Facebook is a Key Factor in Helping Stay-at-Home Moms Make Money

LuLaRoe is a clothing company that is giving the ability to stay-at-home moms to make money through online sales. The company, founded in 2012, sells comfortable, practical and affordable clothes mainly for women, but children and men too. LuLaRoe is similar to companies like Mary Kay or 31 Gifts where people can become consultants and sell product. The company is not cheap to start up a shop, with starter consultant packages priced around $6,000. 

When someone becomes a consultant, they typically start up a Facebook page almost immediately. Many women are effectively utilizing Facebook to sell their product and connect with people throughout the country. Through the Facebook pages people host LuLaRoe parties, live streams and other events where the inventory is sold. A vast majority of the products are sold online through these Facebook groups. 

LuLaRoe groups have become vastly popular over the past few years, and the groups are becoming increasingly popular. Some Facebook groups have upwards of 50,000 members from all over the country while others have only a few hundred. Inside the Facebook groups are where photos of inventory are posted for potential buyers to browse through. 

People have had different perspectives about if LuLaRoe is actually helping people gain income or just putting them into a financial hole. With the large startup fee, LuLaRoe claims that consultants make an average of anywhere from a $2,250-$3,000 profit off their startup boxes. LuLaRoe also offers perks to its consultants including opportunities for bonuses and they match gifts that their consultants make. 

Learn more about becoming a LuLaRoe consultant on the LuLaRoe website


Breaking News Tends to Equal Fake News

In the wake of a disaster, many people are left reeling, confused, and desperate for answers. Yesterday’s tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas was no exception. Social media was riddled with false information, mostly because it is too soon for investigators to release information. This morning, Facebook’s “Safety Check” page included updates saying that the shooter was a “far left loon”, which was written by a far-right-wing blogger. It was the top post on Facebook for a time. The shooter was also misidentified as “Geary Danley”, and this was a top hit on Google.

The problem with these sites algorithms is that it doesn’t provide security against non-reputable news organizations spreading fake news. Fake news in a situation like a mass shooting can lead to widespread issues because people will be misinformed.

If the wrong name is released as the identity of the shooter, that person may be in danger. I remember right after Sandy Hook happened, the wrong name was released as the name of the shooter. Media outlets named Ryan Lanza as the shooter, but Adam Lanza was the actual shooter. People on Twitter looked up the name Ryan Lanza and found people with the same name, and harassed them on Twitter. The name Ryan Lanza was wrong the whole time. The problem with this is that these people simply had a case of having the wrong name at the wrong time. They did not commit a crime, but were being treated as criminals by fellow Twitter users. Fake news in the wake of a disaster needs to be carefully monitored by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites. 

Journalism going ever-more social

A new report from the Pew Research Center shows that a greater proportion than ever of Americans are getting at least some news from social media platforms, with interesting results for older demographic categories.

Research done in August 2017 showed that two-third of Americans say they get at least some news from sources such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. But the center  also reported that  older consumers are moving more toward social  consumption than ever before. This was the first survey in which more than half of Americans older than 50 reported some news gathering from social media.

Source: Pew Research Center

Among the platforms, Facebook remains on top, with 66 percent of Americans reporting that they use the site and 45 percent saying they get some news from it.

It’s important to recognize, though, that this does not mean all news consumption is going to mobile. The numbers need to be taken in context to be understood best.

Even taking the top-line number of 67 percent of Americans getting at least some news from social, that still leaves 1/3 of Americans who DON’T turn to these sources for news. Drilling down into them, only 20 percent of people in 2017 said they often turn to social sites for news.

Even the leader, Facebook, has only 45 percent of news consumers turning to it. Other platforms have much lower proportions, such as 11 percent for Twitter, 7 percent for Instagram and 5 percent for Snapchat.

News organizations put immense energy and effort into presenting information on social media. Is that effort well spent? The number of news consumers they are reaching means maybe not.

Facebook combats a new form of ‘Fake News’


The Facebook logo is displayed on their website in an illustration photo taken in Bordeaux

I’m sure by now everyone is sick of hearing about ‘Fake News’ but it is important to be aware of government manipulation to change public opinion. It is reported that there have been efforts by entire nations such as France, and organizations to “spread misleading information and falsehoods for geopolitical goals.”

What makes this different than Fake News is that government officials or paid professionals are using fake profiles to either gather information about users and using it against them or increasing tensions between supporters.

This new phenomenon is called, “false amplification”. False amplification provides these “fake accounts” to use “techniques they have discovered to include coordinated “likes” to boost the prominence of key postings, the creation of groups that camouflage propaganda by including legitimate items, and the spread of inflammatory and racist material.” Facebook had to suspend 30,000 accounts in France last week during their first round of presidential elections.

My advice would be to only friend people on Facebook that you actually know exist. Facebook can tell the fake accounts from the real ones by inauthenticity and other behavioral patterns. Mark Zuckerberg has been on the record saying that he doesn’t believe that fake stories on Facebook could have influences the US presidential election this past year. He could have been paid to say that. I don’t know what to believe anymore.

For more information please read:


Facebook Messenger

Facebook messenger is currently finding that a lot of users are extremely upset with the changes being made. Of course while some are upset with these changes, there are also users who are for the change. Last week Facebook launched Messenger Day, which is pretty much a clone to the Snapchat app. Messenger Day has similar features to Snapchat, allowing users to add filters and stickers to your pictures.

It is interesting to see how social media sites and applications will completely clone whatever app is currently finding success. Messenger Day will only bring more competition to the social media field, as users will have to decide which app they like better. If users find Facebook’s Messenger Day to overall be better than Snapchat, the younger generation could then switch back to using Facebook. This will only force Snapchat to try and add more distinctive features to their app.

More information can be found here.

Facebook TV



Like Google’s YouTube Red and Snapchat’s Discover, Facebook plans to launch it’s own version of original TV type programming. Facebook has been headed in this direction for awhile, adding the video button to their mobile app., seemingly copying Snapchat’s every move. They also plan on adding a mobile app for Facebook TV much like Apple TV.

All it took was the hiring of former MTV’s head of scripted programming Mina Lefevre. She is now head of development for Facebook and shortly after being hired, this idea came to light. It isn’t certain if Facebook TV will include only original programming or if it will be similar to Netflix or Hulu with a mix of both original and from various other sources.

One thing seems to be certain and that is Facebook TV will be right on your timeline. All you have to do is click play and you can watch original Facebook TV shows. I like the idea of having Facebook TV although the online streaming and TV market is already saturated.What I don’t understand is that YouTube Red is $10 a month. Am I going to start having to pay for Facebook? There is already too much going on and they keep changing the site. I’m interested to see how they develop it and what type of programming they produce. It has a chance.

Facebook’s new ad break?


It was announced that Facebook had started testing advertisement breaks that hinder on-demand video. The accomplices would acquire a 55 percent income share while Facebook keeps 45 percent. This is significant because it could change the way publishers make video content. It “teases” viewers enough to sit through the advertisement, while drawing more makers to Facebook.

The publishers of the videos will have control over where they can insert the ads. However, the ads must be must be at least 20 seconds long and at least two minutes apart.  Both live broadcasters and previous recorded content makers on Facebook will earn a share of ad revenue from their viewers.

Now for a viewer, with the ads included, this might make it more difficult and impatient to watch the videos. However, for the publisher this might not be such a bad thing. While the ads go off during their videos, it allows the publishers to relax and take short breaks while being live.  

YouTube has a very similar ad break system. Many popular publishers on YouTube make money based from ad revenue sharing. So the number of views does matter when building revenue, but now with this new advertisement break, it only adds on to the amount of cash the publishers and Facebook can make.

To find out more, please read the linked article below.   

Facebook tests ad breaks in all types of videos, giving creators a 55% cut