How to reach your audience without getting in their way

With all the criticism that Facebook received for appreciably changing their terms of service, it's interesting to note the positive way they responded that probably prevented any mass exodus.

Full disclosure: I have to mention that I completely empathize with their predicament. While their membership is growing by leaps and bounds across the world, they've had difficulty implementing an effective means to monetize that takes advantage of their unique data mining methods.

The market is fickle. People don't care that they're getting this awesome platform without any membership fees. When Facebook tried to monetize and launched one of its first initiatives, Beacon, the public revolted. Their 2008 ad revenue, in spite of the vast numbers of people using the platform, is less than that of MySpace.

By the time I got word that Facebook revised their terms of service, people had already started revolting.

Facebook then did two good things well. The first was in direct response to the outcry and threat of lawsuit from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and the groundwork from the other was laid long before this was even a blip on the EPICs radar.

1. They recanted the policy and solicited feedback from the audience
2. They communicated directly with the members without the normal lawyer-speak.

(To show how fickle the marketplace really is (and what an itchy trigger finger people have),the executive director of the EPIC, Marc Rotenberg, withheld filing the his complaint with the FCC but promised to keep it in his back pocket.)

As for the other issue, here is the message Facebook sent out to all its members at the top of their member home page:

Notice the "Close" call to action in the upper right hand corner?

If the users don't really care about what's going on behind the scenes, they can just close out the message, and it won't return. I imagine Facebook can use this method to communicate any message they need to communicate to their audience about their service.

They kept it short and to the point, and it speaks directly to the people who were raising the fuss in the first place. In 4 short sentences, the Facebook team was able to explain

• Why they're sending the message.
• What they're going to do about it.
• How to get more information.
• Instructions on how to participate in the conversation.

That's all well and good. But here's the question:

If Facebook can communicate issues before the fact in a manner that provides an easy way to ignore it, if the users wish, can't they just have let their users know, in the same way, that their terms of service were going to change, and have solicited feedback before they pushed it live?

It seems getting feedback from the community before they blow up might be the best way to avoid these sorts of situations in the future.

And in the meantime, they might want to keep Marc Rotenberg's number on speed dial. Especially in a space where privacy is a huge concern, bringing in a privacy advocate (even if he does represent only the most privacy-conscious) for advice just seems smart. - Cam Beck

Comments

[Larry Roth]

I agree with your point that Facebook handled the situation appropriately. But, I would add that perhaps the reason that users get upset with the policy change is not because they want a free ride, but rather that the contract has changed after the initial agreement. To make for fair an equitable exchanges, the terms must be clear from the beginning and can't just arbitrarily change without it being fair to both parties.

Users do contribute to Facebook. Their actions, recommendations, content, and loyalty all provide value. This needs to be recognized as well. Twitter, for instance, is a great, free service. But without tweets, it is useless.

I wonder if you agree....

Anyway, cool post. I agree with your recommendations and your analysis of the way Facebook handles their communications.

[Cam Beck]

"Users do contribute to Facebook. Their actions, recommendations, content, and loyalty all provide value. This needs to be recognized as well. Twitter, for instance, is a great, free service. But without tweets, it is useless."

It provides value to someone -- and the potential business value is very high. But as of this moment, with Twitter and to a lesser extent with Facebook, those things you mentioned haven't provided proportional tangible value to the platform owners.

Hopefully they'll figure out a solution that adds value to all parties.

I was thinking, for instance, that if Facebook wants to "own" the content uploaded by the users as was charged, they should be able to work out a compensation schedule based on the manner of the usage.

In a lot of cases, this could benefit both parties. Facebook could get a bargain, and the content creator could reap a windfall, relative to what they expected to receive for their content.

Just a thought. They may have something better in mind.

[Csalomonlee]

What's interesting is that this isn't the first time that Facebook has made an announcement to have people "revolt." Beacon should've been a lesson to Facebook to engage in a conversation with their users before implementing any new policy.

What Facebook has to be careful about is how their actions are/have been perceived. They are known as the destination for the youth (though other demographics are now moving to the platform) that values transparency. Otherwise, the consequences for the next change may be more than Facebook expects.

[jon burg]

Great post. I always go back to Seinfeld's rules for social engagement. Don't be a "sidler", don't be a "close talker". Just be a normal person. Smile with your words. Be sincere. Don't act like you belong, truly belong. People have accepted your loud and interuptive designs and logos into their lives and culture before (a bottle of soda never matches kitchen decor). And they will again, if you do it right.

[Cam Beck]

Cece - I agree. A company gets only so many do-overs. However, if anyone were to, right now, take a poll of all Facebook users what they thought about the policy change and their impression of Facebook in the aftermath, would the people who raised a big fuss both times be proved to be a very vocal minority? And if they are, how much (barring the lawsuit) does Facebook need to concern themselves with satiating them?

Jon - Also... totally agree. I still like Paul McEnany's advice to stop shouting; just get them close enough to whisper.