This is one of those important posts to forward to your marketing team, agency partners, and to Facebook themselves.
While there’s been plenty of coverage about user privacy concerns, attention on Facebook’s changes on brands hasn’t been adequately covered, this analysis is intended to unravel what’s at stake –and what brands should do. I’ve spoken to a handful of brands and their representatives to learn what’s eating at them.
Summary: Facebook has quietly launched ‘Community Pages’ Hampering Brands
Facebook has launched several new policies and features since the F8 Conference ‘Crusade of Colonization’ which has resulted in a large backlash from media around user privacy. It’s not clear if beyond the vocal media if users will leave the site in droves. Perhaps more importantly, Facebook launched “Facebook Community Pages” (read the official post) a feature that aggregates content from wikipedia and Facebook wall posts. Think of it as a cross between Wikipedia with user comments –sometimes unwittingly. These changes cause confusion for users, diminishing control for brands, and strains on the already torrid relationship between Facebook and brands.
Motives: Facebook Must Go Open To Increase Monetization Inventory
Facebook continues to leap ahead of their competitors in terms of innovation, however that often comes with risks to their community. Here’s why they are making these moves:
- At Facebook, Innovation Means Asking For Forgiveness Later. This is a pattern. Facebook believes in their vision and launches innovative products (by innovation, I mean features others have not dared to do first) and then asks for forgiveness later. They often move faster than their community is ready, from going for .edu to public, exposing wall posts features, to Beacon, they push forward in the name of innovation.
- Aggregation is a Cheap and Effective Way of Creating New Content. It’s a brilliant model to repurpose existing content from other sites, as it’s low-cost for Facebook. However, the downside is that content aggregated from Facebook members wall pages may not have been intended to be created as public.
- Resulting in More Content Inventory for Advertising Opportunities. Facebook knows that in order to compete with massive Google, they need more content to be public. As a default, most features and content types are now being published in public, and you’re seeing why they’re aggregating existing Wikipedia content to drive up SEO and advertising revenue. They must be open to win the end game of monetization.
Matrix: How Facebook’s ‘Community Pages’ and Privacy Changes Impact Brands
| The Change | Description | Impacts to Brands | What No One Tells You |
| Community Pages | In the spirit of Wikipedia, Facebook launched a feature that aggregates content from Wikipedia and public wall posts from users | This has created confusion among users as many iterations of a single brand may spread from ‘official’ Facebook pages to now community pages. (see example from Arbor Day) Additionally, this causes angst among brands who were told to invest. | Facebook struggles with being public, so their strategy is to aggregate the public web into Facebook. Yet expect brands to revaluate spending time and money in Facebook as trust has been broken. |
| Aggregation of Wall Comments | Content from users public wall posts may be aggregated to Community Pages. However users may not: 1) Know the content is public, 2) It’s being aggregated out of context | There are a few embarrassing examples of people’s content who are being aggregated such as “My Stupid Boss” as well as content being aggregated on Community Pages that are not contextually relevant. | A search powerplay for Facebook. Facebook’s betting on more public content by aggregating existing content, which in the long run will influence brands to come to Facebook as SEO scores increase. |
| Wikipedia Aggregation | Wikipedia content about any topic (including that of a brand) is now being fed into Facebook Community Pages | Less control for brands. Brands already struggle with updating and keeping accurate their Wikipedia pages, now the content will be spread to more locations. There appears to be a nod that Facebook will allow this content to someday be community edited. | To be successful, brands must keep their Wikipedia pages fresh and accurate. Expect savvy brands to ignite their advocates to manage this as Wikipedians have a general disdain against brands. |
| Logo Usage | Facebook Community Pages aggregate in corporate logos onto these webpages, often without brand content. | These real logos may cause confusion for users as they could mistake Community Pages to be the official page over Facebook pages. Legal department sending questions to the social strategist who’s not in control. | Expect embarrassment and frustration for social strategists where the Community Pages have more followers than Facebook pages. |
| Lack of Commenting Ability | The Community Pages only aggregate content (some which is out of context) and do not allow for two way dialog in the form of comments | Brands that have incorrect content on Community Pages, or brand detractors are not able to respond directly. | This will cause frustration for brands as they try to respond into the aggregated wall post section from their own Facebook Page, causing continued confusion. |
| User Privacy Woes | There’s been much written (read the Q&A with a FB exec) about the privacy woes as more content is public, with complicated privacy toggles and controls. | As users become frustrated (albeit, a small vocal amount), trust in Facebook will diminish, and brands will also lose interest in investing in Facebook. | Although consumers say they care about privacy, but in most cases, don’t expect them to do anything about it until it impacts their personal lives. |
| Communication With Brands | These Facebook Community Pages (as I’m told) were not communicated in advance to brands, and they were generally caught off guard | Partnerships are built off trust, and trust has been diminished by this recent move. I’m told (but can’t confirm) that Facebook has generally responded in email and sent a link to a web form and answered a Q&A (Which I’ve read, but will not publish) to brands. | Further degradation in trust as communication is not met both ways, brands will seek other opportunities. Such as investing in community platforms on their own sites. |
| Advertising Impacts | More advertising inventory has been created by Facebook as Community Pages already have ads on them (once you’re logged in, see right nav). | For brands that are not active in Facebook, they may see this as a “highjack” model in the recent criticisms of Squidoo, Get Satisfaction, and Wikipedia. They’ll be forced to participate as communities rally around their community pages. | The savvy brands are already active in Facebook, and those that are hesitant will continue to approach with caution (now that trust has been broken). If Facebook continues with Community Pages, expect this increase in inventory to offer increased revenue streams. |
Facebook has Diminished Relationship with Brands
For the last few years, Facebook has told brands to invest in their relationship through advertising, Facebook Pages, and connecting with applications –yet recent moves erode the relationship.
- The Trend Continues: Power Shifts Away From Brands. Nothing new, more of the same: power continues to shift away from brands, read how some colleges are ‘freaking out’ by the lack of control. However what’s different is that in the past the ‘Groundswell’ as an unstoppable force from customers, brands weren’t expecting their power to be eroded from their media partner, Facebook.
- Brands Frustrated As Community Pages Outnumber Official Page. Facebook must become more open, and expect community pages to continue to be created. (see Tweet testimonial) I’m told that Facebook will migrate community pages to your official Facebook page, but more community pages are continuing to be created.
- Burning The Bridge To Revenue Island Will Take Considerable Repairs. Because these Community Pages were launched without the consent or preview from brands, skepticism has emerged on trust of these new features. If the long term strategy of Facebook is to generate revenues from brands (I know of a 7 figure deal in the works that could be re-evaluated) due to these changes. It’s important that Facebook go back to the core values that communication foster trust, which fosters relationships, which fosters partnerships, which fosters revenues moving.
What Brands Should Do:
Although I like what Dave Fleet has had to say, there’s little advice has been offered to brands, here’s how companies should approach these changes:
- Work as a Collective. Nothing like using the power of community in order to influence a community that has power of you. Brands should connect to each other to both share intelligence, develop a common voice. Start with GasPedal’s Peer to Peer ‘Social Media Business Council‘ and the WOMMA trade organization, you’ll also find like-minded marketers in Marketing Profs, who may also offer an SMB perspective the others do not. By joining with your peers and approaching with a common voice, brands will be able to force their hand. You’ll have to work together.
- Monitor Your Brand on New Assets. If you already have a PR agency gleaning insights or have a listening platform in place, turn the listening devices towards Wikipedia and the newly minted community platforms. Setup alerting systems as changes on Wikipedia will now impact Facebook Community Pages. We’ve listed out the listening vendors in our latest report, Social Marketing Analytics.
- Spread Bets, Bring Community Closer To You. With power diminishing, brands shouldn’t place all their bets in just a few social networks. Instead, conduct socialgraphics to find out where your customers are, then invest in other networks. Furthermore, start analysis on building your own community off your corporate website for customers, advocates, and lifestyle communities. Give customers a choice to interact with others on your own properties rather than relegating to Facebook alone. Look at vendors like Mzinga, Awareness, Lithium, Kickapps, Telligent, Jive, Pluck, Liveworld, and beyond.
- Develop An Advocacy Program Now. I strongly insist that advocacy programs are key for today’s brand. They may have access to update Wikipedia pages, influence prospects, and become brand advocates when companies are unable to scale. Use this advocacy program checklist to get started now. See how vendors like Zuberance, Expo TV, and in some form, Bazaarvoice can spur forward advocates voices and aggregate.
I’ve spent a few days sorting this out, and reading as much as I could, however if you’ve got more to add, please leave a comment with your observation, or suggestion for brands below. Update: I’d like to thank LaSandra Brill, a strategist at corporate who was a great source of information. I rely on her for her perspective, and I think you should too, follow her on Twitter. I like how Peter Friedman has made clear points on how Facebook must live with their world, both in comments and his latest post.
Update May 27th: Roy Young, the head of Marketing Profs, has conducted a survey of users and marketers about Facebook’s changes in privacy, which are related to the community pages changes. Their findings indicate that trust has eroded in Facebook, and Marketers were more concerned over privacy than consumers. The most important findings is that marketers will ‘somewhat increase’ their investments in Facebook in next 3 months.
This is a great, valuable read. I'm curious how long it stays relevant as I'd expect this to change far sooner than Facebook's privacy policy. Facebook's biting the brands that feed them, creating a lot of confusion and extra work for the same marketers that are the source of Facebook's revenue. Meanwhile, there's no clear value for Facebook's users either. It may take a bit but I'm betting that this one aspect of FB's latest updates will change considerably.
This is a great, valuable read. I'm curious how long it stays relevant as I'd expect this to change far sooner than Facebook's privacy policy. Facebook's biting the brands that feed them, creating a lot of confusion and extra work for the same marketers that are the source of Facebook's revenue. Meanwhile, there's no clear value for Facebook's users either. It may take a bit but I'm betting that this one aspect of FB's latest updates will change considerably.
Yes, Facebook wants to be more public, but it also wants brands to create pages and in turn advertise them. And it wants people to create their own community pages and provide more content. It can achieve its goals plenty well without doing this kind of scraping that you find common among domain squatters and other scammers.
Yes, Facebook wants to be more public, but it also wants brands to create pages and in turn advertise them. And it wants people to create their own community pages and provide more content. It can achieve its goals plenty well without doing this kind of scraping that you find common among domain squatters and other spammers.
Jeremiah, what do you think the likelihood is that Facebook's way to give brands more control over the Community Page will be to add some paid item (maybe a custom tab) to the Comm pages? You also mention the acct mgrs, sales execs, etc. Outside of brands with large facebook ads spends, do you see FB currently engaging with brands more strategically with their fb presence (Fan Page, Plugins, etc)?
Finally, seems like a lot of the redundant Community Pages creating problems for brands are the ones keyed off a user's employment history on their profiles (those have Suitcases icons). Seems they could quiet some of the problem by just omitting those from their Community Page algorithm.
Jeremiah, what do you think the likelihood is that Facebook's way to give brands more control over the Community Page will be to add some paid item (maybe a custom tab) to the Comm pages? You also mention the acct mgrs, sales execs, etc. Outside of brands with large facebook ads spends, do you see FB currently engaging with brands more strategically with their fb presence (Fan Page, Plugins, etc)?
Finally, seems like a lot of the redundant Community Pages creating problems for brands are the ones keyed off a user's employment history on their profiles (those have Suitcases icons). Seems they could quiet some of the problem by just omitting those from their Community Page algorithm.
Two changes I would recommend to Facebook that would make the Community Pages experience less confusing to users and more beneficial to brands:
1) Display a brand's Official Page(s) as the first result(s) in a search query for that brand's name.
As an example of the current messiness of Facebook search: On Friday I was searching for the name of a major restaurant food chain in an effort to find its official Facebook Page, and I had a hard time finding it. Community Pages that included that brand's name in the title were surfacing first. No wonder “Like” counts on Official Pages aren't going up as quickly as some brands would like – their Pages can't be found in simple search!
2) Have some obvious indication of a brand's Official Page on the Page itself, the equivalent of Twitter's “Verified Account” badge. This would help to minimize some of the confusion for users.
Also, just to add to their confusion … there *are* Community Pages that allow for Wall commenting (I just created one to confirm that!) … but not all of them are that way. It seems to depend, as of now, on whether the Community Page was manually created by a user (commenting allowed) or was launched by Facebook to aggregrate public comments/Wikipedia entries about that brand/topic, such as “My Stupid Boss,” (no Wall comments allowed).
Clear as mud, right?
Two changes I would recommend to Facebook that would make the Community Pages experience less confusing to users and more beneficial to brands:
1) Display a brand's Official Page(s) as the first result(s) in a search query for that brand's name.
As an example of the current messiness of Facebook search: On Friday I was searching for the name of a major restaurant food chain in an effort to find its official Facebook Page, and I had a hard time finding it. Community Pages that included that brand's name in the title were surfacing first. No wonder “Like” counts on Official Pages aren't going up as quickly as some brands would like – their Pages can't be found in simple search!
2) Have some obvious indication of a brand's Official Page on the Page itself, the equivalent of Twitter's “Verified Account” badge. This would help to minimize some of the confusion for users.
Also, just to add to their confusion … there *are* Community Pages that allow for Wall commenting (I just created one to confirm that!) … but not all of them are that way. It seems to depend, as of now, on whether the Community Page was manually created by a user (commenting allowed) or was launched by Facebook to aggregrate public comments/Wikipedia entries about that brand/topic, such as “My Stupid Boss,” (no Wall comments allowed).
Clear as mud, right?
Holy blog entry…Thank you for distilling this info, Jeremiah. These behind-the-scenes, ask-forgiveness-later FB shifts are HUGE, messy, and have such a profound impact on so many brands, businesses, and entrepreneurs that it's almost too colossal to consider. Just reading your insights and synopses here makes me feel like I'm riding the most hyped up bucking bronco this side of the Colorado Rockies.
As co-owner and “Content Lover” of a social marketing consulting firm, I have to officially proclaim Brand Anarchy as the new world order. The best we can all do is embrace it with our arms flung open, look for the opportunities, and get EXTRAORDINARY at learning how to bend like a reed in the wind.
For anyone still clinging to the possibility of control, clarity, and order, this new and ever-evolving paradigm shift is gonna hurt like the dickens, and it's only going to get worse. For those of us more open to chaos, change, and exquisite uncertainty, a very loud and bold “BRING IT ON!” may be the only mantra we'll need to face the adventures of the business day.
Thanks again for breaking it down like this!
-Lani Voivod
Co-owner & Content Lover of Epiphanies, Inc.
Holy blog entry…Thank you for distilling this info, Jeremiah. These behind-the-scenes, ask-forgiveness-later FB shifts are HUGE, messy, and have such a profound impact on so many brands, businesses, and entrepreneurs that it's almost too colossal to consider. Just reading your insights and synopses here makes me feel like I'm riding the most hyped up bucking bronco this side of the Colorado Rockies.
As co-owner and “Content Lover” of a social marketing consulting firm, I have to officially proclaim Brand Anarchy as the new world order. The best we can all do is embrace it with our arms flung open, look for the opportunities, and get EXTRAORDINARY at learning how to bend like a reed in the wind.
For anyone still clinging to the possibility of control, clarity, and order, this new and ever-evolving paradigm shift is gonna hurt like the dickens, and it's only going to get worse. For those of us more open to chaos, change, and exquisite uncertainty, a very loud and bold “BRING IT ON!” may be the only mantra we'll need to face the adventures of the business day.
Thanks again for breaking it down like this!
-Lani Voivod
Co-owner & Content Lover of Epiphanies, Inc.
The eco-system challenge. Facebook must live with the world it created.
Very interesting blog, which simultaneous lays Facebook out as an innovator, yet one that is constraining and confusing its customers — brands and consumers.
But why this dichotomy and conflict? And what to do about it? The answer lies in the large eco-system nature of the service.
When a product, a company or a brand becomes an ecosystem such as Facebook today or in the past, eBay, AOL, Apple, Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Windows and IBM SNA- the first responsibility of the company and the most pressure is just maintaining it. Usually the ecosystem is quite large and the company has its hands full just keeping it working. Assuming that calms down for a few days, the company's next challenge is to moderately advance the system consistently across the board without alienating its massive user and partner base.
I recall years ago when I was at Apple, one day attending meetings with our partner-foe Microsoft on their Bellvue WA campus. A Microsoft Vice President explained to me that they just didn't have time or energy to think much about the Macintosh as an OS competitor. Their primary challenge in life was upgrading 90% of the market reflecting hundreds of millions if installed Windows PCs. To move the installed base forward with even a few features was a monumental task. Worrying about competing with or out-innovating competitors with less than 10% market share paled next to the pressure of addressing 90% of the market.
And so it goes for massive online services. With 500 Million registered users, and hundreds of millions active daily, Facebook must first keep itself running, and then try to incrementally innovate. As we have seen when it moves too fast or too far, the installed base and the eco-system won't absorb it and will even rebel. If Facebook moves too slow, they expose themselves to being eclipsed by a new competitor or not building a viable economic model.
IBM, Microsoft , Apple and Adobe Photoshop addressed this by creating eco-systems based on development platforms for 3rd parties. The primary company took responsibility for the eco-system while empowering and delegating to 3rd parties the task to innovate through applications built on the platform. Facebook is attempting the same model. By opening the system to application developers on the one hand and any web site on the other, Facebook seeks to extend its eco-system in both capability and reach, just as Apple and Microsoft have done.
Here then are the opportunities and challenges
1) The 3rd parties must create substantive value for other members of the eco-system
– in this case consumers and for brands creating economic opportunity through marketing returns. We've certainly seen a huge number of Facebook apps that consumers use and we can expect more. On the brand side, more progress is needed. Some tools and apps enable Brands to have a presence on Facebook, but few have impacted their real marketing goals.
LiveWorld's new Facebook Conversation Applications (Forums, Idea Power, Ask & Answer) address this by providing brands with much greater customer engagement than previously available on Facebook. This is accomplished by deep dialogue capability among and with customers, rich media and strong moderation tools. So far brand and agency response is strong.
2) Facebook must manage the balance of supporting the 3rd parties to provide innovation, while advancing the basic eco-system carefully
This is partly a matter of priority; does Facebook spend its resources helping developers with APIs, tools and marketing support, or working on the basic Facebook system. One might say do both. But that under-estimates the monumental task of just keeping it running
Eventually Faceboolk will face the challenge of when to leave innovation to the 3rd parties or to co-opt the innovation itself. If it co-ops too much it will alienate the 3rd parties and damage a core part of the ecosystem. If it relies only on the 3rd parties it risks being beaten by a direct competitor.
As a Facebook 3rd party developer we are sometime asked “Since your application is so incredibly value add to Facebook, aren't you worried that Facebook will do it themselves?” The answer is “We keep an eye on that, but believe we are better suited to focused innovation than the eco-system steward.”
3) Culture: Who rules, the company or the eco-system?
– All eco-systems have a culture in which the members participate. For our non-social web examples such as Microsoft or Apple, the company has both strong influence on and some level of control over the culture. But in a social web model such as eBay, AOL or Facebook, the social dynamic is actually stronger than the company that created it. These brands cannot simply control or direct the culture. They are as subject to it just as much as the 3rd parties and end users.
– Facebook's mis-steps (Beacon, the current privacy controversy) can be seen as Facebook at odds with the culture of the Facebook eco-system. They desperately want to move the eco-system forward, but the eco-system keeps bending the company back to where it was. Facebook's must find ways of working with the culture, yet not allowing it to hold things still. Most likely Facebook will just have to keep taking two steps forward,only to take one step backwards.
The eco-system challenge. Facebook must live with the world it created.
Very interesting blog, which simultaneous lays Facebook out as an innovator, yet one that is constraining and confusing its customers — brands and consumers.
But why this dichotomy and conflict? And what to do about it? The answer lies in the large eco-system nature of the service.
When a product, a company or a brand becomes an ecosystem such as Facebook today or in the past, eBay, AOL, Apple, Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Windows and IBM SNA- the first responsibility of the company and the most pressure is just maintaining it. Usually the ecosystem is quite large and the company has its hands full just keeping it working. Assuming that calms down for a few days, the company's next challenge is to moderately advance the system consistently across the board without alienating its massive user and partner base.
I recall years ago when I was at Apple, one day attending meetings with our partner-foe Microsoft on their Bellvue WA campus. A Microsoft Vice President explained to me that they just didn't have time or energy to think much about the Macintosh as an OS competitor. Their primary challenge in life was upgrading 90% of the market reflecting hundreds of millions if installed Windows PCs. To move the installed base forward with even a few features was a monumental task. Worrying about competing with or out-innovating competitors with less than 10% market share paled next to the pressure of addressing 90% of the market.
And so it goes for massive online services. With 500 Million registered users, and hundreds of millions active daily, Facebook must first keep itself running, and then try to incrementally innovate. As we have seen when it moves too fast or too far, the installed base and the eco-system won't absorb it and will even rebel. If Facebook moves too slow, they expose themselves to being eclipsed by a new competitor or not building a viable economic model.
IBM, Microsoft , Apple and Adobe Photoshop addressed this by creating eco-systems based on development platforms for 3rd parties. The primary company took responsibility for the eco-system while empowering and delegating to 3rd parties the task to innovate through applications built on the platform. Facebook is attempting the same model. By opening the system to application developers on the one hand and any web site on the other, Facebook seeks to extend its eco-system in both capability and reach, just as Apple and Microsoft have done.
Here then are the opportunities and challenges
1) The 3rd parties must create substantive value for other members of the eco-system
– in this case consumers and for brands creating economic opportunity through marketing returns. We've certainly seen a huge number of Facebook apps that consumers use and we can expect more. On the brand side, more progress is needed. Some tools and apps enable Brands to have a presence on Facebook, but few have impacted their real marketing goals.
LiveWorld's new Facebook Conversation Applications (Forums, Idea Power, Ask & Answer) address this by providing brands with much greater customer engagement than previously available on Facebook. This is accomplished by deep dialogue capability among and with customers, rich media and strong moderation tools. So far brand and agency response is strong.
2) Facebook must manage the balance of supporting the 3rd parties to provide innovation, while advancing the basic eco-system carefully
This is partly a matter of priority; does Facebook spend its resources helping developers with APIs, tools and marketing support, or working on the basic Facebook system. One might say do both. But that under-estimates the monumental task of just keeping it running
Eventually Faceboolk will face the challenge of when to leave innovation to the 3rd parties or to co-opt the innovation itself. If it co-ops too much it will alienate the 3rd parties and damage a core part of the ecosystem. If it relies only on the 3rd parties it risks being beaten by a direct competitor.
As a Facebook 3rd party developer we are sometime asked “Since your application is so incredibly value add to Facebook, aren't you worried that Facebook will do it themselves?” The answer is “We keep an eye on that, but believe we are better suited to focused innovation than the eco-system steward.”
3) Culture: Who rules, the company or the eco-system?
– All eco-systems have a culture in which the members participate. For our non-social web examples such as Microsoft or Apple, the company has both strong influence on and some level of control over the culture. But in a social web model such as eBay, AOL or Facebook, the social dynamic is actually stronger than the company that created it. These brands cannot simply control or direct the culture. They are as subject to it just as much as the 3rd parties and end users.
– Facebook's mis-steps (Beacon, the current privacy controversy) can be seen as Facebook at odds with the culture of the Facebook eco-system. They desperately want to move the eco-system forward, but the eco-system keeps bending the company back to where it was. Facebook's must find ways of working with the culture, yet not allowing it to hold things still. Most likely Facebook will just have to keep taking two steps forward,only to take one step backwards.
Somebody mention anarchy? What if the anti ipad coalition makes a move for aggregation control and just start posting crap… Guess it's just social graffitti and banning spam is an intrusion on free speech… Let the walls beware.
I like your comments as it applies to now, but then I step back and wonder what the walls will be like 5 years from now and further – Will Facebook be a good Ancestor?
Funny how infrastructure erodes when you keep building up and out.
I was pretty peeved to find my “private” personal page comment on a “Community Page” just now. I made a comment on my private “friend's only” wall about a place I had vacationed in, and other friend's replied, etc. I was searching to become a possible fan of this place, and I find a Community Page for this place. When I click on its “wall” tab, I see my private comment in it, along with other FB user's comments that I am sure are also private because when I clicked on their names it would not let me see their profile aside from the info tab! I am also sure these people are completely unaware that their private posts are also public now. Incredible! I guess the new FB “privacy” features are just hogwash, because I will now be watching any words I type on my “private” wall, for fear that my personal comment might now be made public against my wishes.
Your last sentence summed it up succinctly!
This is one of those important posts to forward to your marketing team, agency partners, and to Facebook themselves.