MAYBE - KATE HOWE, PRESIDENT, DRAFTFCB
For Facebook, this makes financial sense. It will be able to sell ads for more than the cost of incentivising people to watch them and encourage advertisers to take up the inventory on a 'guaranteed view' basis. Considering the pressure on agencies and advertisers to be more accountable for every pound spent, this could be a clever way to encourage advertisers to use Facebook.
The downside is that when you incentivise users to encourage interaction, it often leads to a campaign having a false impact, which can harm its strategy. In extreme cases, there can be a negative association with the brand. If an advertiser were using this as a way of driving leads, I would have serious concerns about the value of those leads.
Creating effective media campaigns comes from developing a detailed understanding of the audience, providing the right creative environment and serving the ad at the right time. Shortcuts often do not pay dividends in the long term.
NO - NICK HUDSON, HEAD OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS, HEINEKEN
My immediate reaction is that this is a bad idea. The prospect of viewers being transformed into the ad world's equivalent of Pavlov's dogs, salivating at the thought of the morsel of a reward, seems unlikely.
Rewarding users for watching ads is nothing new. A bountiful market has been thriving for a couple of years now via the affiliate channel, where user action is rewarded through discounts or game credits.
So will this lead to a rush of ad mercenaries? Probably not. Does it devalue a brand to have to pay someone to watch its ads? Yes.
The advocates will argue that this is a great opportunity to show off your brand to someone and be associated with their enjoyment in getting a reward. The real challenge will be in making them remember that the reward came from you.
YES - ALISTAIR GREEN, HEAD OF STRATEGY, MINDSHARE
When I began my career as a planner in the 90s, I always tried to write briefs that would reward customers for viewing an ad, either to emotionally entertain or rationally inform them.
Skip forward a dozen years. When I watch Brothers & Sisters on 4OD because I was out drinking on Thursday night, I happily view the ads in pre-roll before being rewarded with my chosen content when and where it suits me. So, incentivising me to watch an ad for Rango while playing Frontierville on Facebook is a natural progression.
However, the value exchange for brands has to make commercial sense (£70 per thousand is too high) and, ideally, incentives would lead to action, such as the user signing up to something, rather than just seeing the ad.
We would also take into account the audience, which is more likely to be time-rich and cash-poor. We might suggest the strategy to Pepsi, but probably not HSBC.
Facebook isn't the first site to reward people for interacting with ads and it won't be the last.
NO - ANNABEL VENNER, MARKETING DIRECTOR, HISCOX UK & IRELAND
Marketers should not be rewarding consumers to interact with their online ads. By using in-depth knowledge of consumers, they should be creating engaging advertising that people want to interact with.
When used correctly, social-media platforms such as Facebook give marketers the opportunity to open up a dialogue with customers and establish a more personal and deeper connection with the brand.
Of those consumers incentivised to watch ads, how many will go on to purchase the product? Many of them are also likely to 'play' the ads to earn 'Credits' without actually watching the things.
This activity is also unlikely to give a good return on investment, although in the short term it will undoubtedly improve the click-through rates.
The Marketing Society is the most influential network of senior marketers dedicated to inspiring bolder marketing leadership.