and hang on – by whatever means necessary. Given the changes in the industry, there are clearly too many newspapers and the economics of content have changed. Those who manage to survive the next decade will emerge with less competition from established media organisations – giving them a privileged and potentially profitable position.

4. This is not a carte blanche to over-zealous, money counting publishers. You need to invest to get good content that is worthy of a pay wall. It should be something people have to read and value as the only reliable source in town. Good quality, well investigated and reported journalism that people can depend upon will be the scarce, but in-demand commodity.

Of course I am sure some of these arguments were heard back when TV news emerged and will be rolled out for any subsequent innovations but I strongly believe people have been placing too much emphasis on the platform as the commodity not the content. Spare it another thought.