If you use Facebook on your mobile phone (and I'm probably one of the few people in the entire universe who does not), then you're probably clicking on more ads than you would if you used the website on your desktop or laptop.

A new study released by TBG Digital, Ad Parlor, and Spruce Media show that "sponsored stories" have a higher click-through rate and earn more money per impression than the ads posted to Facebook's non-mobile version. You can see the story here: http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/19/facebook-mobile-ads/http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/19/facebook-mobile-ads/.

On Facebook's platform for mobile phones, there aren't any sidebars which contain ads, because there simply isn't enough space. I'm not sure what the layout situation is for tablets, and the article doesn't focus on that. Because there's not enough room for sidebars, ads are slipped into the user's newsfeed and appear as content from their friends or pages that they follow. Users don't realize they're clicking on an ad.

I'm interested to get some feedback on this: have you realized you're clicking on ads because they're right in your newsfeed and they look like regular content? Do you use Facebook on your tablet, and if so, are you seeing ads on the sidebar or are they right in the newsfeed? For the Facebook users who launch the site through their desktops and laptops (like me), would you rather see ads in your sidebar, or directly in the newsfeed? I generally ignore the ones on the sidebar. I'd prefer to see ads in my newsfeed if it meant that they wouldn't appear on my profile page, which really irritates me.

The first thing that came to my mind when I read the title "Facebook Mobile Ads Work" was - "What ads?"

As a recent convertee to the iPhone family, my Facebook usage has quickly evolved from desktop only to probably an even 50/50 split now between desktop and mobile.

In the desktop platform I barely notice the ads in the sidebar anymore and there is maybe 1 in 1000 that I will actually click. But that's not different for any other website I use - I very, very rarely click ads anywhere online.

I thought it was really interesting that "sponsored stories" have a higher click-through rate and earn more money per impression than the ads posted to Facebook's non-mobile version and that ads are slipped into the user's newsfeed and appear as content from their friends or pages that they follow.

The thing is I can't say I've ever noticed an ad while mobile browsing on Facebook and I definitely don't think I've ever clicked on one.

Now that's probably the point, and as you said "Users don't realize they're clicking on an ad".

As it shows here there is a tiny bit of text in the mobile post that clearly states the ad is sponsored.

So with this new-found info I went back to my iPhone Facebook app and diligently searched for posts with the "sponsored" tag. I went through almost a days worth of newsfeed updates and yet I still can't seem to find any Facebook ads in my mobile feed.

So what does this mean? Zuckerberg and his team did only start testing out mobile ads in February... so maybe they haven't rolled it out for all users yet? Maybe I just didn't get any ads on this particular day when I was paying closer attention?

Who knows... at the end of the day it doesn't bother me if I'm not seeing any ads. I still remember 2006 when FB was clean and clear and I hope it doesn't fall victim to the cluttered spam that sent Myspace to the graveyard.

I hate to say it, but I think Facebook is already dying—even if it currently reports 900 million users (and a value of something over $100 billion). I’d be interested in hearing how many of those users actually login to Facebook on a consistent basis anymore. I think if these numbers were available, we’d notice a distinct decline. And I believe the advertising slam is partly to blame for this drop. But that’s my own observation.

I do notice the ads when accessing Facebook from my laptop, but not so much when using it on my iPhone. However, like Kevin, I very rarely click.

I still think Facebook has great marketing potential beyond the obstructive ads— through the ability to “like” brands online and stay in the know of recent happenings. But I think Twitter has more potential if we were to compare the social media networks. It seems to me that Facebook is becoming old news, while Twitter is somehow still “new,” despite recently celebrating its 6th anniversary.

When it comes to advertising, the sponsored trending topics on Twitter just seem cleaner than a flashing sidebar to me. And I think I am more likely to click links on Twitter than on Facebook. But that could be because I appreciate Twitter for the way it breaks and circulates news, as well as initiating conversation.

This is probably why Facebook has also imitated this idea with “sponsored articles” popping up in the newsfeed—and yes, I do find them annoying. Then again, I’ve clicked on these article links at least once or twice so I guess that means they are working.

Veteran students of marketing are the only ones unsurprised by the recent revelation "that sponsored stories have a higher click-through rate and earn more money per impression than the ads".

Stories sell better than anything else. They always have. It has to do with the three portions of the human brain -- providing you subscribe to that theory, of course.

Before Gutenberg verbal storytelling, cave drawing, and stone carving were how history was relayed to successive generations... and having played the telephone game I wonder how much history that comes from times prior to writing is total BS.

What I am surprised about is that an agency even bothered to track the open and CTR... so few do. Agencies especially are afraid of anything that demonstrates they know nothing about selling. Usually they're caught up in "creative" and winning awards. Selling the client's product is the last thing on their minds. See Super Bowl ads for example.

Perhaps the economy has something to do with those three agencies suddenly caring about results.

As for facebook, well, for me it's an anti-priority. While I like the idea that it's dead, I'm not sure it is yet... I know too many people who use it instead of email.