Consumer Vigilantes and Revolt

Advertising agencies used to think they could shape brand identity, but one of the truly democratizing effects of new/social media is that advertisers no longer control the playing field and the truth will come out. A brand will be seen for what it is, eventually. (Of course this is only good news for some of us.)

When consumers in the online space question the truth of a brand, it can quickly become a revolt. This often happens in response to a change – maybe a change in the privacy policy or a change in the business model – that could threaten the neutrality of the community. Within moments masses of users band together gathering steam and fury. They threaten to jump ship or manipulate results until the culprit relents.

In two high-profile examples, when Facebook and Digg made moves that affected the crowd, they were swamped with user discontent and organized attempts to make the companies acquiesce.

To Facebook’s chagrin, more than a quarter of a million users revolted when they made announced their intention to automatically post user activity with Beacon. In an attempt to build monetization into their model, Facebook merged user activity, like adding a friend, with purchases on external sites and showed them in a consolidated list. Further, they allowed advertisers to target specific user behavior and market directly to it.

With publicly announced calls for patience by the CEO and some adjustments that gave users more control, the backlash relented, but not before some damage was done to the “Facebook is like us” image. And, in the end, even though it did spark some privacy concerns, users eventually found that the connection of activity, likes and wants through a list of behavior actually helped them find the things they needed and make new and deeper connections.

Digg got a taste of crowd revolt when word buzzed around that the there was editorial weighting going on in what many perceived to be the world’s most democratic news aggregator. Most of the community associated with Digg, as well as industry media outlets like Wired, voiced their disapproval.

Whether there was actual editorial weighting or not, the fact that the founder’s Diggs and a steady group of Diggers always seemed to be associated with the stories bubbling to the top gave the community at large enough ammunition to cry foul. The story eventually faded and most observers later speculated that the algorithm was tweaked to find middle ground for all sides.