I’ve been pretty rough on Facebook in the past. A few months ago I shared my horrible experience with Facebook ads on my Challenge Dividend blog, in which a targeted ad got .02% click-through. My overall view is that Facebook itself is a very meaningful service, but the company is having problems figuring out how to make money by selling space to marketers. Unfortunately for Facebook and its advertisers, consumers usually don’t find interruptive ads meaningful.

But Facebook seems to get it and is doing some interesting things to improve. A few weeks ago I wrote here about a new system that allows members to rate and comment on the advertising that is served to them. While the ads people are served still might not be meaningful, there is a value for consumers in having a say. This is an idea that is gaining ground on a wider basis as well. For example, Avenue A/Razorfish has teamed with Pluck to create new standard ad units that allow consumer feedback.

Now the company is making a further move by promoting independent applications that are judged to be more valuable for Facebook members. Here’s what the New York Times said:

Facebook announced a series of new incentives for developers to write what it characterized as “meaningful” tools for the service. It said it would pick certain applications that meet a set of Facebook principles to be part of a new “Great Apps” program.”

First, I find it interesting that our use of the word “meaningful” is starting to spread. People are beginning to understand this very basic starting point of deciding how to approach consumer communication.

Second, for businesses this could help create a “market” in added-value applications. One of the biggest challenges we have seen with some early Facebook application work for our clients is the issue of driving awareness of our applications. By promoting the best tools, we have a better chance of breaking through the clutter. I expect Facebook will eventually charge marketers for this privilege (like iTunes does), but as long as members do find value it’s a win-win-win.

(This is part three of a three-part series on beer companies that are building meaningful connections with their target consumers.)

In the past two posts I focused on challenger brands Sam Adams and Speight’s, both of which were built on creating close connections with a focused niche of consumers. But can big mega-brands with millions of diverse beer drinkers get in on the meaningful marketing game as well? I think a recent Coors Light campaign shows it is possible - but they have work left to do.

Coors Light recently launched a pretty interesting beer innovation - a “cold activated label” in which the mountains on the label turn from white to blue when the beer gets cold enough to drink. It’s a neat idea in a category that doesn’t get much innovation, and I think the focus on “cold” fits with the Coors Light equity in an ownable way (compared to, say, wide-mouth cans). The brand is supporting the new label with - you guessed it - a giant TV campaign. If you’re a sports fan you’ve likely been exposed to this copy dozens of times already, but if not take a gander here:

At first blush, it’s another amusing beer ad that is not especially meaningful. However, a deeper look shows some progress. A recent article in the New York Times announced that Coors Light is leveraging this ad idea to create a Facebook application that friends can use to send a “Code Blue” alert to friends and coordinate a place and time to escape from work. Coors Light has created other interesting applications on its website and MySpace page. There is a Happy Hour Locater, links to local city events, and an “Excuse-o-ator” widget that will provide you with rationale for leaving work early. All are tools that pass the Marketing with Meaning test: (1) consumers must choose to engage with them; and (2) there is a benefit even without buying the product.

Despite its progress, Coors Light is missing on a few levels. I think the biggest problem is that the 30-second ad is not truly integrated into the meaningful marketing. The TV ad does not tie into or drive viewers to the meaningful tools. C’mon, guys - there’s not even a URL at the end of the ad! We’ve seen this dozens of times with interactive work; the lead agency creates a commercial, and the client asks us to “build a digital link” after the fact. Tellingly, in the NYT article, the creative director at Draft FCB, Bill Lindsey, says that, “In this new world we live in, it’s something we’re learning to live with.” He doesn’t exactly sound thrilled to be in this new world, does he? Frankly, it is a pain in the ass to coordinate with outside agencies, and it’s much more work than AORs are used to. But the new world is here. Get used to it, and create better work. Going forward, brands must ensure that all advertising works together in a connected ecosystem - despite the lead agency insisting that it will kill the creative or take too much time.

Another big problem comes in the execution of the meaningful pieces of the program. Coors Light really should have figured out a way to use mobile (SMS) - as it is the communication tool of choice for coordinating party-goers. The article says it was not technically feasible, but we beg to differ. The Facebook application, which got such powerful buzz in this article, is nowhere to be found. Coors has purchased no Google AdWords to support consumers who are looking for its tools. And the user experience of tools such as the Happy Hour Locater is pretty poor; it feels slapped together (see Adrants‘ review of a banner ad).

Unfortunately, it’s hard to find data on the program in order to measure meaning or marketing results. But I did see that Coors Light share was up over the Memorial Day weekend. Despite a mixed execution, I’m excited to see this mass beer brand recognize the need to do something more than amuse its consumers with witty 30-second ads - and it is forcing its agencies to work together to improve. I believe the people who choose to engage with these Coors Light tools will build stronger loyalty to the brand. And the social element of the tools helps drive word-of-mouth at a minimal cost.

A couple of weeks ago on my other blog, The Challenge Dividend, I wrote about my experience testing Facebook ads for a 24-hour Guitar Hero/Rock Band fund-raiser that we ran at our office. The short story is that, I got only a .02% click-through rate on the ad despite targeting the 40,000 people who say they are fans of Guitar Hero. These results were no different from another test leg against the completely un-targeted 24 million Facebook users. The conclusion: People are not looking at ads despite great targeting.

This post attracted a ton of attention. It got picked up by Wired editor and The Long Tail author Chris Anderson, and was featured in the weekly email by user experience guru Jakob Nielsen. I’m still getting about 40 people a day reading this post and a ton of comments, must of which overwhelmingly agree that Facebook ads are not the solution to marketers’ needs, despite its 24 million pairs of eyeballs.

Well, now I have to give Facebook a little credit for a baby step toward meaningful marketing. I learned last week that the company is testing a new feature that allows its users to provide ratings on the advertising that they see. As described by Rob Webb and seen in the photo above, some users see a pair of up/down thumbs below display ads. By clicking one, a box pops up asking users to describe why they liked or disliked the ad. Webb makes some interesting points:

“The fact that Facebook is implementing these kinds of features before they launch an Ads API shows that they are approaching mass advertising very carefully. They know that they need users to make ads have value, and the better the ads are, the more valuable their ad space will be. Also, it’s quite possible that having some interaction with ads beyond just clicking them will incentivize users to click more ads.”

Clearly Facebook has learned that building an advertising-based business model around its vast legion of users is not going to be easy. I like the direction of its ad-rating test, as its gives users some control. And it might lead to better, more relevant advertising. I could see all manner of advertisers doing something similar. TiVo already has a thumbs up/down button - why not send this data along to advertisers as feedback worth paying for?

That said, at the end of the day I don’t believe this will do much to improve the results for Facebook or its advertisers. As I learned in my Facebook ad test, people have simply learned to tune out the visual clutter of these interruptive ads. Relevancy is not defined solely by demographics and interests; instead, it is defined by what is relevant to the consumer in the moment. In visiting Facebook, the relevancy is around checking messages, seeing what friends are up to, and maybe playing a game. Viewing and rating ads is simply not on the agenda.

Facebook continues to be an amazing case study on the future of marketing… and meaning.