Remember all that talk about Facebook becoming more democratic? Despite the highly publicized rhetoric, all appearances point to a Mark Zuckerberg dictatorship, relatively deaf to user complaints. While business owners have the right and responsibility to run their business as they see fit, the young CEO might want to reconsider saying one thing and doing another. It’ll just come back to bite him.
Mark Zuckerberg
These were the words emanating from a conference call last month, just after Facebook folded to user outrage over a change to the site’s terms of service:
“As people share more information on services like Facebook, a new relationship is created between Internet companies and the people they serve,” said Zuckerberg. “The past week reminded us that users feel a real sense of ownership over Facebook itself, not just the information they share.”
“Companies like ours need to develop new models of governance. Rather than simply reissue a new Terms of Use, the changes we’re announcing today are designed to open up Facebook so that users can participate meaningfully in our policies and our future.”
Thus, changes to Facebook in the future (in the slightly distant future) would be made via “virtual town halls” with some fine print under the seats, specifically that only issues Facebook deemed worthy of a vote would be put up for one, and then they would require 30 percent Facebook user participation, or roughly 52 million people. Nearly in the same breath, Zuckerberg made a fleeting and unspecified announcement that hundreds of changes were on the way in the coming month.
A lot of the press missed that last part, their mouths still agape at the unprecedented and bold move toward transparency and democratization. Shortly thereafter, Facebook made sweeping changes to the site, adding functionality to rival Twitter, which turned down an acquisition offer. But also in those changes, Facebook inexplicably took away several functionalities its 175 million users really liked.
A new Facebook protest was on, and one popular application, in lieu of promised town hall, which may or may not begin in few weeks, a vote was taken. So far, 1.18 million users have given a thumbs-down to the new Facebook, compared with 76,000 giving a-thumbs up. That’s 94 percent against holding steady over the weekend.
This was Facebook’s public statement to murdok about that:
“The new Facebook home page is one step in the continued evolution of the site, designed to give people more ways to share and filter all types of content, such as status updates, photos, videos, notes and more. We are grateful to have 175 million people worldwide using Facebook to connect with the people and things they care about most, and we take their feedback very seriously. We are listening carefully to what people are saying about the new home page through a variety of channels — including through a popular application, built by outside developers on our platform, that allows users to vote and express their opinion.”
What’s lacking from that standard issue statement is any commitment to actually giving the plaintive users what they want, which is the Facebook that attracted 175 million users to begin with. The statement is also in stark contrast to internal comments leaked to the press. If Valleywag’s tipsters are correct (and several well known bloggers and mainstream publications are treating them as though they are) then Zuckerberg’s rhetoric is much different when Facebookers aren’t looking:
A tipster tells us that Zuckerberg sent an email to Facebook staff reacting to criticism of the changes: “He said something like ‘the most disruptive companies don’t listen to their customers.'” Another tipster who has seen the email says Zuckerberg implied that companies were “stupid” for “listening to their customers.”
So, what was that about new relationships between Internet companies and users, meaningful participation, new models of governance, listening carefully to feedback?
Robert Scoble
Zuckerberg’s not without his cheerleaders. Robert Scoble thinks the moves he’s made are brilliant and will be remembered for decades. And that pesky, plaintive user base? Don’t worry, they might cry a lot, but they’re so addicted to Facebook they’re not going anywhere. So long as Facebook is user-crack, as Google’s Marissa Mayer called it, Zuckerberg can do all the pimp-slapping he likes. The users don’t understand Facebook’s on a mission to make money.
“He SHOULD NOT LISTEN to those who are saying the new design sucks,” wrote Scoble. “It will keep him from getting to the promised land where we mix businesses and people.
“Here’s what really is hanging out there for Facebook if Zuckerberg doesn’t listen: billions. Maybe even trillions.”
Don Dodge
Trillions? Thanks to all these government bailouts, most people are just realizing that much money actually exists. Now Facebook, all by itself has trillion-dollar potential, even if they insist (especially if they do, says Scoble) from here on out the customer is always wrong?
Don Dodge, a Microsoftie, seems to follow that train of thought as well. Perhaps he represents why Microsoft, which insisted on the wonders of Vista, dumped $250 million into Facebook. Maybe they saw a glimmer of themselves in it.
Dare Obasanjo
Another Microsoftie, Dare Obasanjo, thinks not listening to your user base is wrong headed, and drives home a point about why Facebook shouldn’t strive to be more like Twitter: If Facebookers wanted Twitter, they’d sign up for Twitter. The two social networks are fundamentally different, and people use them for fundamentally different reasons.
Well, one supposes time will tell if the business strategy of ignoring and alienating one’s (addicted) user base is a trillion-dollar strategy or a recipe for a mass exodus.
