My former boss, Jim Fawcette, used to say that if you asked a group of Porsche owners what they wanted they’d tell you things like “smoother ride, more trunk space, more leg room, etc.” He’d then say “well, they just designed a Volvo.”
His words were meant to get us out of letting the customers run our business mode we often found ourselves falling into.
Today, over on Techmeme, I see that the latest uproar is over Facebook’s new design and how Mark Zuckerberg is telling people that he won’t listen to customers. Or something like that.
Before we get deeper into this, remember that Facebook has always pissed off its users. First, you’ve gotta realize that in Facebook’s life it will go through at least seven phases. We are moving from phase four to phase five right now. In each phase change people have gotten pissed off.
Here’s the phases of Facebook:
Phase 1. Harvard only.
Phase 2. Harvard+Colleges only.
Phase 3. Harvard+Colleges+Geeks only.
Phase 4. All those above+All People (in the social graph).
Phase 5. All those above+People and businesses in the social graph.
Phase 6. All those above+People, businesses, and well-known objects in the social graph.
Phase 7. All people, businesses, objects in the social graph.
Phase 5 is known as when Facebook is really going to find its business model. This is why Mark Zuckerberg is absolutely correct to say he can’t listen to people who wants Facebook to get stuck in Phase Four. It was a nice phase, yes, when Facebook only had people in the social graph, but those days are over.
Don’t get distracted by the current design that looks sort of like Twitter. Twitter showed that businesses can co-exist on the social graph along with people. Zuckerberg is smart. He saw that Twitter was going to make a crapload of money (that’s why he tried to buy Twitter) and instead of being depressed by being turned down by @ev he decided to phase shift Facebook.
Zuckerberg is a real leader because he doesn’t care what anyone thinks. He’s going to do what he thinks is best for his business. I wish Silicon Valley had more like him.
Anyway, all those who are saying the new design sucks should NOT be listened to. Yeah, I know a lot of people are going to get mad at me for saying that. After all, how can a blogger say to not listen to the masses? Easy: I’ve seen the advice the masses are giving and most of it isn’t very good for Facebook’s business interests.
When Zuckerberg announced these changes a couple of weeks ago I told him he was brilliant and that his moves this month would be remembered for decades. Decades.
Here’s why:
Let’s say you’re walking down University Ave. in Palo Alto, California in a couple of years (or, really, any street in the world) and you’re hungry.
You pull out your iPhone or Palm Pre or Android or Blackberry or Windows Mobile doohickey and click open the Facebook application. Then you type “sushi near me.”
It answers back “within walking distance are two sushi restaurants that more than 20 of your friends have liked.”
Wait a second. “Friends have liked?”
Sounds like friendfeed. But, because Facebook has the users (it is growing the size of Twitter every 15 days or so because Facebook has about 180 million users while Twitter only has about 10 million. Facebook, at this point, is growing 200,000 to 700,000 users per day. Twitter is growing by far fewer users per day (although its percentage growth is faster).
But don’t worry about the friendfeed copying. Zuckerberg is so close to a gold mine that his metal detectors must be going crazy. All he has to do is figure out how to keep those pesky users from leaving the service.
Oh, wait, they aren’t leaving! How do I know that?
Because my wife Maryam is totally addicted to Facebook. She hasn’t left. She hasn’t slowed down. She just told me she didn’t like the new design and made some noises that she was only going to use the iPhone version (not true in my observations). So, if Zuckerberg didn’t lose Maryam and her friends, he’s safe. He SHOULD NOT LISTEN to those who are saying the new design sucks. 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.
Look at what we just announced to the world:
Yes, we’re having another baby. But look at what did NOT happen on Twitter: not a single diaper company contacted us yet. Not a single maternity clothing company. Not a single car company (yes, we’re going to buy a new one soon). Not a single camera company (already bought a new one for this occassion). Not a single insurance company (I need more). Not a single bank (I need to start saving for another college student). Not a single stroller company (need a new one that can hold two). Not a single vitamin company (Maryam is going through her prenatal vitamins at a good clip). Not a single shoe company (Maryam needs new shoes for pregnancy, and Milan is growing fast too).
That will NOT last.
Imagine we’re on Facebook in a year. Now all of a sudden I can search for all these things and see which items and companies have gotten the most “likes.” Now do you get why Facebook is copying friendfeed?
Zuckerberg is not listening to you because you don’t get how Facebook is going to make billions.
Zuckerberg is right. He shouldn’t start listening to his users now.
Thank you so much for the insight. While I am VERY new to online social networking and viral marketing, I am NOT new to business and marketing. We teach the motto of all ground breaking visionaires, to new business owners – “OBSERVE the masses and then DO the opposite!”
There are a number of people that fear change. When change comes, they react out of emotion, not rational thought. The most common emotion used is anger, even if they would like to convince themselves and you of the contrary!
Thank you so much for the insight. While I am VERY new to online social networking and viral marketing, I am NOT new to business and marketing. We teach the motto of all ground breaking visionaires, to new business owners – “OBSERVE the masses and then DO the opposite!”
There are a number of people that fear change. When change comes, they react out of emotion, not rational thought. The most common emotion used is anger, even if they would like to convince themselves and you of the contrary!
Whereas I understand, and agree to an extent, to completely ignore what users want is bad business.
If your model is, “get them addicted to they stay no matter what we do.”, then there is a perfect reason to find something else.
I, and about 75 of the “friends” I had on Facebook did leave. Not because we didn’t like the new design. Oh, I suppose that was what served as catalyst, but what we didn’t like was being told our requests didn’t matter.
So we found something else. People who drive Porsches do so because they want a specific product. Giving them only Volvos and telling them it’s for their own good will leave you screwed too.
You might be able to catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but in the words of Wednesday Addams, “But if you pull their little wings off you can feed them whatever you want.”
Facebook won’t be pulling my wings off to force feed me a clumsy, poorly thought-out, clunky interface. It’s not that important to me, but how a company treats my opinion is.
Whereas I understand, and agree to an extent, to completely ignore what users want is bad business.
If your model is, “get them addicted to they stay no matter what we do.”, then there is a perfect reason to find something else.
I, and about 75 of the “friends” I had on Facebook did leave. Not because we didn’t like the new design. Oh, I suppose that was what served as catalyst, but what we didn’t like was being told our requests didn’t matter.
So we found something else. People who drive Porsches do so because they want a specific product. Giving them only Volvos and telling them it’s for their own good will leave you screwed too.
You might be able to catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but in the words of Wednesday Addams, “But if you pull their little wings off you can feed them whatever you want.”
Facebook won’t be pulling my wings off to force feed me a clumsy, poorly thought-out, clunky interface. It’s not that important to me, but how a company treats my opinion is.
@Robert Scoble: Hahah.. This comment made me lol.
“Leo: you are particularly clueless if you think what I just laid out for you is spam. Advertising is NOT spam. A LOT of people actually LIKE seeing advertising. Look at how many people sign up for catalogs. Or how many people watch the Superbowl just for the ads.”
I may be wrong, but I would suspect that most people who watch the Superbowl for “just for the ads” are paid to do so.
@Robert Scoble: Hahah.. This comment made me lol.
“Leo: you are particularly clueless if you think what I just laid out for you is spam. Advertising is NOT spam. A LOT of people actually LIKE seeing advertising. Look at how many people sign up for catalogs. Or how many people watch the Superbowl just for the ads.”
I may be wrong, but I would suspect that most people who watch the Superbowl for “just for the ads” are paid to do so.
Thanks for posting. You reminded me that a good leader often has to move in a direction that’s not always popular.
Thanks for posting. You reminded me that a good leader often has to move in a direction that’s not always popular.
Some fundamental issues here which IMHO skew this argument:
1. This nirvanic vision is based on the assumption that Facebook will secure sufficient traction with companies and brands that they may monetise those relationships somehow within a format which is wholly constructed on user-generated content…which is of course inherently inelegant and unsophisticated. By example, my personal impression of the once bankable commodity, now known as @mrskutcher is that she’s now, to me at least, just another girl next door with a geeky boyfriend. Which leads to…
2. For every ‘brand’ that is personified via Twitter, Facebook or invaded by Google adwords; its once preserved cache is gradually eroded by its proximity to adverts for viagra or get rich schemes. As a case in point, the wedding ring I bought with pride and excitement X years ago at Tiffany & Co in New York now feels a little less of a reminder of a special moment and more like a cheap cop out purchase from a chain store, now that Tiffany are rushing so blanketly into new media destinations like Facebook. It just doesn’t feel the same as a full page in Vanity Fair somehow and nothing Facebook does will change that. Do we really want our most admired brands and celebrities to look ordinary?
3. There is a complete dichotomy between those that advocate Facebook as a means to communicate with family and friends only, (including Facebook themselves based on their own set limits on anything which exceeds those ambitions), and an expectation that we will all marry an adjacent and seemingly incongruous desire to muddy that environment with endless asinine sales pitches from the brands we used to admire. Anyone of my Facebook friends who deletes me in favour of a fan page is overestimating my interest levels in their activities however famous or revered they may be. I admire many people including you Robert, but am a fan of noone.
4. The only thing that Facebook truly has as leverage on all its 175m users, is the inconvenience of exporting one’s contacts and data to a better offering if it comes, but I suspect that many like me are also keeping local copies of all their Facebook data or at least emails.
5. Unlike Twitter, Facebook isn’t truly open and so in order to connect with someone you are interested in, know or would like to know, you are bound to ‘friend them’ or be patronised into pronouncing yourself as a ‘fan’. In terms of reaching phase 7, I think Facebook has a brick wall to push through before that becomes a reality and I’m not sure it is achievable in the face of fickle audiences whose own content the whole model is built on.
6. As the banks have demonstrated, investors will always buy into the emperor’s new clothes and perpetuate the myth, until one day everyone just sees a naked man standing there. In my opinion, Facebook really ought to look at what has brought 175 million people to sign up so far and being visibly contemptuous of their opionions if they don’t fit in with a master plan is a pretty risky strategy. Most people canvassed recently bought into the concept of a place where they could share and communicate with friends, family and peers in a secure and manageable way. They didn’t sign up to be spoon fed daily messages from people trying to sell something so reliance on that as the holy grail will I feel indeed leave them naked in the wind.
7. I’ve been harping on about user-generated advertising as a new concept for a while now and it is something we are building into our own projects. Basically what Facebook should do is allow users to sell advertising on their profile in return for a share on the profits. It is the best route to hyper-local and would make your suggestion of finding a great sushi restaurant make sense. (Say I persuade my local restaurant to buy an ad on my profile, then I could earn some income from that and the like/ dislike functions could apply as well.) Similarly I could choose adverts from a library and/ instead, that I think suit my audiences and get a (smaller perhaps) share of income too. At that point you have potentially everyone registering their credit card details and the commercial options suddenly becomes more self-perpetuating and interesting! (Paypal?)
8. I do have a certain discomfort which I have to reluctantly admit as well; in that being a long admirer of your career and reputation, there is now a sense that in light of your new role at Rackspace, any commentary on a big ticket organisation like Facebook is against a backdrop of your new employers being a significant industry supplier whose interests are best served by seeing Facebook promoted and justified. I do think that Rackspace are one of the best run companies in the world, but nevertheless, it does take the sheen off a little for me, and you’ll appreciate that irrespective of your usual integrity and impartiality, the sense of a potential conflict is bound to arise.
Some fundamental issues here which IMHO skew this argument:
1. This nirvanic vision is based on the assumption that Facebook will secure sufficient traction with companies and brands that they may monetise those relationships somehow within a format which is wholly constructed on user-generated content…which is of course inherently inelegant and unsophisticated. By example, my personal impression of the once bankable commodity, now known as @mrskutcher is that she’s now, to me at least, just another girl next door with a geeky boyfriend. Which leads to…
2. For every ‘brand’ that is personified via Twitter, Facebook or invaded by Google adwords; its once preserved cache is gradually eroded by its proximity to adverts for viagra or get rich schemes. As a case in point, the wedding ring I bought with pride and excitement X years ago at Tiffany & Co in New York now feels a little less of a reminder of a special moment and more like a cheap cop out purchase from a chain store, now that Tiffany are rushing so blanketly into new media destinations like Facebook. It just doesn’t feel the same as a full page in Vanity Fair somehow and nothing Facebook does will change that. Do we really want our most admired brands and celebrities to look ordinary?
3. There is a complete dichotomy between those that advocate Facebook as a means to communicate with family and friends only, (including Facebook themselves based on their own set limits on anything which exceeds those ambitions), and an expectation that we will all marry an adjacent and seemingly incongruous desire to muddy that environment with endless asinine sales pitches from the brands we used to admire. Anyone of my Facebook friends who deletes me in favour of a fan page is overestimating my interest levels in their activities however famous or revered they may be. I admire many people including you Robert, but am a fan of noone.
4. The only thing that Facebook truly has as leverage on all its 175m users, is the inconvenience of exporting one’s contacts and data to a better offering if it comes, but I suspect that many like me are also keeping local copies of all their Facebook data or at least emails.
5. Unlike Twitter, Facebook isn’t truly open and so in order to connect with someone you are interested in, know or would like to know, you are bound to ‘friend them’ or be patronised into pronouncing yourself as a ‘fan’. In terms of reaching phase 7, I think Facebook has a brick wall to push through before that becomes a reality and I’m not sure it is achievable in the face of fickle audiences whose own content the whole model is built on.
6. As the banks have demonstrated, investors will always buy into the emperor’s new clothes and perpetuate the myth, until one day everyone just sees a naked man standing there. In my opinion, Facebook really ought to look at what has brought 175 million people to sign up so far and being visibly contemptuous of their opionions if they don’t fit in with a master plan is a pretty risky strategy. Most people canvassed recently bought into the concept of a place where they could share and communicate with friends, family and peers in a secure and manageable way. They didn’t sign up to be spoon fed daily messages from people trying to sell something so reliance on that as the holy grail will I feel indeed leave them naked in the wind.
7. I’ve been harping on about user-generated advertising as a new concept for a while now and it is something we are building into our own projects. Basically what Facebook should do is allow users to sell advertising on their profile in return for a share on the profits. It is the best route to hyper-local and would make your suggestion of finding a great sushi restaurant make sense. (Say I persuade my local restaurant to buy an ad on my profile, then I could earn some income from that and the like/ dislike functions could apply as well.) Similarly I could choose adverts from a library and/ instead, that I think suit my audiences and get a (smaller perhaps) share of income too. At that point you have potentially everyone registering their credit card details and the commercial options suddenly becomes more self-perpetuating and interesting! (Paypal?)
8. I do have a certain discomfort which I have to reluctantly admit as well; in that being a long admirer of your career and reputation, there is now a sense that in light of your new role at Rackspace, any commentary on a big ticket organisation like Facebook is against a backdrop of your new employers being a significant industry supplier whose interests are best served by seeing Facebook promoted and justified. I do think that Rackspace are one of the best run companies in the world, but nevertheless, it does take the sheen off a little for me, and you’ll appreciate that irrespective of your usual integrity and impartiality, the sense of a potential conflict is bound to arise.
Listening to your customers is ALWAYS a good idea…they use the product on a daily basis, they know the product. And Fawcette learnt to ignore all those customers and writers, well enough, that were demanding better venues/speakers and actual payments.
Plus that analogy is so flawed, a smoother ride Porsche, with more legroom, doesn’t feature-transform itself into a Volvo. It’s just a roomier, smoother Porsche, and nothing wrong with that. Saying you want a better, smoother product doesn’t mean you abandon all attributes that make that product that product. If you dared, you won’t have any customers period.
Listen to your customers, and it’s not a contradiction to want more features, whilst at the same time wanting less features. If programmers would become users, they’d understand. You want more features that YOU use, and less of what don’t. More, yet less bloat.
Insofar, as your Facebook rants, could care less, but being that you are down on them, they will most likely succeed.
Listening to your customers is ALWAYS a good idea…they use the product on a daily basis, they know the product. And Fawcette learnt to ignore all those customers and writers, well enough, that were demanding better venues/speakers and actual payments.
Plus that analogy is so flawed, a smoother ride Porsche, with more legroom, doesn’t feature-transform itself into a Volvo. It’s just a roomier, smoother Porsche, and nothing wrong with that. Saying you want a better, smoother product doesn’t mean you abandon all attributes that make that product that product. If you dared, you won’t have any customers period.
Listen to your customers, and it’s not a contradiction to want more features, whilst at the same time wanting less features. If programmers would become users, they’d understand. You want more features that YOU use, and less of what don’t. More, yet less bloat.
Insofar, as your Facebook rants, could care less, but being that you are down on them, they will most likely succeed.
Good stuff dude, well done!
RT
http://www.online-privacy.pro.tc
Good stuff dude, well done!
RT
http://www.online-privacy.pro.tc
@Christopher Coulter:
“Blindly following the maxim that good managers should keep close to their customers can sometimes be a fatal mistake.”
- The Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton M. Christensen
@Christopher Coulter:
“Blindly following the maxim that good managers should keep close to their customers can sometimes be a fatal mistake.”
- The Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton M. Christensen
The only reason I’m still on Facebook is that there is no other website that offer’s the old design. It’s like I signed up for the McDonald’s menu, and after the fact, McDonald’s changed there menu to exactly copy the Burger King Menu. I can go to McDonald’s, but never really be able to eat their food again.
I feel ripped off about the new facebook. Bait and switch!
The only reason I’m still on Facebook is that there is no other website that offer’s the old design. It’s like I signed up for the McDonald’s menu, and after the fact, McDonald’s changed there menu to exactly copy the Burger King Menu. I can go to McDonald’s, but never really be able to eat their food again.
I feel ripped off about the new facebook. Bait and switch!
You have a point, but you also miss the point. The problem with these changes isn’t cosmetic (people will get used to that). The problem is content and control — too much content (the feed is now cluttered with garbage) and too little control (users can’t adjust the feed the way they used to).
Also stupid was dropping one of the hallmarks of social networking: telling people who their friends were friending. That’s the main way to find new friends and expand your own network. Zuckerberg can do the things you’re talking about without wrecking the functionality of the site. I’m using the site much less and I know a lot of people doing likewise. This redesign is different.
You have a point, but you also miss the point. The problem with these changes isn’t cosmetic (people will get used to that). The problem is content and control — too much content (the feed is now cluttered with garbage) and too little control (users can’t adjust the feed the way they used to).
Also stupid was dropping one of the hallmarks of social networking: telling people who their friends were friending. That’s the main way to find new friends and expand your own network. Zuckerberg can do the things you’re talking about without wrecking the functionality of the site. I’m using the site much less and I know a lot of people doing likewise. This redesign is different.
[...] direct promotion.” Coincidentally, Robert Scoble was writing at the weekend about what he believes Facebook’s impending business model is going to be (leaving Twitter stranded alone on the lunatic fringe of freemium): “Yes, we’re [...]
Reactionary opposition to change on the site should be ignored, but I don’t think Zuckerberg is inclined to, nor should he, ignore well-reasoned criticism and suggestions.
The reason that Facebook should listen to its users is something called “business ethics.” As our current economic climate demonstrates to us, the concept of being ethical in business no longer exists in America. Zuckerberg certainly has not learned the lesson of ethical responsibility to his company’s target audience, and it appears neither has this blog’s author. Eventually, a new social networking site will come along that listens to what users want from the site and when that day does eventually come, Facebook users will remember Zuckerberg and leave in droves. They will leave Facebook and avoid any future web venture Zuckerberg attaches himself to.
Reactionary opposition to change on the site should be ignored, but I don’t think Zuckerberg is inclined to, nor should he, ignore well-reasoned criticism and suggestions.
The reason that Facebook should listen to its users is something called “business ethics.” As our current economic climate demonstrates to us, the concept of being ethical in business no longer exists in America. Zuckerberg certainly has not learned the lesson of ethical responsibility to his company’s target audience, and it appears neither has this blog’s author. Eventually, a new social networking site will come along that listens to what users want from the site and when that day does eventually come, Facebook users will remember Zuckerberg and leave in droves. They will leave Facebook and avoid any future web venture Zuckerberg attaches himself to.
[...] Facebook doesn’t have to change back A great if long post by Robert Scoble explains better than I can why Facebook won’t and shouldn’t change back to the way it [...]
Bobby,
Good post. I agree with many of your statements, especially ones harping on the “don’t let the customers run your company” tip. However, my problem with your post is that you have failed to convince me that the existing crappy (IMO) new UI has the potential to make FB more money than a better UI.
I don’t care about the FB business model or ads. Zuck can change, copy, emulate, innovate his business model all he wants. I have a problem with them vanilla-izing their UI and making bad decisions that allow a friend’s 35 different invites/updates/etc. to flood my homepage all at once, which each one looking almost identical. Everything feels the same. The redesign, while enabling some sort of real-time friend data stream, makes Facebook feel more boring (IMO).
I also think it’s fair to note that people may hate the redesign, but their not going to leave the service over it. Yet.
Bobby,
Good post. I agree with many of your statements, especially ones harping on the “don’t let the customers run your company” tip. However, my problem with your post is that you have failed to convince me that the existing crappy (IMO) new UI has the potential to make FB more money than a better UI.
I don’t care about the FB business model or ads. Zuck can change, copy, emulate, innovate his business model all he wants. I have a problem with them vanilla-izing their UI and making bad decisions that allow a friend’s 35 different invites/updates/etc. to flood my homepage all at once, which each one looking almost identical. Everything feels the same. The redesign, while enabling some sort of real-time friend data stream, makes Facebook feel more boring (IMO).
I also think it’s fair to note that people may hate the redesign, but their not going to leave the service over it. Yet.
Yawn… I just wanted the option to turn off all the feeds… surely to configure the homepage to how we want it is the best option… anyways I’m going back to using Myspace instead of selling out to the corporation.
Yawn… I just wanted the option to turn off all the feeds… surely to configure the homepage to how we want it is the best option… anyways I’m going back to using Myspace instead of selling out to the corporation.
[...] nota de Robert Scoble sobre porque Mark Zuckenberg no debería volver atrás con el rediseño de Facebook y coincido 100% en que no siempre el usuario o el cliente tiene [...]
I find it impressive that you have just about the opposite attitude about Facebook as myself. I personally think making our lives more and more public (status updates, wall posts) is hurting the quality of our interpersonal relationships. I think as Zuckerberg refuses to listen to his customers and moves towards a marketing based objective, the growth will slow, even decline in some demographics.
However, I do believe Facebook will succeed because of the kids. Their innocence and ignorance will have them accept these changes with open arms and will undoubtedly enjoy being marketed to. They will accept being marketed to as a part of daily life and communication (which Facebook is currently a massive component of). McDonald’s is the best example I can think of off the top my head of a Corporation that knew how to market to young people and reaped the rewards. I think Facebook will survive because it has already become a strong foundation of how the youth communicate. They will more readily accept changes that allow Facebook to make more money.
What’s this about how you WANT car manufacturers to market to you? Are you saying the ads showing a family van doing massive slides, kicking up dust with some cool rock music is how you do your research? You need to look at third-party review publications and user reviews. If anything, you don’t want to let those “cool” kinds of advertising persuade you from the cold, hard truths that are found on hundreds of available review sources.
I find it impressive that you have just about the opposite attitude about Facebook as myself. I personally think making our lives more and more public (status updates, wall posts) is hurting the quality of our interpersonal relationships. I think as Zuckerberg refuses to listen to his customers and moves towards a marketing based objective, the growth will slow, even decline in some demographics.
However, I do believe Facebook will succeed because of the kids. Their innocence and ignorance will have them accept these changes with open arms and will undoubtedly enjoy being marketed to. They will accept being marketed to as a part of daily life and communication (which Facebook is currently a massive component of). McDonald’s is the best example I can think of off the top my head of a Corporation that knew how to market to young people and reaped the rewards. I think Facebook will survive because it has already become a strong foundation of how the youth communicate. They will more readily accept changes that allow Facebook to make more money.
What’s this about how you WANT car manufacturers to market to you? Are you saying the ads showing a family van doing massive slides, kicking up dust with some cool rock music is how you do your research? You need to look at third-party review publications and user reviews. If anything, you don’t want to let those “cool” kinds of advertising persuade you from the cold, hard truths that are found on hundreds of available review sources.
Want to find out where the nearest sushi bar is? Want to know where to buy pregnancy clothes? Ever think of asking Google?
Facebook is free for users, so of course it can do whatever it wants. Business model econo-babble aside, it’s a shame that Mark is just not as smart as Craig.
Want to find out where the nearest sushi bar is? Want to know where to buy pregnancy clothes? Ever think of asking Google?
Facebook is free for users, so of course it can do whatever it wants. Business model econo-babble aside, it’s a shame that Mark is just not as smart as Craig.
This is cute and all, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the complaints about the new Facebook, which boil down to: they removed functionality/user control when they did the layout redesign. There was no reason that was necessary. The layout is not inherently harder to incorporate with user control. Keep the changes, just give us back all the control over stream content we had in the last version. What’s hard about that (other than it would make it possible to cut out the coming onslaught of advertising…)?
This is cute and all, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the complaints about the new Facebook, which boil down to: they removed functionality/user control when they did the layout redesign. There was no reason that was necessary. The layout is not inherently harder to incorporate with user control. Keep the changes, just give us back all the control over stream content we had in the last version. What’s hard about that (other than it would make it possible to cut out the coming onslaught of advertising…)?
[...] most of the weekend fun following Robert Scoble’s sputter of posts on the Facebook/Twitter thing that starts here and spilled into Techmeme. My concern has centered around the concentration of thinking on all [...]
“Listening to your customers is ALWAYS a good idea…”
Listening, yes. Obeying, no. Don’t forget, your initial rabid userbase, the ones who are the most vocal, are probably not the userbase you’ll end up with 5 years from now. With their growth, listening to the small initial userbase, the loudest ones, is big mistake. A mistake facebook has made many times.
“Listening to your customers is ALWAYS a good idea…”
Listening, yes. Obeying, no. Don’t forget, your initial rabid userbase, the ones who are the most vocal, are probably not the userbase you’ll end up with 5 years from now. With their growth, listening to the small initial userbase, the loudest ones, is big mistake. A mistake facebook has made many times.
Very informative Scob.
Thanks for sharing this and helping us out with your Phase graph! Loved it.
And congratulations over the Baby-To-Come. Grab some rest before they get out.
Very informative Scob.
Thanks for sharing this and helping us out with your Phase graph! Loved it.
And congratulations over the Baby-To-Come. Grab some rest before they get out.
I don’t mind if there’s more advertising, as long as it’s clean and neat.
BUT HERE IS MY PROBLEM:
How is “your friend took the ‘which underwear are you?’ quiz” not spam? This is what floods my homepage, not “your friend likes Z bar at main street”.
I don’t mind if there’s more advertising, as long as it’s clean and neat.
BUT HERE IS MY PROBLEM:
How is “your friend took the ‘which underwear are you?’ quiz” not spam? This is what floods my homepage, not “your friend likes Z bar at main street”.
Spot on.
Also, Congratulations!
We welcomed our third daughter in April. Our BabyJogger double stroller has been amazing. So many outing, naps, jaunts to the market. It holds it all. And folds fairly easily.
A shot in profile for schlepping cred. http://twitpic.com/2dvig
A napping shot for interior. http://twitpic.com/2dvmq
Spot on.
Also, Congratulations!
We welcomed our third daughter in April. Our BabyJogger double stroller has been amazing. So many outing, naps, jaunts to the market. It holds it all. And folds fairly easily.
A shot in profile for schlepping cred. http://twitpic.com/2dvig
A napping shot for interior. http://twitpic.com/2dvmq
[...] Why Facebook has never listened and why it definitely won’t start now.Social bookmarking: [...]
Facebook is a very strong brand now. It would take a lot HUGE MISTAKES to turn it down. Like you said, your wife hasn’t left FB. I know some friends complaining the new layout. But guess what.. they don’t leave.
The brand is too powerful to fail over a layout change. And the fact that FB is adopting other features such as FriendFeed is brilliant, to my opinion. Zuckerberg knows how to adapt his business to the trend. He sees far beyond what most of the complaining customers are seeing.
Facebook is a very strong brand now. It would take a lot HUGE MISTAKES to turn it down. Like you said, your wife hasn’t left FB. I know some friends complaining the new layout. But guess what.. they don’t leave.
The brand is too powerful to fail over a layout change. And the fact that FB is adopting other features such as FriendFeed is brilliant, to my opinion. Zuckerberg knows how to adapt his business to the trend. He sees far beyond what most of the complaining customers are seeing.
How people can respond to this article with a straight face, let alone agree with it is absolutely hilarious. Facebook achieved its success because people found it to be useful tool to socialize with hence the service being defined as a “social networking website.” Zuckerberg made it perfectly clear early on in his patented internal memos, that increased advertising was being done to maintain Facebook as a free entity, it wasn’t until later that the urge to bank in on the millions of people swarming to his website became irresistible.
Now, making money is not inherently bad, hell, I’d love to have a piece of Mark’s fortune, but not through the means of exploitation. Yes, I said it. Facebook exploits its users because of their attachment to its services. Good business model or not, Zuckerberg is making money on a service that was originally designed for college kids to get together to be college kids. I used to be one of those college kids, and I loved the fact that we had a site that acted like a club of sorts, where our parents and little siblings couldn’t invade, leaving them to wallow in the depths that is Myspace. Is this a bit elitist? Of course it is, but no one outside of current college students and alumni knows what life is like in college. Can you imagine if an African American or Jewish networking site all of a sudden opened up to the public for anyone and everyone to flock to? I’d think that might instill a bit of resentment in their original demographic.
Mark sold out those who made Facebook what it is today, and now those original users have graduated and are abandoning the once useful college networking tool making the service a shell of its former self. Getting friend requests from grandparents and little brothers is not what I’d call a positive transition. But oh wait, it doesn’t matter because Mark is going to make more money; screw those who he once called peers.