I’m going to trick you and then let you down big time!

Delivering a poor product is not the worst thing you can do to your customer. Promising an amazing product, deceiving your customer into buying it and then letting them down is worse than just having a poor product.

1. Clickbait titles: Aren’t we all sick of them now? “The Prettiest Space Quiz You’ll Take Today”. Wow. For starters, I don’t take Space Quizzes on a regular basis. And well, if I do take one, I’m not likely to take another one on the same day. So that isn’t a mighty promise you’re making anyway. The articles are often so disappointing that when you’re promised that you will “roll on the floor laughing” you’d actually only go “heh”. If I had to bait you into visiting Buzzfeed, I’d say “99 titles that will disappoint you when you actually read the article”

2. Native advertising: Firstly, I’m against annoying advertisements, but at some level, they’re a necessary evil. At times, they aren’t even that bad. For example, I think google’s sponsored search results are pretty transparent, neat and useful. But with earnings being as low as  dollar for a thousand views, content creators quickly realized that to make big bucks, they need to switch to Native Advertisements. A Native Advert is basically an ad that you think is not an ad but is very much an ad. You can watch John Oliver’s video where he explains so very well, how Native Ads work and why they’re not good for you.

I wouldn’t blame content creators entirely because people simply don’t want to pay for the stuff they watch / read / listen to! Also, some native ads are good and transparent. If someone makes an interesting piece of content out of an advertisement and tells me upfront that it is, in fact, an ad, I’d be happy to watch/see it. Honestly, I really like and appreciate the way Upworthy differentiates their paid content from their regular content. In this case, I do not mind native ads.


3. Facebook: My most recent and biggest disappointment has been Facebook. Facebook’s promise: “It’s free and will always be” makes you wonder, ‘Someone’s got to be paying for this!’


You’re right. The advertisers are paying for it. In a transaction, where X pays Y to obtain Z, you know very well that X is the customer, Y is the seller and Z is the product. Guess who’s who in the world of Facebook? The advertiser is the consumer, Facebook is the seller and Your Data is the product. Alright, let’s agree, that’s how most of the internet works. But is Facebook even providing value to their real consumers? Not quite. If you have a page on Facebook and (either by creating really good content or by means of paid advertisements) you acquire a good number of followers who WANT to read/see/watch your content. After the recent changes that Facebook seems to have made, your posts do not even reach all the people who follow/like your page and have willingly subscribed to your content. It sends you a message asking you to promote your post to your fans so they can see it.


Now why should a content creator pay to reach an audience that he has already spent enough effort acquiring? How does a startup that makes good content compete with a giant that promotes their post?

I think Facebook, in its greed to maximize profits at the cost of user experience has simply lost sight of what it aimed to be. Not to forget Facebook Zero and Internet.org – a complete scam that makes you believe that Facebook stands for educating and empowering the poor and downtrodden by providing them free access to (only a select few) sites on the internet. When a company with the kind of influence that Facebook kicks Net Neutrality in the butt, there’s very little you can do to raise your voice in favor of Net Neutrality.

The biggest flaw with Facebook is that it does not share its revenues with content creators that Facebook thrives on. If it weren’t for these amazing content creators, Facebook would be a dry, boring place. Instead of sharing profits with them, like YouTube does by sharing ad-revenues with content creators, Facebook makes them pay to be able publish their content to their fans! While YouTube’s policy ensures that good content creators are rewarded and nurtured, Facebook’s policy ensures only rich content creators prevail.

When you deliver a bad product, the customer sees you as a seller of a low quality product. When you promise them an amazing product and then let them down, the customer feels betrayed. And that’s not what you want to do to your customer.

PS: OK, Intrnt is ad-free and does not support ads that exploit user’s data in order to monetize.

About the author: Sid Kulkarni is the editor of OK, Intrnt. He is passionate about Technology and Internet. When he’s not busy speaking to innovators and entrepreneurs, he is busy trying to be one. You can connect with him on Linkedin.

If you liked what you just read, do like and share us – this goes a long way in supporting us.

Category: Editorial