The small publishing company I run was freshly minted, with just over 1,200 Facebook followers, when Facebook announced the first version of these changes - we'd spent some effort gathering our followers, and then one day were told that we couldn't talk to them unless we paid. I still remember the conversation I had with my partners in a hotel room at a writer's conference the day we realized what it'd done. We were...displeased.
Unfortunately for Facebook, it had yet to demonstrate its value to us before trying to convince us we should pay it money. So it had its work cut out for it - and the couple of times we paid to "boost" a post or two didn't demonstrate it's value, either. It's unlikely we'll be giving it money ever again.
Not only is it ineffective as a marketing tool, it proved impossible for us to get over the lingering sense of "bait and switch." Regardless of whatever valid arguments there are for the "no free lunch" marketing thing, the company's long-standing problem is that, as an online personality, it's kind of an asshole. Long before the IPO, the company felt skeevy, underhanded, and corrupt. After the IPO, it feels the same, only now it's basically about making money for these folks.
Facebook exists to hoover up user data and sell it off, while convincing other users (namely businesses) that having a presence on Facebook has intrinsic value. It doesn't. The platform is worthless to any company that isn't actually in the customer data business or to anyone who doesn't own stock. I suspect it'll soon be worthless for that latter group, as well.