Facebook says it thinks live video is a big deal. Media companies and amateurs have found validation in surprisingly large audiences by posting on Facebook's new video product, Live. Thousands of people show up to watch whenever a major Facebook page "goes live," seemingly out of nowhere. Hundreds leave comments and ask questions. Facebook Live - the product - is working.
But not for everyone. Mention Facebook Live on Facebook - as we did the other day - and a chorus of slightly peeved voices emerge:
"It's an annoying notification is what it is"
"On the verge of being annoying"
"These annoy me"
Search Twitter, and you'll find links to guides for turning off Facebook Live notifications.
We probably shouldn't be so surprised by this response. The videos are ranked high in the all-powerful Facebook news feed. Users who have subscribed to a news organisation or celebrity page within Facebook, to see in their news feed an occasional update on current events or a change in hairstyle, are suddenly being bombarded by beckoning notifications that they didn't really ask for.
Media companies control the notification pushes. Those that run large Facebook pages have been given the power to buzz thousands - sometimes millions - of pockets with notifications that they have "gone live." This is new, and intoxicating - a chance to break out of the bustle of the news feed.
The appeal is increasingly familiar, a characteristic of an internet built around platforms. Facebook Live is a technology, and a new way of doing things. But Facebook Live is also a feature within a larger system designed by Facebook. The company is in the privileged position of both releasing a product and controlling many of the conditions required for its success. Facebook didn't just clear a little shelf space on the news feed for live video - it set down a big flashy floor display.
How could media companies resist?
Live is all about interruption - sometimes annoying, sometimes welcome, always attention-grabbing. Media companies say they have been shocked by the amount of interest in their Live experiments, including a flurry of earnest comments and questions for live streamers.
But then there is the issue of money. Executives at the companies remain somewhat wary about investing in yet another product without a clear sense of how it will pay off. Facebook is mostly mum about how - or when - money might flow from the videos.
Facebook users have their own guesses, of course. Said one: "They'll get more people using it, then hide the alerts because we're already complaining and then charge companies to get the alerts back."
Is this just pessimism? Maybe. But even if Facebook Live unfolds exactly as this commenter imagines - a spike in viewers followed by a decline as the market becomes more competitive, and then Facebook becoming more sophisticated to promote and prioritise live streams - what would that tell us? That we've all been had, somehow? Or is it just that access to an audience is sometimes worth paying for?
©2016 The New York Times News Service
