At the beginning of 2012, Facebooks mobile ad revenues were literally non-existent. By the end of the year, they generated 23% of Facebooks total advertising revenue. With more users logging onto Facebook from mobile devices than ever before, a new search feature that competes with Google, and increased scrutiny from Wall Street, Facebooks ad strategy has received considerable attention both inside and outside the company. Can ads exist on the site without harming user experience· What about Facebooks (future) video ad strategy? How many mobile ads are clicked accidentally – as a result of the big thumb theory? Is Facebook selling user information?2012年初，Facebook移动广告收益完全为零。而到年底，移动广告收益却占公司总广告收益的23%。

更加多的用户通过手机设备登岸Facebook，公司发售了一款思与谷歌（Google）相媲美的全新搜寻功能，华尔街对它的注目也日益减少。Facebook的广告策略不论是在内部还是外部皆取得了很大的注目。广告能否在不伤害用户体验的前提下之后回到网页上？Facebook（未来的）视频广告策略不会是怎样一种面貌？有多少移动广告是车祸页面——即所谓“大拇指理论”的结果？Facebook是不是贩卖用户信息？On Feb. 13, Fortunes Adam Lashinsky interviewed David Fischer, Facebooks vice president of business and marketing partnerships, at a conference on the future of media hosted by Stanfords Graduate School of Business. A lightly edited transcript of their conversation, as well as questions from the audience, follows.2月13日，在斯坦福大学商学研究生院（Stanfords Graduate School of Business）举行的关于未来媒体的大会上，《财富》杂志（Fortune）的亚当·拉辛斯基对Facebook商务及营销合作副总裁大卫·费舍尔展开了专访。

以下是两人对话内容以及观众发问（有所编辑）的文字记录。ADAM LASHINS KY: Good morning, David. Good morning, everybody.亚当·拉辛斯基：上午好，大卫。大家上午好。

DAVID FISCHER: Good morning, Adam.大卫·费舍尔：上午好，亚当。ADAM LASHINSKY: Im going to start with some history. An interesting comparison between Google and Facebook is that -- Google and Facebook did not start as advertising platforms. [The founders] didnt have that in mind at all, presumably. And you came into both companies at a time when there was no revenue or no infrastructure for revenue, and said, All right. Lets build one. Explain how you started from really I think from a business perspective a blank sheet of paper.亚当·拉辛斯基：首先，我想要谈谈你之前的经历。对比谷歌与Facebook，我找到一件十分有意思的事情——谷歌与Facebook都不是以广告平台起家。

（两家公司的创始人）当初有可能显然没想要过广告。在你重新加入之前，这两家公司都没任何收益或能产生收益的基础设施，你来临之后答道：“没人，我们可以搭起一个平台。

”请求解释一下，你是如何从一张白纸的状态开始转行的？DAVID FISCHER: Yeah, I think -- Ill take these two cases, but I think its true for a lot of companies, successful companies in the Valley and beyond, about defining a business model and where that comes in the process of it. One of the things that was interesting when I was at the [Stanford Graduate School of Business] and then went to Google that struck me is, you know, when you talked about building a company there it always started with the business plan and monetization plan. And for Google, for Facebook, for lots of companies, it started with a consumer plan and what was going to be a great product for consumers, and monetization came later and not in a straight line. It was not linear, it was sort of bumpy to get there and figure it out.大卫·费舍尔：好，我来谈谈这两件事。不过我指出，不论是在硅谷还是其他地方，许多公司具体商业模式的时候都会遇到这种情况。当初我在【斯坦福大学商学研究院（Stanford Graduate School of Business）】以及后来加盟谷歌时，有一件很有意思的事让我很震惊。

你告诉的，说道到开设一家公司的时候，总是再行从商业模式和货币化方案谈到。而在谷歌，在Facebook，以及其他许多公司，最开始考虑到的毕竟消费者计划——什么样的产品不会沦为消费者指出是真是的产品，然后才是货币化计划。

而且这并不是一个直线过程，中间不会有许多交错。Now, it turns out that the companies -- these two companies that Ive been at and Id say for a lot of companies, advertising is a phenomenally good, efficient model that works really well. When I was at Google we got this question a lot, and at Facebook we get this question is When are you going to diversify in your revenues? But when youre talking about companies that have hundreds and thousands of advertisers, that [are] around the world, thats a fairly diversified stream, and it actually is quite efficient to -- you know, as margins or other things you care about on the business side goes -- its a good business to be in. So thats sort of the starting point. So theres lots of ways you can think about monetizing those companies or other companies. I just happen to like the advertising model.现在显然，许多公司，还包括我工作过的这两家公司和其他许多公司，广告都是一种效果较好的模式，其益处显而易见。在谷歌和Facebook，我们就常常不会被问及这个问题：“你们什么时候能构建收益多样化？”而想到那些享有成百上千广告商的公司，它们的广告业务遍及全球，来源十分多样化。

你不会找到——从你所注目的利润率或其他商业因素的角度来看——广告实质上就是一种很好的行之有效的商业模式。所以，这就是我的出发点。

只不过，要将这些公司或其他公司货币化，可以有很多种途径。只不过是我刚好讨厌广告模式。

Now, how you actually build it, I think whats interesting is -- with respect to the two companies -- is in the DNA, theyre similar in so many ways compared to most large successful companies, and if you compared, you know, took any set of ten companies in history in this country and the world youd say, Oh, theres a lot of similarities there. But Google at its core was a company built on the what: information and discovering information. And Facebook is a company built on the who: on people. And so that advertising model works effectively in both cases, but it starts from a different place, the company starts from a different place, and we can maybe talk a little bit more about that. In terms of how you actually build it, the key to any of these things, as Im sort of a business guy, and you need an effective product. And so it starts with a lot of partnership figuring out building something that will -- how do you show the right ad to the right person at the right time and create a sense of value. That doesnt happen day one. In both cases you need to kind of go in fits and starts, but I think the idea is that it adds real value when you have people engaged and spending time and, you know, in a place like Facebook spending more time than anywhere else in the web, and youll have the opportunity to show them some useful commercial material, you create value in that.再就是关于如何创建广告模式的问题。我指出，有意思的地方在于这两家公司的DNA。与其他仅次于、最顺利的公司比起，这两家公司有许多类似之处。

如果展开对比，比如从美国和世界历史上挑选出任何十家公司，你不会找到：“哇，它们有很多相似之处。”而谷歌在本质上是以“什么”为核心：信息和找到信息。而Facebook则是以人为核心。

所以，虽然广告模式在两家公司都十分奏效，但出发点却有所不同，因为公司的出发点本身就不存在差异。我们可以多谈谈这个问题。关于明确如何创建广告模式，作为一名商人，我指出关键在于，你必需有一款实实在在的产品。所以，首先是找寻合作伙伴，确认如何在准确的时间向准确的人表明准确的广告，建构一种价值感觉。

这不是一日之功。两家公司都是在时断时续地行进。

我指出，关键在于，当你让人们参予其中，投放时间时，比如在Facebook上沉醉于的时间比在其他网站花费的时间更加多，这时你之后有机会向人们展出简单的商业素材。于是之后能建构价值，进而确实减少公司的价值。ADAM LASHINSKY: From a historical perspective, what I find so interesting is that I personally did not understand that Google was a publisher or later that Facebook was a publisher. I missed that. I think a lot of people missed it. But you, Larry and Sergey didnt miss that. Mark didnt miss that. And you came in at both companys stages and said -- you know, you executed that vision. And Im using publisher in a very loose term. I wonder if you even agree.亚当·拉辛斯基：从历史的角度来看，我找到十分有意思的一点是，我过去没有能解读，不论是谷歌，还是后来的Facebook，它们只不过都是出版商。

不仅我本人忽略了这一点，我想要很多人都忽略了。而你，拉里和谢尔盖却没。

马克也明白其中的道理。而你效力于这两家公司的时候，都构建了它们的愿景。

当然，我所谈的出版商，是一种十分明确的众说纷纭。我不告诉，你否表示同意。DAVID FISCHER: Yes. It took me a while. Like I got my career started as reporter, so I also did not jump to the word publisher as quickly as you did, probably because we think about a publisher as something slightly different. But as a creator of content in a world in which if you think about it that way, it certainly -- I think the publisher piece works. And in some ways in Facebook, I think its much more apt as a descriptor, because everyone, the whole notion of what makes Facebook work is you creating, everyone is a content creator, everyone is a publisher. That dynamic is, if you want to talk about what sets the companies apart, thats a critical piece in terms of what distinguishes them.大卫·费舍尔：是的。

我也是花上了很长时间才做明白。我的职业生涯就是指做到记者开始的，所以别说你，我也没那么快便解读“出版商”的意义所在。这也许是因为我们对出版商的观点有点不一样。

不过，按你的解读，对于一名内容生产者，我指出，出版商的拒斥也说得过去。在Facebook，从许多方面来看，用“叙述者”来形容它有可能更加熟悉，因为确实让Facebook顺利的，是你们的创造力，每一个人都是内容制作者，每一个人都是出版商。要说是什么将一个公司与其他公司区别出去，这种动力就是十分关键的一个因素。

本文来源：杏彩平台官网-www.nanamaruya.com