Giving your customers no choice but to change is a risky move: just ask Facebook
The internet can be a tricky place to operate: comments that were once limited to a handful of friends or family are dangerously visible to all, and can have lasting impact. Facebook’s decision to remove Messenger offers a cautionary tale.
Apparently, the move seemed to make sense. At a time when simplicity is the order of the day, the Facebook app is overly complex to use on smartphones, thus potentially creating obstacles to positioning the app in emerging markets where users may not have the latest devices.
Poaching a senior PayPal manager to run Messenger is undoubtedly not a bad idea, given the prestige involved, and the growing strategic importance of the instant messaging market.
But when the time comes to tell its users “that’s the end of Messenger on Facebook and you will now have to download this other app if you want to keep using it” things change. It may be a question of how you say things, but if you are not careful, your new app, which tops the download rankings based on the number of clients you have, has been given a one-star rating, the lowest possible. It is the web equivalent of walking on stage to a shower of rotten tomatoes. And of course there have been any number of articles asking users for their opinion, along with tricks having to avoid installing the app, busted myths, and all sorts of conspiracy theories. In short a public relations nightmare, the worst thing that can happen to a company trying to position a new product.
Is Facebook Messenger such a bad product? Is it so wrong to hive of functionality to another app? Is it such a hassle having to manage conversations from a new app? Is there some other reason that users have responded so negatively to this? The answer to most of the above question is probably no.
For some reason, internet users tend to respond negatively when they think they are being forced to do something. For some reason, we like the idea of downloading, installing, and using a specific app if somebody has recommended it, or if we have read about it, but feeling obliged to do so goes against the grain. We might do it, but unwillingly. This feeling will likely fade quickly, but it is an obstacle when it comes to speeding up adoption, and it leaves the door open to the competition to take advantage of and offer its own tool as an alternative.
Facebook is not the first company to incur the wrath of users who feel they are being railroaded: Google had the same thing with Google+, as did Foursquare with Swarm. Other companies take note. However useful from a strategic point of view, whether it offers better functionality or sustainability, if it means that users will see it as an imposition, think twice.
Conservatism? Rejecting change? Laziness? Why do we respond negatively to these types of proposals?
The reasons, in all likelihood, are more likely to be found in human psychology rather than in technology of functionality, which doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be taken seriously. The adoption process is characterized by factors that work fantastically well, and others that prompt rejection. Suggesting a change based on user recommendation, and that has been thoroughly tested and seems to meet a widespread need, can be a success. But giving users no real alternative will be seen as an insult and a restriction on their freedom of movement, a way of evidencing just how little freedom they really enjoy, and thus will spark negative feelings.
It’s a subtle difference, but one that is increasingly evident.
(En español, aquí)
