Afterall, we hope that Zuckerberg & co.’s strategic vision extends beyond copying Twitter and FriendFeed.

I think they needed to radically shift the mode of interaction from a passive newsfeed model to an active publisher-based model.

Let’s also not forget that Zuckerberg faced the same backlash when introducing the newsfeed, and was proven right.

I think we’ve seen Facebook’s willingness to take chances, and when wrong (see Beacon, or T&C’s privacy issue) roll them back quickly.

Compared to risk-averse culture that has Google and Yahoo acquiring more services than developing new ones – it’s a breathe of fresh air to see Facebook stay true to the attitude that made it successful in the first place.

Afterall, we hope that Zuckerberg & co.’s strategic vision extends beyond copying Twitter and FriendFeed.

I think they needed to radically shift the mode of interaction from a passive newsfeed model to an active publisher-based model.

Let’s also not forget that Zuckerberg faced the same backlash when introducing the newsfeed, and was proven right.

I think we’ve seen Facebook’s willingness to take chances, and when wrong (see Beacon, or T&C’s privacy issue) roll them back quickly.

Compared to risk-averse culture that has Google and Yahoo acquiring more services than developing new ones – it’s a breathe of fresh air to see Facebook stay true to the attitude that made it successful in the first place.

I’m not saying that you should totally ignore vocal users, or consider it wise to make Facebook less usable to generate buzz and controversy. If I thought that was what Mark Zuckerberg was doing, I’d definitely be more vocal in speaking out against it.

What I’m proposing is that it can be a mistake to allow every input from users to define the business strategy and direction of the company – for example, the recent Facebook changes might have made the site initially less usable/more confusing for the average person, but if the eventual aim is to increase brands using Facebook advertising and to allow better data collection, then it might be the right move for Facebook as a business.

Essentially it’s a word of caution against jumping on the social media bandwagon and advocating that you take every opinion into account – if you’re doing something radically different, a lot of people will speak out as an instinctive reaction before even giving it a try. How many films have been attacked for various reasons by people who haven’t even seen or read much about them, for example, or been watered down by focus audiences? I think it was South Park which initially made a focus group of female viewers start crying when they watched it, but by going ahead it became enormously successful.

To get value from listening, monitoring and involving people, it takes a certain amount of awareness and knowledge to set things up in the right way – for instance, the use of ideagoras by the likes of P&G etc is a very specific way of using the wisdom of many individuals outside of the company to be involved in value creation. You need to have a clear idea of what and how you’ll respond, and why. For instance, implementing @ replies in Twitter was a hugely important user-driven innovation, and yet the Twitter team haven’t responded to the requests to implement groups as yet, and I’d guess that’s due to a business reason, rather than hiding away!

I’m not saying that you should totally ignore vocal users, or consider it wise to make Facebook less usable to generate buzz and controversy. If I thought that was what Mark Zuckerberg was doing, I’d definitely be more vocal in speaking out against it.

What I’m proposing is that it can be a mistake to allow every input from users to define the business strategy and direction of the company – for example, the recent Facebook changes might have made the site initially less usable/more confusing for the average person, but if the eventual aim is to increase brands using Facebook advertising and to allow better data collection, then it might be the right move for Facebook as a business.

Essentially it’s a word of caution against jumping on the social media bandwagon and advocating that you take every opinion into account – if you’re doing something radically different, a lot of people will speak out as an instinctive reaction before even giving it a try. How many films have been attacked for various reasons by people who haven’t even seen or read much about them, for example, or been watered down by focus audiences? I think it was South Park which initially made a focus group of female viewers start crying when they watched it, but by going ahead it became enormously successful.

To get value from listening, monitoring and involving people, it takes a certain amount of awareness and knowledge to set things up in the right way – for instance, the use of ideagoras by the likes of P&G etc is a very specific way of using the wisdom of many individuals outside of the company to be involved in value creation. You need to have a clear idea of what and how you’ll respond, and why. For instance, implementing @ replies in Twitter was a hugely important user-driven innovation, and yet the Twitter team haven’t responded to the requests to implement groups as yet, and I’d guess that’s due to a business reason, rather than hiding away!

Just look at the Ross/Brand thing, only a minority of the people who watch the BBC/read the Daily Mail actually went for the throat, and they got it.

I’m not saying this is the same thing, and I think some controversy and idea of ‘keeping it fresh’ in Social Media is a good thing, but to actively dismiss the vocal minority is a dangerous thing.

Oh, and I don’t like it either.

Gareth

Just look at the Ross/Brand thing, only a minority of the people who watch the BBC/read the Daily Mail actually went for the throat, and they got it.

I’m not saying this is the same thing, and I think some controversy and idea of ‘keeping it fresh’ in Social Media is a good thing, but to actively dismiss the vocal minority is a dangerous thing.

Oh, and I don’t like it either.

Gareth