Faceful of Fury

Jump the sharkNobody wants to jump the shark. It’s a surefire sign you’re on the downhill slope. The phrase “jump the shark” has embedded itself in North American culture, referring to the demarcation between “reasonably good Happy Days” and “incredibly lame Happy Days.” Many pundits of various disciplines jockey for position to be the first to declare definitively that “______” has jumped the shark.

The interest in amateur punditry has created a new dynamic, where a small critical mass of Shark Jumping Cries can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the cool kids turn on you, you may not recover. Which brings us face-to-face with Facebook again.

From Buyout to Sellout

I stumbled across a link (hat tip: Bill Green) to a news story about a rising tide of angst among the Facebook Nation. They saw the headlines about Microsoft’s Micro-purchase, which subsequently set a capitalized value of $15-billion. (To put that in perspective involving a completely fictional statistic, that probably works out for a dollar each time a user has been pestered to add an application to their Facebook profile.) $15-billion seems really high, until you think about all of the wonderful personal data each user has forever locked away within the Facebook vault. There’s got to be a way to monetize all of that, right?

Needless to say, Facebook Nation is awakening to the reality that they might just be willing participants in history’s largest marketing experiment. Many of them are starting to resent it very much. The sentiment is starting to build that Facebook is sporting a leather jacket and a tow rope, ready to…

(okay. No one is saying that yet. Except Kevin Dugan, but he was talking about something else way back in June and this is my chance to be the first to… ah, never mind.)

Perception Becomes Reality

Fonzie action figureThese memes are powerful, though. And they can spring forth from a very small nugget of reality. Why do you think Google has been ever so careful for so many years to cultivate the mantra of “Don’t Be Evil?” Because the cool kids in Mountain View understand just how quickly attitudes adjust online. Because the culture has been one of giving-giving-giving, with only moderate taking (and making money on volume-volume-volume.) Because Google has understood the value of wearing the leather jacket without the water skis.

Facebook is at a crossroads. Will it put on the skis, or will it tiptoe away to play another day?

Getting the most out of Facebook

Earlier, I mentioned how Facebook users were unwitting participants in a marketing experiment. As it turns out, we can turn the tables by doing market research of our own. For instance, in that same article cited above, we find an interesting little statistic:

It is early days, but so far Facebook’s online community is not impressed at being sold out. Discussion groups have sprung up attacking the new ad strategy. One, “My photos are MINE! NOT Facebook’s! Change the Terms and Conditions”, has almost 35,000 members, while around 12,000 people have signed up to “Facebook: Do not sell my private pictures! Change your terms of use, NOW!”

Contrast that with the feeble 600 so-called “fans” that Coke has on its Facebook page. And Blockbuster, that US movie lending giant, has a whopping two “fans”.

Blockbuster has only two fans on Facebook? I’m certain that the department that lobbied for the creation of that group had more than two team members. It’s rather embarrassing on two fronts. It’s bad enough if Blockbuster actually created the group – and it’s even worse if they didn’t.

A Blockbuster Failure?

Blockbuster is going through some very rough times. The brick-and-mortar stores are not faring well at all with the NetFlix model – which is based on the notion that postage and convenience is cheaper than physical buildings and redundant local inventories. Blockbuster has tried marketing an approach that is “best of both worlds” as it tries to establish on online rental alternative to NetFlix. At first glance, you might think that a Facebook presence would be helpful for Blockbuster, but not as a “Friends of” group. The more workable idea might be a “Movies I’m Watching” application, with an ever-so-slight branding. Something that shows what all your friends are watching too. Something that makes suggestions based on what your friends’ friends have liked.

I don’t know if Blockbuster is web-savvy enough to pull it off — and if Facebook is on water skis, then it’s too late anyway. I know that Blockbuster isn’t listening to blog entries. I wrote a very glowing review of my last experience at a Blockbuster, where an employee was quite helpful. I wanted to know how I could brag to about this employee’s exemplary service. I marked up the entry with obvious tags to Blockbuster. If they were even looking at all, it would have popped up in neon. All I wanted to do was brag on this employee who went out of his way. That was ago. The clock is still ticking. Now is gone. Consider the shark jumped.

Share Button

Comments

  1. I believe that Facebook has provided the ultimate argument for why those of us who have yet to sign up for an account will not do so. We had an uncomfortable feeling in our gut, we held back and now we’re saying, “whew!”. Granted, I’m sure that all my information can be discovered via my other favorite web sites, but not in the detail that a Facebook account would have uncovered. With that said, I’ve been following all the discussions around how businesses can use Facebook, MySpace, etc., and I do find it intriguing. I do believe in social media/Web 2.0 and that these tools can help a business, when you find the magical solution right for you. What saddens me is that the big consumer companies will either succeed or fail within this marketing experiment. If they fail, it makes it that much harder to persuade other company management in smaller industries that Web 2.0 can be a good thing.

  2. I believe DoubleClick / Google has had all our personal info and buying habits for a long time and has made HUGE amounts of money from it. Facebook is merely being more upfront about it.

    Perhaps Facebook (already packed with a contingency on this issue) aims to show just what “Don’t be Evil” has been up to all this time with the fine print in their toolbar, affiliations, free analytics, Desktop Search, and acquisitions.

    It would seem that the Facebook camp is being Honest, Ethically sound, and Transparent with their approach.

    The “Facebook Stop invading my privacy” group on Facebook is organized by MoveOn and has created a petition against Facebook.
    Oddly enough, I can’t find anything about MoveOn.org condemning Google for anything other than blocking anti-MoveOn.org ads :
    http://mashable.com/2007/10/12/google-moveon/
    http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/10/moveon
    I smell some plot thickening drama. Really: Would Facebook not have thought through a privacy-backlash scenario and not have a reaction strategy? Something is cooking. I just hope they don’t let it burn.

  3. No doubt that Google and DoubleClick have been reaping rewards on the data. The piece that is angering Facebookers is the notion their pictures and profiles will be used as product endorsements – signing themselves up as Proxy WOM-bots.

    “Proxy WOM-bots”. I just made that up. Geoff, can we trademark that?

  4. This is more of the same old traditional reach and frequency bs that the offline world lived of for years. If I was a brand, I’d be very wary of trusting the data in this space. Those who DO actually bother to fill out their profiles are usually not providing accurate info.

    But hey, who cares if it’s right when they’re gonna have millions of impressions though! More than a few advertisers will convince themselves that SOME of the info has to be accurate, no?

    ;-p