How to NOT structure a marketing campaign: Facebook’s arrogant and paternalistic campaign to launch Free Basics in India. (Note this was written in Feb 2016)
India is a rapidly growing consumer of internet connections. It hit 400 million connections by the end of last year,almost two years before an estimate made a couple of years ago by Cisco. And the Ministry of Telecoms in India is shooting for 500 million connections by 2018, which it will almost certainly overshoot by a wide margin. So obviously, the next target for internet companies is to expand in India. China is very protective of its internet sectors, with the Party preferring domestic, homegrown startups rather than the likes of Facebook and Twitter. It also presents a nightmare for the Party from a censorship viewpoint. In contrast India has a relatively easier to access market, and thus is the logical next stop after America.
One such company is Facebook. It’s growth has plateaued in the US, and to increase its usercount it has to look elsewhere. Like India. The country has a population of almost 1.3 billion people out of which only some 131 million people use FB. So obviously, there’s plenty of room for growth. It shouldn’t face any problems you would think. It is the byword for social media, and has a very big brand awareness. But the company has been on the receiving end lately in India.
The trouble had to do with its “Free Basics” program. The idea was that a bunch of services would be bundled and offered for free. The catch was that this was just an access to a pre-selected bunch of services. One of which of course included FB. Net neutrality debate notwithstanding, this attempt by Facebook failed on two counts. Remember Internet.org? Facebook hadintroduced Internet.org (same as “Free Basics”) earlier in India, but around April last year, there were huge debates similar to net neutrality ones in the US (ironically in which Facebook itself was involved arguing against the carriers). In response to the heated debates, Facebook repackaged its offerings as “Free Basics”. Now you have to know one things about us Indians - we are crazy for “free” things! So FB starts marketing its “Free Basics” app widely in an advertising blitzkrieg. But these ads weren’t at all made to look like regular promotional ads. They sold a story. It was about a “Connected India”, or about “First Step towards Digital Equality”.
All of these ads extolled you to support “Digital Equality” by leaving a missed call at a certain number (missed call refers to intentional dropping calls on a number to communicate with people - we do it widely on the Subcontinent). And FB used its ace - its social platform - to encourage the users to change their profile pictures to support “Digital India”, and to click a button supporting Free Basics. However cleverly, clicking the button would send TRAI (Indian telecom regulator) a message saying you supported “Free Basics” program. This was an extremely way to draw up support, because TRAI had asked people to send across messages to it asking whether they were in favour of zero rating services (collective label for services offering partial internet connectivity) or not. All of this occurred in December, as TRAI would be making its decision in January.
The opponents of Free Basics too stepped up their opposition significantly, and the extremely vibrant online media bitterly mocked and attacked Facebook. The main opponents of Facebook’s efforts however were from the increasingly influential community of entrepreneurs. They stood out to lose the most, and their fears were mainly to do with zero rating services killing the booming internet startup scene in India. In the end, they had the decision in their favour and Free Basics and other such services were banned.
So net neutrality won the debate in India, right? Not really. Once we delve beneath the surface, the fight wasn’t lost by Facebook because of net neutrality, it was something else entirely.
Last April when Facebook introduced Internet.org to India, the debate that occurred then was about net neutrality. Prominent entrepreneurs, media people and others took part in it opposing the partial internet connectivity. But majority of the people hardly cared about the issue. Majority of the Indians were indifferent to it, and continued with their routine as usual. But what changed this was the response by Facebook. Its change of tactics - done with the hope of shoring up support from the average Indian by marketing it as “Free Basics” brought an average commoner into the fight, but it did so in the favour of its opponents.
The thing you have to remember about any marketing campaign is to be careful to NOT tread on local cultural sensitivities. Facebook marketed itself as a conscious company which was engaging in freely distributing its services to people. And by doing so it was presenting the image that it was not fighting for itself but for a cause greater than that. Its profits were not at all in consideration as “Digital Equality” was more important. And then it began extolling people to vote in its favour. You just don’t do that. And you want to know why?
Because Indians feel pathetic whenever someone from the outsider calls them as “third world” citizens. Slumdog Millionaire might have won numerous awards and the heart of the critiques, but it was hated in India. For Indians it showed that no matter how much they advanced, they will always be the recipients of foreigners of rich guilt complexes. They will always be poor and nothing would be appealing to the foreign countries except India’s poverty. For Indians, like any other people, social perceptions matter and if those perceptions are to do with just poverty and nothing else, then it outrages their self respect. Facebook fell for the same trap. It assumed that by branding its offering as “Free Basics”, launching an extensive media campaign would bring in a hoard of “poor” Indians to support it. But it backfired disastrously.
And what helped the net neutrality side even more was that the attitude of Facebook seemed to confirmed this perception among people. Mark Zuckerberg penned an oped in the Times of India, that was filled with his exasperation at there being such an extensive debate about his efforts to “do good for the Indians”. It began with an ill thought line - “To connect a billion people, India must choose facts over fiction.”
You never, never patronize your customers and belittle their agency, and assume yourself as the overlord. That title killed any possible beneficial outcome FB could have gained out of the campaign.
