Why is Facebook so hard to love?
Here’s a phrase I’ve been reading a lot on blogs and comments recently:
“I’m finally through with Facebook. Seriously, I’ve made my mind up and I’m going to quit (I haven’t yet, but it’s getting closer every day.)”
It’s sad. They sound a bit like smokers when they’ve got to the stage where they hate cigarettes but they can’t give up.
I should know. Somewhat shamefully, I am a smoker and I’ve been on Facebook since 2006.
Despite using Facebook quite a lot I have never managed to ‘bond’ with it in the same way I have with other social technology brands, like Twitter, Flickr and Delicious for example. I keep going back to Facebook (less these days) but only ‘cos I have to. It’s a bit like an abusive relationship, Facebook is always cross these days.
In spite of all the lovely time we’ve spent together, I just don’t have anything left inside me for Facebook any longer. It’s over. I feel cold. More seriously, the brand totally fails my t-shirt test: would you wear the logo on a t-shirt? Twitter, yes. Flickr, maybe. Delicious, yes. Facebook, no way.
Why? Because I genuinely feel something for those brands. They have a voice and character over and above just what other users bring to them (apart from Delicious, which kind of has an autistically brilliant way of resisting change whilst remaining cool – only half-joking…). By contrast, Facebook has always been almost grotesquely, spectacularly, monumentally dull.
Sure, I know the argument that Facebook must be deliberately bland so you can fill it up with your own good self and shiny, vibrant friends. The argument goes that Facebook doesn’t necessarily need a personality, because it’s a utility. I asked the good people of Twitter and it’s clear that many of them agree with the ‘completed by you’ argument. However, I’m not so sure.
In fact, Twitter is a case in point – another service that’s filled up with *you*.
On one level, it’s just another utility – another set of pipework and toobs to connect me with friends and other people. But I care about Twitter. It’s charming. It has a face (how ironic that Facebook doesn’t), and it has an identity that I can take and customise in soooo many ways. I can make Twitter in my own image and yet it remains a strong brand with a discernible personality and voice. Twitter is easy to love.
In this respect, I’m not entirely sure I get the argument that Facebook *must* be anodyne or you wouldn’t be able to add your shiny self and mates.
Compare the graphics above with what you get at Facebook, below, ranging from sinister to about as charming as Microsoft Office 98:
How did this happen?
Well, firstly we should remember that Facebook grew out of being a glorified college address book. It was conceived as a kind of Ivy League anti-MySpace and brought into life by a preppy geek. It looks very much like someone, somewhere along the line, got a bit carried away with the idea of ‘utility’. Someone thought that a good way to communicate that Facebook was a utility would be to make it look and feel about as love-able as a gas company, an ISP or a telecoms carrier.
If you want to read how tied in knots people can get with the utility metaphor you should have a look at the comments on Danah Boyd’s recent blog post ‘Facebook is a utility; Utilities get regulated‘. There are many excellent points made – including this one:
“Being a utility isn’t the same as providing it”
Whatever, the utility-or-not debate is for another blog post. Even if Facebook is a utility, it doesn’t have to look like a bunch of greasy blue overalls, and behave like a high-handed, uncaring and intransigent monopoly.
Does this matter?
A lot of people – including Facebook – don’t seem to think so. They think it’s just a bunch of what Danah Boyd calls “weirdo tech elites” stirring up trouble. I think it really matters, and from the tiny amount of canvassing on Twitter that I did yesterday it’s clear that I am not alone:
The history of social networks shows us that people do move on. I tried to describe it like this in the Telegraph in February:
The history of the internet is littered with the bodies of dead and dying social networking services – Six Degrees, Firefly, Friendster, and, closer to home, our very own Friends Reunited. Each experienced explosive growth and appeared to be a permanent fixture, until they were rapidly abandoned for something else. In the history of social networking, the moment of apparent ubiquity often echoes with the crack of doom.
So, why should Facebook be different? Are we seriously to believe that, like Lehman Brothers, it’s “too big to fail”? What could bring it down? And what will replace it?
Of course, the numbers of people using those services was far lower than the half billion souls we’re talking about on Facebook, and they were less sophisticated, and its mainstream now – but I can’t see why this couldn’t simply happen again on a much grander scale.
Some people (early adopters) will start using another service *as well*, not instead of, the one that’s about to die. They will tell everyone else how the new service is just like Facebook but better: it has a face, it’s ‘cool’, they ‘love’ it, it doesn’t treat you like sh*t and you don’t have to worry about your privacy. They will use Facebook to organise the mass-migration, and then they will go.
Being unlovable and haughty with users’ concerns hands competitive advantage to ‘the next service’, and as the Diaspora phenomenon on Kickstarter shows us – people will jump at the even the glimmer of a chance of something better than Facebook. Diaspora shows that people are willing to put their hands into their own pockets to try and make it happen! Facebook has taken many years and a ton of cash to make a whole new category of digital behaviour mainstream. Building on its shoulders will be quicker and cheaper, and the services that come next will be designed specifically to exploit its weaknesses. I can’t wait (and obviously I want the Diaspora kids to do it as I will already own the t-shirt)!
Not having a personality is a serious disability on the Social Web. It also creates a dangerous vacuum that will tend to draw in whatever else is hanging about, such as the toxic coverage Facebook is generating by arrogantly overplaying its hand and defying its critics.
I don’t know if Facebook is a real utility, but it’s certainly behaving like a bit of a tool.
15 comments
‘Some people (early adopters) will start using another service as well’ – that’s how I (and a lot of other Indians) chanced upon Facebook. It was Orkut all the way for most of the people I know, and then less and less of them till finally Facebook took the top spot away (http://www.watblog.com/2009/10/20/facebook-overtakes-orkut-in-india/). It could well become Diaspora, or anything else, in due course.
http://www.watblog.com/2009/10/20/facebook-overtakes-orkut-in-india/
However I’m very much aware that you and I are early adopters. The millions of people who form Facebook’s mass aren’t us, and even if a service like Diaspora takes Facebook’s spot, it will be at least a couple of years before that happens. And in a couple of years, a hell of a lot could happen in the interim, even in the way the social web works.
I tend to agree with you on the the fall of FB – I can feel it coming. I was a late starter and initially spent a phenomenal amount of time talking sh*t to real friends and friends whom I hadn’t spoken to since school and dont particularly have anything to say to now. There’s a reason we didnt stay in touch you know.
I little of note to broadcast on FB, no interest in telling my mates ‘I’m off to the shops’, I have no interest in anyones farm, and little interest in my Mafia or mob, the majority of the messages I am flooded with are nonsensical or egotistical twaddle. I do however have a large number of ‘friends’ and its a useful vehicle to publicise my website and flickr images (my main passtime).
Whereas FB and FR have tried to re-unite me with long lost friends Flickr has made me connect with new people and become friends with them, exactly the opposite but far more pleasurable.
Personally the jury is still out on Twitter – I’ve only been using it for a few weeks, but can see that it will have an interesting application for me. the issue that i have with it is that there is just too much information flowing that its hard to pick up what’s important / quality and what isn’t.
I think in all of this there is a definite need for quality and not quantity, we have to trust the providers to submit good quality otherwise the subscribers will no longer visit.
And no, I wouldnt wear the FB shirt either.
Brilliant. And, now, it has made me start wondering about something else… maybe, just maybe, we get bored of things because it’s a societal defence mechanism.
No, hold on, bear with me.
If everyone did exactly the same things, continuously, then we would rapidly deplete those resources. There’s a great book called Collapse by Jared Diamond which highlights cases where this has happened (deforestation on Easter Island etc).
…so, it’s been better if, as a society, traditionally things come and go… we use a lot of something for a bit, then a few folk get bored, and find something new instead. They lead everyone else onto the something new, and the depleted resource recovers.
That social behaviour online manifests itself in the rapid growth and failure of various sites… maybe we’re just not built as a species to all keep doing the same things for ever and ever…
(I am waiting for some anthropologist to come on and rip nineteen different holes in the argument…)
Great post. I had until quite recently assumed that Facebook was “too big to fail”-and of course the power of inertia and the power of defaults mean it still may be. But there is no question that people feel an affection for and affinity with Twitter that they don’t with Facebook which has more to do with the brand itself than with the friends and connections who populate it. What I was trying to get at with my point about Facebook being a utility rather than a network is that genuine networks/communities are much more powerful than utilities-which is ironic when we consider that Facebook is the brand that probably brought the concept of social networking most dramatically to the mainstream. There’s another irony is that I have more intimate real world connections with my Facebook friends on average and yet Twitter, where I have lots of virtual relationships I’ve never cemented in the real world still feels much more like a community. Somehow that must be to do with the brand and the UX.
A question though: when/if Twitter scales to 400 million users can it retain that warmth?
Your Microsoft analogy may extend beyond the similarities in (un)design; it feels like people are already finding more faults than friends on facebook, much as they do with Office products. Facebook has become a target for discontent, even amongst those who embraced it as little as a year ago.
Perhaps one reason for this is that Facebook believes its success lies in its platform, and is losing sight of the fact that people only really go there to connect with their networks.
Facebook have done a great job of making online socialising easier, but ultimately, that socialising is what matters to people, and they will do it wherever they can. If something new and interesting comes along, it actually gives people something relevant to talk about; the novelty of the new acts as a catalyst and facilitator to further socialising, so inspiring further interactions and increasing the new site’s popularity and momentum.
I like Willsh’s hypothesis (above) too- it feels like the cultural equivalent of a ‘grazing herd’ psychology, which – on a mass level – feels quite appropriate.
What a brilliant post!
“I don’t know if Facebook is a real utility, but it’s certainly behaving like a bit of a tool.” <— will be duly pinched and taken credit for ;-)
Tim,
recently Clay Shirky wrote a post { http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/04/the-collapse-of-complex-business-models/ } about “Collapse of Complex Business Models” as a reference he uses the book Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter.
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/04/the-collapse-of-complex-business-models/
I think that it applies also to Facebook, there he states:
“Early on, the marginal value of this complexity is positive—each additional bit of complexity more than pays for itself in improved output—but over time, the law of diminishing returns reduces the marginal value, until it disappears completely. At this point, any additional complexity is pure cost.
Tainter’s thesis is that when society’s elite members add one layer of bureaucracy or demand one tribute too many, they end up extracting all the value from their environment it is possible to extract and then some.”
Facebook became too big to ignore, but also too big to be taken seriously. Newton’s first law about motion/inertia is a complete paradigm for any business as it turns out to be big (F = m.a) as m is huge the F that enables changes is practically impossible to establish.
With all the Diaspora-like newcomers we’ll see a really interesting match or a total shift of paradigm. Which means that we’re (beginning) really taking ourselves seriously in terms of online presence to an extent that sync to our (urgh! Hate the term.) offline being (and probably will make this [on/off]line distinction useless).
A ‘time somebody said it’ post, Tim.
I notice today that Facebook’s telling me that I should ‘reconnect with James Higgs’!! (a person I saw last night and expect to see today – joy!), and that if I deactivate my account ‘Mick will miss me’. He won’t, I’ll be having a drink with Mick sometime soon, Faceboook or no Facebook. There’s a Microsoft Word-like ‘we’re so smart’ creeping in when in truth it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is. I know how my relationships with James and Mick work better than Facebook does. If I brandtagged http://www.brandtags.net/ Facebook the words Self-important and Hubristic would be top of the list.
http://www.brandtags.net/
Tim, that closing paragraph is utterly despicable.
Great post Tim.
My network on Facebook is largely comprised of real people who don’t work in media or technology (by contrast with my followers on Twitter). And their use of Facebook is much less active than it was a year ago. So either the feeling of discomfort isn’t limited to early adopters, or we are all grazing off en masse (I like that theory John).
I agree that the Facebook experience has been one of the platform gradually getting in the social interaction you’re actually there to do. And that “being unlovable and haughty with users’ concerns” has made their brand feel increasingly insensible. And that big utility companies tend to behave in this way.
But I think you were a bit selective with the images you chose to illustrate the point about their visual identity.
Yes, Facebook’s visual identity is utilitarian. But I think you’ve chosen to show some of the worst examples of its implementation. I’ve been using the Facebook Connect modal window as a good example of platform branding – doesn’t get in the way, but is instantly recognisable and reassuring.
By contrast, the branding of Twitter’s OAuth page has none of the same reassurance. And neither does it have any of the personality you ascribe to them. In fact, isn’t the visual expression of Twitter ‘personality largely limited to the error pages on their website?
Dang – you caught me red-handed!
Yes, it’s true I was selective – i probably-shouldn’t-but-couldn’t-resist using the old fashioned ‘face’ facebook one – but lo… is it not frightening and sinister?
Seriously, there wasn’t a lot to chose from with Facebook – at least Twitter has this excellent thing going with error screens. In a weird way it means that if Twitter was less flaky it may not have been able to establish its personality as successfully as it has. Turns out Twitter’s ’404 spot’ is actually a bizarrely effective form of interruption-based brand engagement. FTW! they’re missing a trick with the OAuth page.
Hmm – the modal window… yes, I think it’s brutally efficient, and once again works better than Twitter… but I don’t particularly like it. It could be better. But yes it works well, and Facebook does work well generally. It’s bland but it works well.
I’ve never seen a Facebook 404 page – not that i can remember anyway (I am not a ‘heavy user’). I imagine it would be quite dull in comparison to Twitter’s though.
UPDATE: I just found an image of one. They are a bit dull.
http://dfbills.com/images/blog/facebook_error.jpg
http://dfbills.com/images/blog/facebook_error.jpg
Clearly, Facebook should immediately introduce a flakier service and some prettier 404 pages, in order to allow themselves to take Twitter head-on in The 404 Wars – as we shall come to speak of this golden time in years hence.
I dunno. It’s complicated. Maybe Facebook and I should to go to Relate.
I guess I think that the intangible brand stuff that Twitter seems to ooze – and Facebook doesn’t – the bits that allow you to bond to it, and love it… that seems really important. A bit of personality wouldn’t hurt – read the guide and help copy on the site, but not for too long or you’ll go mental.
I like the way Twitter seem quite relaxed about people doing all sorts of mad shit with their logo. And your page on Twitter really is your page – the way you want it without you having to think much.
One thing about this whole utility thing – I don’t like being made to feel like the stuff being squirted round someone’s pipes. A commodity. I like to feel like a partner or stakeholder. I really think the ‘if you don’t like it f*ck off’ approach is a disaster.
Peter, what DO you mean??
Actually, I would tend to disagree with you, Tim. Everybody loves to hate Facebook and use every opportunity to bash it for privacy breaches real and illusionary. But as you pointed out yourself, it was Facebook that took the idea of social networking mainstream, kick-started app ecosystem around it, sold social media to brands and corporations and simply spared many users – like me – the embarrassment of using networks that looked like ghetto neighborhood after dark (hello, Myspace).
Today, when everybody takes social media for granted, companies that were slow to shed the experimental, creative culture from early startup days (Flickr, Delicious, Twitter) look oh so cool. and cute. and innocent.
However, the truth is – they are still on a learning path: grappling with everyday operational issues, thinking of ways to reach audience beyond the core of technologically-advanced, curiosity-driven, cooler-than-thou type of users. So, purely from business perspective, it is by no means certain that all these cool website will be here (or be culturally relevant) 2/3/5 years down the road.
My point here is simple, despite all the bad rap Facebook is getting lately, people fail to recognize what important role it in played in establishing social media as a viable business field and how it enabled all those other websites “with personality” to flourish as a result. So perhaps we should be a bit less hysterical about Facebook shortcomings and put them in a historical perspective, hugh?
Hello again Mark,
Thanks for leaving a comment here. I am lucky I have only ever had positive experiences of getting in contact, however slight, with people. I don’t use FB much but I suppose I kind of hang on to it as a way to stay in contact friends who aren’t on Twitter – you know, real people rather than geeks and work folk. I rather wish they’d all just hurry up and get on Twitter but i’m also a realist and i know i’ll have to keep my FB account for that reason for the forseeable.
I think FB is pretty good really, and I have really enjoyed it as ‘the phenomenon’, the breakthrough social technology service. It was/is a huge pioneer in lots of ways. I just feel it would benefit from being less dull, especially when a competitor does emerge which is inevitable and, I would have thought, to be welcomed.
Other than the novelty value, I don’t go in for vampire spam and stuff like, but I know loads of people who do. I just don’t. I do still use it for finding out about events and reminding me of friends birthdays.
Twitter’s my service of choice. It’s fun and funny, and useful, I’ve both rediscovered old friends and made new ones. It’s where I keep up with what people are doing, where they are, what they’re reading or listening to or thinking. I’m glad you’ve taken the plunge – and thanks for your tweets this weekend!
I really loved Jared’s Collapse. Especially the bit about Iceland, which I hadn’t realised was totally forested when the Vikings moved in. Sadly, they used most of the wood up within a hundred years of getting there – which has led to the lunar appearance of Iceland’s landscapes.
It’s very tempting to believe that we have an in-built boredom-triggered mechanism, but I’m not quite there with you. People definitely act as a herd in terms of adoption and abandonment but I think they also make a value-judgement about whether they’re getting a better service here or there. Facebook doesn’t have any competitors right now, but when it does people will decide where they get the best service – including where they get treated best.
As several commentators have pointed out, Facebook seems to have a cultural flaw. This post from HBR was particularly good. I think that comes through – as you would expect – in the personality of the service, or lack of it.
Facebook is unlike the examples in Jared’s book, which are about resource depletion and ignorance. In this case it’s almost the opposite problem. However, Facebook’s behaviour is every bit a tragedy of the commons, just like Iceland and Easter Island (I almost wrote Eater Island, which would have been ironic as apparently it was the depletion of agricultural systems on Easter Island that led to cannibalism). In this case the service is trying to ‘enclose’ its users and their data.
I’m still on Facebook though – reluctantly, and only because I wouldn’t be able to keep in touch with friends who will never get onto Twitter if I leave.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.