The majority of Facebook’s negative PR discussion has revolved around its recent implementation of Beacon, but there’s a bigger issue at hand.  The challenges that Beacon has posed to Facebook have been well documented:

• On November 30, New York Times reporter Louise Story claims that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg misled her about Beacon’s being an opt-in program, when it was actually opt-out.
• Coca-Cola subsequently decides to temporarily withdraw from the Beacon program because they “are not sure how consumers are going to respond."
• Zuckerberg blogs his apology on December 5, noting that Facebook "did a bad job with this release.” (To his credit, he noted that Beacon was now fully opt-in, and announced that Facebook had released a privacy control to turn off Beacon completely).

Should history repeat itself, the impact of the Beacon fiasco will be short lived.  If Zuckerberg's mea culpa for misuse of privacy controls sounds familiar, it should.  In September 2006 he wrote his first blogged apology on the subject of Facebook's news- and mini-feeds.  Interestingly, implementation of these feeds caused a much more negative user reaction than Beacon.  In fact, it is difficult to say how many Facebook users actually know (or care) about Beacon and its privacy issues.

             

The Real Issue

There’s only one thing that all Facebook users unanimously care about, and it's not privacy.  It's their accounts.  And now, word has gotten out that Facebook is disabling accounts without prompts or warnings.  The result?  Long discussions from angry/upset/disappointed/confused users are starting on sites like GetSatisfaction.

The Reasoning

It is understandable why Facebook would feel the need to disable user accounts: to stop spammers.  Too many pokes, too many friends, fake names, too many groups, too many wall posts can all get you, well, canned.  The basic premise behind this: “Always in moderation”…

The social graph relies on it.

In order to truly capture preferences and behaviors, the “social graph,” a construct described by Zuckerberg in the August 24, 2007 Newsweek cover story titled “Facebook Grows Up,” Facebook users need to do one thing: tell the truth.  The social graph “is a mathematical construct that maps the real-life connections between every human on the planet.”  I.e. the social graph relies on users’ Internet behavior, ideally, aligning with their real-life behavior.  Plain and simple.

The Irony

By disabling accounts for the reasons listed above, Facebook is identifying people it considers to be spammers.  But, what if they aren’t?  The irony here is that many of the people that are getting their accounts disabled are those contributing the most to the social graph construct.  They’re creating groups, interacting extensively with their friends (which inherently encourages their other friends to use Facebook more), and likely updating their accounts on a real time basis.  As their preferences change, their Facebook accounts change.

Facebook has begun to turn away the very users that it needs to legitimize its value proposition, due largely to unclear behavioral policies.  When the unknowing ex-Facebookers write to the company for an explanation, they essentially get a form letter that concludes with, “We will not reactivate your account for any reason.  This decision is final.”

Something tells me the decision won’t be final.

The Predicament

Over time, Facebook has added components to its site that encourage users to remain logged-in and active for longer periods of time.

• News-feeds and mini-feeds allow you to spend more time seeing what your friends are up to.  
• Friend finder lets you locate more friends through facilitated search tools.  
• A newly implemented Ajax interface allows you to scroll through pictures faster…so you can look at more off them.
  
• Facebook apps encourage interaction between users.  

So, if Facebook wants you to spend more time on the site, why is it disabling accounts for people who are doing just that?

The Conclusion

Facebook’s best new app should not be an app at all.  The company needs to complement its product with an innovative look at customer service.  Mark Zuckerberg should not feel compelled to blog an apology every time his company hits a bump in the road.  With 35+ million users, and a nice new chunk of change to spend, Facebook needs to research and develop customer service programs to ensure that their core membership remains fully satisfied, and not underappreciated.  Let your actions speak for themselves.

I love Facebook.  It is a product that hesitated to adopt (definitely late majority), but once I joined I was as hooked as anyone else.  I want it to succeed.  But in order to do so, it will have to go back to basics.  Slow down.  Formidable challengers will come along, but until then the users aren’t going anywhere. 

Unless their accounts are disabled.

I ran across two absolutely fascinating and thought provoking videos from Professor Michael Wesch of the University of Kansas while reading TechCrunch this weekend.

Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us

This video has received over 3.5 million views and 6,000 comments on YouTube since it was first posted in February 2007.  Makes you appreciate the value of separating form from content on the Web.  There is no narration in this video, so pay close attention...I'd even encourage watching it twice to catch all the nuances.

Information R/evolution

This video was posted only 1 week ago and has already received 60,000 views.  It's about "digital information" vs. information as it has been traditionally defined. 

These videos are meaningful indicators of the communications landscape to come:

1. Information gathering is becoming increasingly decentralized.

The "company Web site" and highly circulated publications are no longer the only viable sources of information about products, services and other offerings.

 

2. Anybody with an Internet connection and a bright (or not so bright) idea can have an impact on even the most well managed brands.

This impact, if negative, can be virtually out of the realm of immediate damage control, as "messaging" is meaningless to the majority of Internet authors.  Take a look at my previous post for some good examples.

 

3. Of the utmost importance to brand builders is that we have equal opportunity to provide meaningful contributions to this "information r/evolution."

Content is King.  Yes, there is an excessive amount of "noise" in Web 2.0 and the public exposed to it may turn a deaf ear.  But this should not divert those who wish to build strong brands from using it. 

 

I'll part with a simple reality: If you ignore the Web, you will be left behind. Without risk there's no reward...and someone is always willing to take the risk.

 

Well, actually, it's silicone.  Silicone gel.  Rubber silicone?  Who cares.

 
As of today, I've been wearing a LIVESTRONG wristband for exactly 1,228 days - since the day it first came out - without ever removing it from my wrist.  It's been through showers, flag football, the Pacific Ocean and college parties diligent study sessions, and still looks the same as the day I bought it.  Not a single sign of wear.

 
But the other day, it encountered its toughest test to date: a 5 year-old on a temper tantrum.  Quite possibly one of the scariest things known to any 23 year-old without kids.

 
Two weeks ago, while I was coaching my basketball team of 5, 6 and 7 year olds at the YMCA, a young boy ran through our practice, stole the basketball from one of the players, and ran off to the playground with it.  I walked over, asked for the ball and brought it back.  Then he did it again.  I recovered the ball, again.  Then he heads our way for a third go-around.  I gently put both hands out to stop him from taking the ball.  I couldn't let this go on all day...

 
He glared at me, like...Chucky.  Then he stuck two tiny fingers around my LIVESTRONG wristband and continued to stare directly into my eyes.  He was going to rip off something I had not voluntarily removed in 3 years - it was as much a part of me as my fingers and toes.

 
What would you do if, for no apparent reason, someone attempted to destroy something of yours that was easily replaceable, but infinitely meaningful?

 
After some light coaxing, and help from other parents who were around (as his were nowhere to be found), the boy finally let go.

 
This got me thinking - why has "living strong" become so important to me, and millions and millions of others?  Why did it take something as simple as a $1 wristband for me to derive motivation and inspiration from the simple things in life?

 
This blog is about simplicity.  The LIVESTRONG brand has successfully employed a strategy of simple associations to transition from a popular trend to a sustainable movement in only 3 years.  It uniquely impacts groups of people, as well as individuals.  It is an ideal combination of content and creativity, in:

one word,

one color,

with immeasurable impact.

 

It's not just a yellow piece of rubber.