44 ms·

You have to realize, previously, when a page was "liked" that was equivalent to WANTING to see updates from this Facebook page. That simple like was a 2-way con

You have to realize, previously, when a page was "liked" that was equivalent to WANTING to see updates from this Facebook page. That simple like was a 2-way contract, you're interested in us, when we post, you will be aware of it. Now the "liker" could be missing out on items they find important, and the fan page is effectively impotent in reaching that fan unless they pay to promote the post. It really is a bait and switch and I'm surprised there isn't MORE outrage about it.

pdonis 14y ago
I understand why people are frustrated, but you are failing to identify the root cause of their frustation: they were getting something of value (PR for businesses, sharing of personal information, etc.) from Facebook for free, and now they're complaining because Facebook wants to charge them for it. Guess what: Facebook owns their site, their servers, and their PR mechanisms. It's up to them what things to charge for, how to control the distribution of information that you put on their servers, etc. If someone doesn't like it, they can pay to set up their own social network. Edit: Oh, and "bait and switch" isn't really accurate. You aren't Facebook's customer. You're just a user. You agreed to let them change their services without your consent when you signed up for your account.
- gergles 14y ago
  Without me (and people like me), they don't have a site. So, yeah, I'm their customer. I'm what makes their site a viable business. I'm about as from "just a user" as you can get. On a ranting note, this attitude is incredibly offensive to the users of social networks and SaaS providers; and I'm stunned to see it met with so much traction on a community of startup owners. If your startup is this cavalier towards customers, you're doing it wrong.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    "Customer" and "user" are just words. To me, "customer" implies that you are paying, but I'm fine with adopting a different usage of the word for purposes of this discussion. If you are a person who actually complains about Facebook's actions, then I disagree that without people like you, they don't have a site. Most users/customers don't appear to complain at all; they just keep using FB and adapting to the changes and never even think about the longer-term consequences. If all the people who actually are complaining now up and leave, FB will still have plenty of users/customers. The only way that will change is if lots of users/customers start to believe that the costs of using FB outweigh the benefits. And the only way that will change is if people who can actually find or build alternatives, like the owners of businesses that make heavy use of the Internet, lead the way. > If your startup is this cavalier towards customers, you're doing it wrong. So, basically, you're saying Facebook is doing it wrong. Please tell Mark Zuckerberg, not me. [Edit: added the below.] > So, yeah, I'm their customer. I'm what makes their site a viable business. I should probably unpack a little why I object to the word "customer" in this context. I agree that a customer doesn't have to "pay" in money; any exchange of value for value will do for that aspect of it. But a customer knows the price of what he is buying. Facebook doesn't set a price on your usage of the site; you just use it. That means you and Facebook can't exchange price signals to optimize the exchange of value; you send plenty of "signals" to Facebook as part of your usage of the site, but those signals optimize their exchange of value with advertisers and marketers, not with you. Economically speaking, this is the root cause of the problems the OP is complaining about; he has to post his complaint on his blog because he has no way of influencing FB the way a real customer would, through his purchasing behavior. (Except, of course, for the very crude option of "stop using the site altogether", which is the one I would favor. If enough people actually do that, FB might be motivated to look for ways to make its users into real customers instead of pseudo-customers. But I wouldn't hold my breath.)
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- incongruity 14y ago
  Bait and switch is absolutely still accurate, IMHO, but it doesn't matter what you call it, the effect is real. First, let's unpack your justification a little – you actually offer two claims: 1) You aren't Facebook's customer. You're just a user. and 2) You agreed to let them change their services without your consent when you signed up for your account. To the first: most of us may not be their customers, but there's clearly an exchange of value going in both directions. I give them my attention, demographic information, etc. which is valuable to them as it then allows them to charge their customers for access to me and my info, in all the various ways. In return, I get access to FB and all that goes with it... but I'm not just a user I'm a supplier. As such, there's still an agreement, both formal and informal, going on here. The formal agreement is the one you allude to in your second claim – the TOS that most of us don't remember even agreeing to. That matters a lot from a legal standpoint. They're clear to do whatever they want, legally, within reason. (I'm not trying to go deep on this sub-point). But much more important is the informal agreement between FB and their suppliers (err "users"). That's the stuff that brand equity is made up of – and the brand promise, the value to users is the ability to keep up with their friends and know that their friends can keep up with them. FB has begun to renege on that promise – and as such, they'll lose brand equity and the value in the eyes of their users. Call it a bait and switch or don't, but the effect is still the same.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    Perhaps I haven't made my position clear enough. I don't disagree that users are of value to Facebook, and that Facebook has an incentive to maximize that value. What I disagree with is the action that I see taken by users who are not satisfied with the exchange of value that is going on, particularly if those users are businesses. I can understand people who use Facebook personally feeling overwhelmed when its features keep changing, though I still think they ought to realize that they don't own their Facebook pages or the content on them, and talk and act accordingly. But a business using Facebook for PR, such as the OP of this thread, ought to understand that they are taking advantage of a service, and if the cost of using that service becomes greater than the benefit, they should look for another source for that service.
    - 14y ago

pdonis 14y ago

I understand why people are frustrated, but you are failing to identify the root cause of their frustation: they were getting something of value (PR for businesses, sharing of personal information, etc.) from Facebook for free, and now they're complaining because Facebook wants to charge them for it. Guess what: Facebook owns their site, their servers, and their PR mechanisms. It's up to them what things to charge for, how to control the distribution of information that you put on their servers, etc. If someone doesn't like it, they can pay to set up their own social network. Edit: Oh, and "bait and switch" isn't really accurate. You aren't Facebook's customer. You're just a user. You agreed to let them change their services without your consent when you signed up for your account.

gergles 14y ago
Without me (and people like me), they don't have a site. So, yeah, I'm their customer. I'm what makes their site a viable business. I'm about as from "just a user" as you can get. On a ranting note, this attitude is incredibly offensive to the users of social networks and SaaS providers; and I'm stunned to see it met with so much traction on a community of startup owners. If your startup is this cavalier towards customers, you're doing it wrong.
- pdonis 14y ago
  "Customer" and "user" are just words. To me, "customer" implies that you are paying, but I'm fine with adopting a different usage of the word for purposes of this discussion. If you are a person who actually complains about Facebook's actions, then I disagree that without people like you, they don't have a site. Most users/customers don't appear to complain at all; they just keep using FB and adapting to the changes and never even think about the longer-term consequences. If all the people who actually are complaining now up and leave, FB will still have plenty of users/customers. The only way that will change is if lots of users/customers start to believe that the costs of using FB outweigh the benefits. And the only way that will change is if people who can actually find or build alternatives, like the owners of businesses that make heavy use of the Internet, lead the way. > If your startup is this cavalier towards customers, you're doing it wrong. So, basically, you're saying Facebook is doing it wrong. Please tell Mark Zuckerberg, not me. [Edit: added the below.] > So, yeah, I'm their customer. I'm what makes their site a viable business. I should probably unpack a little why I object to the word "customer" in this context. I agree that a customer doesn't have to "pay" in money; any exchange of value for value will do for that aspect of it. But a customer knows the price of what he is buying. Facebook doesn't set a price on your usage of the site; you just use it. That means you and Facebook can't exchange price signals to optimize the exchange of value; you send plenty of "signals" to Facebook as part of your usage of the site, but those signals optimize their exchange of value with advertisers and marketers, not with you. Economically speaking, this is the root cause of the problems the OP is complaining about; he has to post his complaint on his blog because he has no way of influencing FB the way a real customer would, through his purchasing behavior. (Except, of course, for the very crude option of "stop using the site altogether", which is the one I would favor. If enough people actually do that, FB might be motivated to look for ways to make its users into real customers instead of pseudo-customers. But I wouldn't hold my breath.)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
incongruity 14y ago
Bait and switch is absolutely still accurate, IMHO, but it doesn't matter what you call it, the effect is real. First, let's unpack your justification a little – you actually offer two claims: 1) You aren't Facebook's customer. You're just a user. and 2) You agreed to let them change their services without your consent when you signed up for your account. To the first: most of us may not be their customers, but there's clearly an exchange of value going in both directions. I give them my attention, demographic information, etc. which is valuable to them as it then allows them to charge their customers for access to me and my info, in all the various ways. In return, I get access to FB and all that goes with it... but I'm not just a user I'm a supplier. As such, there's still an agreement, both formal and informal, going on here. The formal agreement is the one you allude to in your second claim – the TOS that most of us don't remember even agreeing to. That matters a lot from a legal standpoint. They're clear to do whatever they want, legally, within reason. (I'm not trying to go deep on this sub-point). But much more important is the informal agreement between FB and their suppliers (err "users"). That's the stuff that brand equity is made up of – and the brand promise, the value to users is the ability to keep up with their friends and know that their friends can keep up with them. FB has begun to renege on that promise – and as such, they'll lose brand equity and the value in the eyes of their users. Call it a bait and switch or don't, but the effect is still the same.
- pdonis 14y ago
  Perhaps I haven't made my position clear enough. I don't disagree that users are of value to Facebook, and that Facebook has an incentive to maximize that value. What I disagree with is the action that I see taken by users who are not satisfied with the exchange of value that is going on, particularly if those users are businesses. I can understand people who use Facebook personally feeling overwhelmed when its features keep changing, though I still think they ought to realize that they don't own their Facebook pages or the content on them, and talk and act accordingly. But a business using Facebook for PR, such as the OP of this thread, ought to understand that they are taking advantage of a service, and if the cost of using that service becomes greater than the benefit, they should look for another source for that service.
  - 14y ago