Facebook: Wrong Way to Engage in a Conversation
I am a bit late to the Facebook Privacy Pity Party, but I’ve been galvanized into action. This is an issue that the PR/social media bloggers need to spend more time sussing out.
When the Facebook Beacon system (“social ads”) was announced, Mark Zuckerberg said, “It isn't an ad system based on pushing messages out. It's based on getting into the conversations that already happen between people.”
This is important stuff. But it’s also hard to figure out.
According to Pollara Strategic Insights (as quoted in the Globe and Mail):
26% of business and marketing leaders say they are less familiar with social media marketing than their own customers… (yet this approach is) becoming more important than traditional mass media… 85% said these forums have become an essential component of the communications mix.”
Important! But hard to figure out. I think proud young Facebook has yet to get it right.
Using Beacon, for example, advertisers and e-commerce sites can capture and publish your activities to your newsfeed, which in turn advertises your movements to your friends.
Get it? Your movements become their advertisements.
As Charlene Li found out, buying a coffee table at Overstock.com is no longer a personal process. All her Facebook friends now know what she bought, and how much she paid: it was published as part of her newsfeed, without her permission.
“Big deal,” you think. “It was a coffee table.”
But be sure to read the Comments that accompany Charlene’s post. THIS ONE in particular. This poor guy, “Will,” bought his girlfriend an engagement ring at Overstock.com, and soon after:
Imagine my horror when I learned that Overstock had published the details of my purchase (including a link to the item and its price) on my public Facebook newsfeed, as well as notifications to all of my friends. ALL OF MY FRIENDS, including my girlfriend, and all of her friends, etc...
ALL OF THIS WAS WITHOUT MY CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE.”
What should have been a life-altering, sweet conversation between two lovebirds became a very public disaster, thanks to Facebook. (Only Scoble would buy a ring that way!)
There are far smarter people than me discussing these issues, but I think Tony Hung (whom I deeply admire) actually got it wrong on this one. He suggests that Facebookers are sheep who ultimately won’t care about the data & privacy abuses of the Beacon system. But I think that when a major news outlet like CNN (or even an aggregator like Google News) catches wind of stories like Will’s, it’s gonna explode – along with Facebook’s current book value.
Starting a conversation that invites others to join in, at their leisure, is okay. Participating in an ongoing conversation (with transparency) is okay.
But hijacking a person’s privacy in order to sound informed when entering or starting a conversation is wrong.
As Danny Sullivan recently said of Facebook’s new advertising system in Advertising Age: “Go. Away.”
UPDATE: This issue continues to smolder. (And no one smolders like Hugh MacLeod.) I wonder if Facebook is listening?
Subscribe by Email
Click here for my LinkedIn profile
Comments
Facebook, stay out of my bedroom.
Yipes, better not have any secret admirers on that holiday gift giving list.
Tell me, how many divorce attorneys are scrubbing Facebook profiles right now?
Posted by: Albert Maruggi | November 26, 2007 12:06 PM
Bottom line: any company that truly cares about the privacy of its customers will not use Facebook Beacon. And if history is a guide, Facebook probably won't change the way it does thing - even in the face of overwhelming criticism.
Facebook has an innovative communications platform with amazing potential, but it also has some very serious problems - there's a real disconnect there on a number of issues.
Posted by: David Wescott | November 26, 2007 12:33 PM
It depends who you are, what your use for Facebook is, how you set your privacy controls and how you react to a "crisis".
Posted by: Dan Schawbel | November 26, 2007 01:17 PM
Glad to hear some real professionals weighing in on the matter! (and glad to hear that there's some integrity in how The People are viewed).
Cheers
t @ dji
PS the admiration, Todd, is mutual. :D
Posted by: Tony Hung | November 26, 2007 02:34 PM
Interesting framing by Zuckerberg there, personally I don't consider consumer purchases as part of my "conversations."
Invading lives with never-ending ads is one thing, but broadcasting lives as an ad is entirely different. What's the next step, a security camera feed of me buying a Gatorade at the convenience store? Just because I did it, and they have access to the information, doesn't mean I wanted to take part in their advertising campaign.
Posted by: Tom Reidt | November 26, 2007 06:58 PM
It's all about the value chain. It's why Doc Searls left Santa Barbara and came back to the Harvard Berkman Center: people are sick of being pawns in advertising's play. Instead, we want to have a value back for all the work we do.
That example is just.. hideous. I can't fathom having my spending habits thrown all over Facebook. Uck.
Yes, the backlash continues. But the only hope here, Obi Wan, is that Zuckerberg, who's been a cool guy up to date, will learn from his crowd and go forward.
Posted by: Chris Brogan... | November 26, 2007 09:01 PM
I used your "Social Bookmark" option and tagged this post to my Facebook page.
Are we becoming "Borg"?
Resistance to Social Media is futile.
Posted by: Kevin Dill | November 27, 2007 09:37 PM