Yes, I know what you’re thinking. “Not another post about Facebook.” Forgive me, but in yesterday’s New York Times, an executive from the world’s fastest growing social network suggested that Facebook users will not have the final say in how the site evolves. The quoted statement suggests a very old-school, command-and-control mindset. In this age of consumer control, don’t the hip young managers of Facebook know that marketers are meant to “just let go?”
In his article “Is Facebook Growing Up Too Fast?” Brad Stone presents an interesting overview of the social network and the difficulties brought on by its exceptional growth. What intrigued me most was the apparent discrepancy between what Facebook users expect from the site and the vision of the Facebook management team. This difference raises all sorts of questions about when a brand should exercise control.
As many of you will know, Facebook recently introduced a new layout that seemed designed to compete more directly with that other new-media darling, Twitter. While I do not feel as vehemently negative about the new update stream as some of my friends, there is no doubt that many people don’t like it. The group “Millions Against Facebook’s New Layout and Terms of Service” has lived up to its name, with over two million people signing up.
Commenting on the issue, Chris Cox, 26, Facebook’s director of products, states, “It’s not a democracy. We are here to build an Internet medium for communicating and we think we have enough perspective to do that and be caretakers of that vision.”
Dude, what are you thinking?! Everyone knows that you can’t control consumers these days. They have minds of their own. Your future is theirs.
Of course, I am saying that tongue-in-cheek. I believe that one of the last things any brand should do is relinquish control of its future to the masses. Any management team must balance its brand’s own best interests against the needs of its customers. Such a tradeoff requires a delicate balancing act, one that every successful mass market brand must master.
The fundamental problem Facebook faces is that it is now trying to serve the needs of a very diverse audience. Cox suggests the new feed is designed to improve the site’s immediacy, making it the equivalent of an instant message or a quick phone call. Referring to the possibility that people might use it for spontaneous lunch dates he states, “That is the kind of thing that is not meaningful when it is announced 40 minutes later.”
True, but while that immediacy may reflect the mindset of those in their twenties, it is probably less consistent with the outlook of the vast majority of new users, who tend to be older. (Check out the “multimedia” chart that accompanies the article to see how the age profile of Facebook has flattened over time.)
Unlike most brands, Facebook provides every single customer with the means to give instant feedback in an environment where interaction is king. When people do not like the changes, their discontent is voiced loudly and clearly. That does not mean Facebook was wrong to make changes. Just because everyone out there has an equal opportunity to have their say does not mean you have to listen to all of their advice.
As I stated in “A Luddite At Sea,” change is part of maintaining a strong brand.
Creating change is vital if a brand is to evolve and grow. A brand which fails to grow will likely stagnate and die, as previously ardent fans wander off in search of something new. In order to evolve, a brand must push the boundaries and challenge the existing status quo. But this rarely happens as a result of undirected consumer action or feedback. Rather, marketers must envisage a future and test whether people are receptive to it.
So change is good. What might be in question is the way Facebook implements change.
Most brands faced with the dilemma of increasing diversity would start to think about how to segment their audience, whether line extensions would be in order, and what communication channels would best reach each segment. They would do their research before making any significant change.
But as a brand that empowers people to share and connect, Facebook does not need to do that. Instead Facebook simply needs to empower people to segment themselves by providing users with the necessary tools and instruction on using them. Right now, however, it is not apparent that users feel they have enough control. Witness the nearly 50,000 people who have joined The New Facebook Mess - How to clean up your Notifications and Home Page.
Facebook has one massive advantage over other brands in comparable situations, because users don’t have to pay for it. If the site continues to satisfy people’s fundamental need to connect, then its current issues will likely prove to be mere teething problems. After all, as Chris Cox states in the article, “Cool only lasts for so long, but being useful is something that applies to everyone.”
So what do you think? Is Facebook’s management team right to ignore feedback from their users? And even if they are, was it the right thing to say in public, or will this unleash another wave of complaint?
(7 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
March 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Dear Nigel,
How one manages one’s brand is paramount. Because I only recently registered on Facebook, I am not aware of these changes.
However, in managing one’s brand it is important to look at some metrics.
I googled to find the total number of Facebook users and found the number is now over 200 Million. Wei Zhu, a Facebook employee in a speakers forum ( information at http://www.allaboutfacebook.com ), stated that the number is over 200 Million and the estimate is that it could be over 300 by the end of this year.
Let’s also look at the number of countries Facebook is in. The number seems to be over 170. Since there are 192 countries in the world, they are doing pretty good.
Now let’s take a look at something else, Nigel. The number of digruntled users seems to be 2 million. This represents 1% of the users. SO they have 99% approval rating at this point. Not bad. Let us also include the number of people that did not respond to this call at double that and they still have only 2% disgruntled users. This means that potentially they have a 98% approval rating. Pretty good if you ask me.
But one should not ignore these disgruntled users. They should listen to them and use their input to improve the service. Here is my recommendation: In this day of age of electronic media, Facebook could have done the change differently. What would have happened if they had used a more democratic approach (It was not a good PR thing to say “BTW that this is not a democracy.” Sheesh) and solicited user feedback and stated “we’re thinking of making some changes” and had a contest to see who could come up with some new thoughts and approaches. I am sure this approach would have pleased their users more.
How one handles bad press is really what what brand management on the internet is about. I looked up the official facebook blog at this address http://blog.facebook.com In the facebook blog they seem to be talking to people but the ideas seem to be product-generated, not user-generated. Handling bad PR or press, especially online, is a relatively new area. It would be interesting to hear from a PR expert ( which I am not ) how they would handle this.
Regards, John Schneider Managing Director Marque Metrix
March 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Now I think you are really touching the face of the future. This will become the biggest problem.
At conferences everybody talks about the consumers designing the brand. Lets see how it works - both ways: a 26 year old and a young company and their consumers.
Erik.
Personally I have sympathy with both sides.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:00 am
John, thanks for the contribution. I suspect that we cannot assume that Facebook has a 98% approval rating but I do agree that we are looking at a small but vocal minority here. And, yes, what was Chris Coz thinking when he said it Facebook was not a democracy!
I believe that what we see here is the traditional conflict between an innovation-led company and a consumer-led company. It is the same issue that affects so many technology companies with a few notable exceptions. All too often the engineers come up with a new innovation which they think is cool and then throw it over the wall for marketing to sell. As you suggest, better engagement with consumers at the idea and prototype stage would probably result in a higher success rate and less consumer backlash.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:29 am
Hi Nigel, I fully agree that today the power of changes is clearly based on what customers have to say and need… nevertheless, sometimes I believe is important to marketers have “control” as parents usually do in a family with their children… Lets compare Facebook with a young son for example…. definitly the “control” of its parents will be higher being the child a baby, end this control will progresssively downturn according to the growth path. The parents should concentrate on educating, creating a look and feel, trying to build on a personality…. I believe this might be the same situation with Facebook. The question at the end would it be: How to determine the right ”control” level without knowing exacly what Facebook “age” is in this virtual context??? Cheers, Felipe
March 31st, 2009 at 8:37 am
Hi Felipe, great question. Do we measure the age of online companies in calendar years or dog years? Sometimes it seems more like fruit fly years!
It seems to me that Facebook is still a young kid, easily impressionable and with the potential to go astray if its parents are not careful and make the right decisions.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:24 am
I believe that one of the last things any brand should do is relinquish control of its future to the masses.
Odd concept, isn’t it? I don’t remember advertising, marketing or PR dying off with the invention of the telephone.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:41 am
I tried to comment earlier but I didn’t spot the spam protection box with the pale text - and having made an error, the entire reply is now completely gone. Bah.
Anyway: what I said was that Facebook is not selling ’social networking’ as some kind of pure concept; rather, it is providing a very specific interface which allows users to connect in certain ways. To change the interface so radically is essentially to change the whole user experience - it becomes a slightly different product. Facebook’s users were attracted on the basis of the old interface. It’s a bit like eating Heinz Tomato soup and having it swapped for Cream of Chicken. It’s still soup but it’s a very different thing.
I also feel that social networks have to expect huge backlashes from their (young, verbal, opinionated) users when they make unpopular decisions. It’s a very different kind of relationship to the one that people have with conventional consumer products.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I am sorry Alison, I sympathize. I had the same experience on someone else’s site over the weekend. Thanks for persevering.
The relationship may be different, deeper and more immediate for sure. All the more reason to test out potential changes ahead of time.
It is like the argument about pre-testing online ads. Just because you can get immediate feedback on whether something is working or not does not mean that “just do it” should be the default strategy. Untold damage could be done if people do not respond as you expect.