Difference between 'Pay with a Like' and 'Social Marketing' plugins?

They sound like they do the same thing. What's the difference and why 2 plugins?

  • Tevya

    No offense, but the reason I asked, was exactly so I wouldn't have to take time to install and play around with them. I'm very busy. Since their descriptions don't differentiate them very well, I figured that I should be able to get an answer and save me that time... especially since I pay for my membership.

    It seems like you helped me in the past @Timothy, and I'm grateful and don't want to offend. But hopefully you can understand my frustration with your non-answer. I asked, so I wouldn't have to do that. I was hoping to get enough data to decide on one and run with it. Is there somebody with that experience on the staff that can explain the "different approach[es]"?

  • Tevya

    As I reported here: https://premium.wpmudev.org/forums/topic/how-does-the-social-marketing-plugin-workperform Social Marketing is fairly useless and unhelpful. The problem is it doesn't give you any real exposure on Facebook (the most used social network) or Google+. Tweets are great, but it doesn't require the user to share on either Fb or G+.

    I'd hoped that Pay With a Like had been created to remedy this. Unfortunately, it's just as worthless. It's primary difference (I discovered after installing and testing myself, after receiving no answer here, where I pay for support) is that it's setup to allow you to automatically require posts, pages, etc, to be liked before access is allowed. While a nice thought, you're still not really giving the site any real exposure outside of Twitter.

    In all reality these 2 plugins should be combined. They're incredibly similar. Adding a few more options to Pay With a Like would completely replace Social Marketing. And for them to really be useful or helpful, they need much improved Fb and G+ functionality to require the user to share the page on their stream... so people actually see it!

  • Timothy Bowers

    but it doesn't require the user to share on either Fb or G+

    They require you to like for Facebook.

    The issue with Google, last time I checked was a restriction on their API rather than our plugin.

    (I discovered after installing and testing myself, after receiving no answer here, where I pay for support)

    It seems like you helped me in the past @Timothy, and I'm grateful and don't want to offend. But hopefully you can understand my frustration with your non-answer. I asked, so I wouldn't have to do that. I was hoping to get enough data to decide on one and run with it. Is there somebody with that experience on the staff that can explain the "different approach[es]"

    No offence taken and ya I use to help you before I was even employed to help I'm just that kind of positive nice person I guess :slight_smile:

    Not sure if you noticed though but we've been much busier than ever before here. When I last helped you we only needed two or three dedicated support staff. Now we've set on another two and are at 9 to try and keep response times down.

    Cracking the whip and posting multiple times doesn't speed the process up, in fact it pushes your thread to the back as it has a new response. We go in order from oldest/oldest replied thread to the newest.

    Social Marketing came out of demand from members.

    PWAL came because Pay Per View was released, a few people asked for that but with social options instead and because the framework is so similar and it was something members wanted we obliged.

    ...not to mention PWaL is buggy. I set custom post types to "Disabled for All", but had to still edit the product on the home page of DrawYOUFunny and set it to "Use Selection Tool" to get it to stop displaying the share buttons in the description.

    Did you turn off it off for the home page?

    Or what about disabling it for the page from the page?

    Screens attached.

    Take care.

  • Tevya

    Thanks @Timothy that's good to know. I had no idea you were so busy. My appologies for being impatient. I'm glad you told me. If such is the case, it would be nice if there was some way to let us know. I let my membership lapse previously, partly because I didn't feel like I was getting the great support I was supposedly paying for. Then to come back and have sometimes unhelpful and often long waits for responses, had me questioning the money I'd just spent.

    They require you to like for Facebook.

    Like I said, this doesn't give any real exposure. It shows up in that little-right-sidebar area on Facebook that nobody pays any attention to. To be valuable it needs to be an actual share of the link as a status update in their stream. If it did this, I wouldn't be questioning it's value.

    As for Google+, if it can't be done, then it can't be done.... If Facebook worked in addition to Twitter (which does it right), I'd be happy. Though the +1 button code also allows people to share the page, normally. But for some reason it doesn't work this way in the plugin.

    I love the concept behind both plugins, and the interface looks quite nice. But I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one who sees the value in requiring more than an essentially-worthless 'like'. I'd bet there are a lot of other people who would buy this plugin or are already subscription members, who'd love to set the social price of gaining access a little higher... and get some real exposure in exchange for the protected content. I guess what I'm saying is that if the people who wanted these plugins in the first place don't want this feature currently, it's only because they haven't realized how worthless a 'like' is, and/or how much more exposure they'd get if it were a share instead. So they'll love you and become even more dedicated customers if you show them the better option by adding it before they realize they even want/need it.

    As for the bug: yes, all were disabled in global settings. I only want to use it in one spot on my home page. But as soon as I inserted it with shortcode it also appeared inside the product (custom post type) that was embeded in the homepage via shortcode. I had to go into the product and set it to the shortcode option as well, to get it to go away, as it was ignoring the global settings.

  • Hakan

    Hi,

    I kindly recommend you not to push social sharing plugins too much. In general, TOS of such social networks says that you shall not be using those buttons to gain some profit.

    PWAL stays in the utmost limits of this TOS and although we can, we will not do more, because we feel ourselves responsible to you in long term. As you know, we don't simply sell a single plugin and say that it is over. You are our long term guests here.

    Please note that it is possible to lose you Facebook account using such aggressive plugins.

    It may work for you in short term. but in middle or long term it will not and cannot work.

    As a result, we are not doing this not because we cannot do it, but because this is gry hat, even may be blck hat.

    I hope I was clear enough.

    Cheers,
    Hakan

  • Tevya

    If you're encouraging people to share your website page, there's no way they can know what your personal account or business page is. There's no connection between the two for them to identify and shut down. So that logic doesn't work. Plus, you're only doing the same thing the Twitter functionality does: share the content. If Facebook doesn't like that, but allows it, shouldn't it be up to us how we use it. Put up a warning when enabling that functionality if you must, but give it to us.

    Having said that, I know when I'm being told "no." So once again I'm left disappointed in an almost-really-great-WPMUdev-plugin, and questioning whether it's worth paying for a membership.

  • Hakan

    HI,

    You are wrong from the very first sentence:

    If you're encouraging people to share your website page

    We are not encouraging anyone to do anything. On the contrary, we warn them to use them carefully. Please read my above message once more. Am I encouraging you with this?

    I kindly recommend you not to push social sharing plugins too much.

    It is completely up to you what to do with our plugins.

    Anyway, I respect your opinions although I disagree them and I hope you a happy life.

    Cheers,
    Hakan

  • Tevya

    I'm sorry. In that instance by "you're" I meant the website owner who implements the plugin. So in this instance, if I'm encouraging people to share my website, there's no way Facebook knows that it's associated with my account. But perhaps to do a share, like I suggest, would require an app, which would then tie it to the account.

    It is completely up to you what to do with our plugins.

    If it's completely up to us, why not give us the option and let us decide if we want to risk it or not? Thanks for proving my point.

    As I said: put a warning in there. I've used several MailChimp plugins that allow you to remove the 2 step verification. They have a little warning saying MailChimp recommends against this, but its up to you. Then at least I can do what I want to do and not have the plugin provider dictating what's good for me or not.

    I just don't see how it can be ethical to require people to tweet something to gain access, but not share it on Facebook?

Thank NAME, for their help.

Let NAME know exactly why they deserved these points.

Gift a custom amount of points.