[scorpion032]

Lets get this straight.

1. Facebook made users email the regulator on a subject of "tangential relevance" - saying they support Free Basics, while the questions asked were on Differential Pricing

2. These emails were unsubscribed by TRAI, and 12 MM of those 14 MM emails weren't actually sent - probably because they went out to an empty mailing list.

3. The emails that were sent, were sent by misleading people into "supporting digital equality".

4. Facebook choose to represent and speak for all of the millions that had chosen to "support digital equality" which was questioned by the regulator.

5. Facebook didn't bother to inform the users that originally answered the "opinion poll" of "supporting digital equality" of the questions asked by TRAI even after having been asked to and extending the consultation deadline for the same.

6. Facebook choose to spend $44MM on this campaign in this process. (and an obviously unknown but really large sum for lobbying!)

I'm no policy expert or a strategy consultant, but if there ever has been an epitome for "shooting oneself in the foot", this would be it.

[chdir]

Well said. Completely agree with all points except for the conclusion "shooting oneself in the foot". $44MM is chump change for Facebook. They'll happily spend much more if there's a small chance of becoming a gatekeeper. They'll buy, bully, slander those who are protesting against free basics. I doubt they'll back down easily.

[scorpion032]

Yea, I see that. If you and I can afford to buy a bad shoes once in a while, I'm sure FB (Market Cap $300B) can afford to spend $44MM for a small chance to be a gatekeeper.

But it seems to be that the result of this campaign has been a tremendous net negative, given how badly it fared as mentioned in the points above, but mostly also in the public perception. Is there anything called anti-marketing?

[vanattab]

>Is there anything called anti-marketing?

I like to think of it simply as negative PR(Public Relations).

[firasd]

I think Facebook chose this type of campaign after seeing how http://savetheinternet.in rallied support for pro-net neutrality responses to an earlier consultation paper, from an uncommonly broad audience for a telecom policy issue.

The Save The Internet campaign (both then and this time) had some important differences though: their default template actually answered the questions the regulator asked, and each email was sent from the respondent's own email app (using mailto or the equivalent) instead of being sent by the platform.

[nileshtrivedi]

Don't forget: SaveTheInternet actually TOLD people that they are sending emails to TRAI. Facebook did not even do that! Which is why the Advertising Standards Council is investigating FB's campaign.

[chris_wot]

Yeah, but this campaign never tricked people into sign anything. People who signed this petition actually knew what they were signing. The Facebook campaign was based on deception, pure and simple.

[x5n1]

But Zuckerborg is a genius, how dare to question his competence at executing this brilliant campaign.

Any run of the mill MBA would've told you just sell free facebook for the masses. But no instead it had to be a massive moral cause of digital rights for the poor. Because I guess they were suppose to be as easy as Americans and I guess pretty much rest of the world to dupe into selling themselves to facebook.

[ignoramous]

I see traces of Uber in the way Facebook dealt with this whole thing. Are the CEOs of top companies in SV forming a secret alliance or something?