{{ searchResult.published_at | date:'d MMMM yyyy' }}

Loading ...
Loading ...

Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.

No_results

That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching “”.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.

Logo_distressed

Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.

Image One

Should I be pleased that  I've been selected by Facebook to have the news feed permanently fixed to top news? 

Does it mean Facebook thinks that I only need to bother myself with the sort of people who are so interesting, that lots of other people are commenting about what they write?

Or have the 1984 throwbacks realised they can squeeze more cash out of us by watching what we do when they encourage, er force, us to only read the stuff that other people are already talking about?

Apparently, this change to the way that people read their friends' status updates will happen to everyone in the end. It doesn't completely silence my less vocal friends, just makes their words more difficult to find.

With a change to the way I currently use the website, I can get around this and browse people's status updates on a one-by-one basis. But that increases the time it takes to use the "free and always will be" website in the way that I wish to.

In my opinion, it has implications for the definition of the word 'free', its child 'freeware' and a reminder that every free lunch needs paying for somewhere along the line.

Image Two

Consider another example: the spyware software that is 'free' for the basic version, with a paid for premium version available.

That's fine, until you realise that the free version is useless after about 30 minutes as the update link has been disabled. What's the point of spyware protection if it can't be updated? In order to update the software with the latest protection without handing over money, the software needs to be uninstalled and reinstalled to get the right protection. Again, this increases the time it takes to use free software.

According to Wikipedia:

"software classified as freeware is either fully functional for an unlimited time with no cost, monetary or otherwise; or has basic functions enabled at no cost, with a fully functional version available as commercial or shareware"

It's the "monetary or otherwise" bit I struggle with. I'm wondering if the classification of free needs extending in the minds of users.

During research I have led throughout my UX career, users rarely consider the non monetary aspects of free. The idea of not being charged for the things we use is all many people see. However, it is a growing trend for firms to make money by charging users in ways that are not immediately apparent to the customer.

Image Three 

Consider the budget airlines which openly admit their business model relies on creating goods and services for users to buy during their end-to-end flight experience.

The international flight may be the price of a cab across London, but in return we need to accept a product that is more difficult to use, such as inconvenient airports or limited luggage allowance. So in exchange for something with attractive up-front charges, the overall cost to the customer in time, money and user experience can be much higher.

Going back to Facebook and the fixed top news setting, I see this as an example of selling improved user experience to the highest bidder. Advertisers know that users are like water, and flow along the path of least resistance. It's a win-win situation for the corporates.

Image Four

In scenario one, users have the top news setting. They have an easier user journey and compensate the advertisers by interacting with top news. This tells organisations more about ourselves, revealing corporate information that is more valuable to sell on.

This allows organisations to target their sales message, and sell us things more effectively, taking more money from us in the long run.

The richer marketing data we reveal using the top news setting means that we can be sold to in a more persuasive way, which creates potential for a higher buying price. The economists would describe it as shifting the demand curve up.

In scenario two, the decline in user experience leads to users being on the site longer, ultimately being more likely to be sold things via Facebook's banner ads. Either way, 'free' translates to either paying more in the long term, buying more in the medium term, or investing your own time to create more valuable banner ad space for Facebook in the short run. Clever.

Shouldn't they be paying us?

Image Five

Image One: photo credit: qwghlm via Flickr.

Image Two: photo credit: gemb1 via Flickr.

Image Three: photo credit: kudumomo via Flickr.

Image Four: photo credit: dale_ellerm via Flickr. 

Image Five: photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/editor/ via Flickr. 

Jimmy Morgan

Published 1 February, 2011 by Jimmy Morgan

Jimmy Morgan is a Strategist at Human Factors International and a contributor to Econsultancy. 

2 more posts from this author

Comments (9)

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Avatar-blank-50x50

Mahi Uddin

oww...
No this is not right....?

over 5 years ago

Jimmy Morgan

Jimmy Morgan, Social Media Strategist at Human Factors International (Europe)

Hi 'Mahi Uddin'

Thanks for your comment and I would love to discuss it further, but you are not listed in the eConsultancy members directory. Moreover, when I click on 'your' name next to 'your' comment is takes me straight to:

http://www.askbazar.com/

Looks like it's not just Facebook that is finding clever ways of making money from social media :-)

[P.S. if anyone clicks on *my* name next to this comment, it will take you to my entry in the eConsultancy members directory]

over 5 years ago

Guy Harvey

Guy Harvey, Marketing Consultant - Social Media and Media Relations at Human Factors International

Thanks for explaining the top news. I never realized that it was for FBs advantage.

over 5 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Serena Martino

I also think that the fact that "top news rarely changes (compared to "recent news") - so they are boring - make the average user paying more attention to the ads.

Also I noticed that under top news there are usually listed shared external links, pictures or videos, no matter if these have a lot of comments or not. Is this because it will be easier and more rewarding to target ads to these news despite to general status updates?

over 5 years ago

Fran Jeanes

Fran Jeanes, Internet Business Consultant at i-contact web design

I have started to use FB less and less from a personal point of view. By FB adding this new feature I can predict I will be using it even less, or just pushing updates from my phone, which will mean I probably won't come up on many other "top news" feeds and will fall into anonymity. Having to go to profile pages to check on status updates is just a pain. Hmmmn, Facebook....

over 5 years ago

Jimmy Morgan

Jimmy Morgan, Social Media Strategist at Human Factors International (Europe)

Or perhaps the benefit of maintaining your user experience is worth paying for upfront.

How about a service like Readability that offers "distraction-free" reading? Would the benefits from an ad-free world be valuable for you?

over 5 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

bhuvan

thankyou

almost 5 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

c.r.bhuvaneshwaran

sorry

almost 5 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

craymond

This breaks it all down perfectly. I don't understand how people cannot see that Facebook is not "free". What free site has a payment option in settings? Duh

almost 5 years ago

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Daily_pulse_signup_wide

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Daily Pulse newsletter. Each weekday, you ll receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.