'If you use a tech product for free then the product is you...' ~ Mark Suster
A few weeks back Bill Davidow had an excellent post on TheAtlantic about the evolving relationship between tech companies and 'customers'.
While he raises many interesting points, I'd like to consider what constitutes a customer in the web economy.
The definition of customer is generally accepted to be one who purchases a good or a commodity. But what about someone who uses a free or freemium offering from a technology company? Is there a standard for customer care and support?
Consider Google, Facebook, and Zynga. All are companies that promote open, free platforms for users. Note, I'm using these companies because they were featured in the Davidow article. Are their respective CEO's bound by the same rules of conduct to which their tech forebearers adhered?
Maybe, but maybe not. I'm not looking to excuse unsavory business practices. But the relationship between Facebook (swap Google and Zynga) and the 'customer' is not a traditional customer relationship. The reason is that these users aren't customers; they're the product. Consider that the user is enticed to the service because it offers them something (connections) and makes life more enjoyable in a tangible way. The user plays on the company field by the company rules. The company is 'compensated' with a robust audience that is remarketed and yields revenue. That is the recipe for making the product. That is the user (their data, stats etc) becomes the product. This is the business of media.
Consumers by the hundreds of millions have chosen this deal. This is how Facebook became an essential communication platform. Welcome to the community, check your personal data and information at the door. There is scant rebellion in the ranks, although it would be easy enough to log out permanently. Most won't, as Davidow notes, because they have substantial investments in their social networks. But, users have the option of revolution. They haven't chosen rebellion, and this is because the user experience out weighs the perceived cost. Which, in gross currency, is nothing. Users may hate the idea of being a product, but they are more loathe to part with their dough. Free is better.
Communities ignore the wishes of their user base (Digg) at their peril. But communities of users are not the same as customers paying for a defined outcome with the product or service. The dynamics of this relationship can be obscured, usually on the part of the user, as Mark Suster notes on his blog. If you want proof that you are not a customer, just try phoning Facebook or Twitter.
That leaves users without economic leverage. Is the new breed of tech company right to exploit this? Are they ruthless in their approach to their users? That is if their users are not customers?
It depends upon how you define a 'customer'. But 'customer' should not be confused with 'user'. Just like the founders of HP and Intel knew who their customers, so do today's tech execs. They need to provide a good balance of user protection and privacy assurances to make sure they'll have a robust and scalable user base. And, keeping the users happy is important- it keeps paying customers paying. If this sounds like the media business, it's because it is the media business model. And the media business has always been about making scalable product from users.
Should users have a realistic expectation of white glove customer care in the media business?