3 ms·

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

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.
- incongruity 14y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. While you're right, technically, users don't own their Facebook pages or the content on them, there's a common sense perception that we do – and Facebook ignores that very real sentiment at their own peril. Businesses, on the other hand, are a less gray area, IMHO, and I'd say I agree completely with what you've written here.
rolux 14y ago
but I'm not just a user I'm a supplier Unfortunately, you're neither of those two. If you have an account on Facebook, you're their product. A lot of the disappointment here seems to be a result of ignoring this relation.
- incongruity 14y ago
  See, that's a pithy little saying that tries to be pointedly opinionated about Facebook's view of its users and I used to say the same thing... but it's not fully accurate. I chose my words carefully. Each of FB's users are supplying the data and page views that FB resells to advertisers. The problem is that the market is flooded with suppliers so we have very little individual leverage, but we do have the choice to leave the market. Done en masse, it could well change the dynamics of the equation. Still, my point is that supplier is the accurate term. Unless of course you mean to say that FB is in the business of human trafficking.. then, well... um..

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.

incongruity 14y ago
Thanks for the clarification. While you're right, technically, users don't own their Facebook pages or the content on them, there's a common sense perception that we do – and Facebook ignores that very real sentiment at their own peril. Businesses, on the other hand, are a less gray area, IMHO, and I'd say I agree completely with what you've written here.

rolux 14y ago

but I'm not just a user I'm a supplier Unfortunately, you're neither of those two. If you have an account on Facebook, you're their product. A lot of the disappointment here seems to be a result of ignoring this relation.

incongruity 14y ago
See, that's a pithy little saying that tries to be pointedly opinionated about Facebook's view of its users and I used to say the same thing... but it's not fully accurate. I chose my words carefully. Each of FB's users are supplying the data and page views that FB resells to advertisers. The problem is that the market is flooded with suppliers so we have very little individual leverage, but we do have the choice to leave the market. Done en masse, it could well change the dynamics of the equation. Still, my point is that supplier is the accurate term. Unless of course you mean to say that FB is in the business of human trafficking.. then, well... um..