Poke! We Need To Talk About Mark

Richard Bradbury:

What’s in a name? As reports surface that Facebook is intending to rebrand itself, we take a look at the timing and the pushback that the technology giants are currently experiencing.

Richard Bradbury: Did you think you’d be talking about Facebook again this week?

Matt Armitage:

• I expected to be talking about it to some extent.

• On the show last week I mentioned that we would have to come back to the idea of how we pay for services and who those services actually serve.

• In terms of who are the users and who are the customers.

• Even issues like who are privacy controls there to protect?

• Us, or the advertisers?

• What I totally didn't expect was this story that I think broke on the verge earlier this week.

• Which is that Facebook may rename itself, as soon as next week, when it staged its annual connect conference.

• That would be a new holding entity, an umbrella to park its different elements under.

Richard Bradbury: What do you think of the timing?

Matt Armitage:

• I think it's an odd decision.

• Obviously, a rebranding exercise of this scale is not something that is usually embarked on in a hurry.

• So I don't think we can look at what happened to Facebook over the past few weeks

• and say that rebranding is the response they've come up with to deal with or escape from that negative publicity.

• There's far too much at stake to do something so structurally far reaching in haste.

• Just from a design and strategy POV - this kind of rebranding exercise typically takes 6 months to a year or even longer.

• And if that is the case, then credit to the advertising agencies that may have been involved in this exercise for keeping the lid tamped down.

• Because they must have been working on this for a very long time and there don't seem to have been, certainly any concrete, rumors floating around.

• If these reports are true, that Facebook’s iD makeover is imminent – I would have expected them to wait a while to make the announcement.

• Giving what’s swirling around the company, I would advise any brand that I was working with to delay.

Richard Bradbury: Is that because of the negative publicity that the company has been attracting?

Matt Armitage:

• Just this week there was an announcement that Facebook was fined over UKP50m by the UK’s competition regulator which relates to the company’s takeover of the gif creation site giphy this year.

• Negatives are always a good reason to delay. But even positive stories, if they’re monumental enough.

• You’d want to avoid going up against them because they can drown out your share of voice.

• You want big announcements to be judged on their own merits and to dominate the news cycle.

• There’s nothing you can do to stop your competitors from trying to limit or hijack some of your limelight with their own tactics.

• But you certainly don’t want to compete for space with other stories about the same company.

ogle rebranded as Alphabet in: 2015

• They were spearheading AI research, developing autonomous vehicles.

• Pioneering Augmented reality. Creating smart city developments and new health tech.

• And, still running that financially important search division.

• Ask yourself: How successful has that rebrand been?

• It was six years ago and we still mostly refer to the company and all its associated entities as Google.

• When Snapchat decided that it wanted to be a hardware manufacturer with a social arm, it became snap Inc.

• But we still struggle to see it as anything but Snapchat.

• Our perceptions haven’t really changed.

Richard Bradbury: do we know what the new name is likely to be?

Matt Armitage:

• We don’t know. The Verge suggests something Horizon related.

• Horizon Worlds is one of the next gen Facebook AR and VR linked products the company has demoed, as well as a workplace collaboration service called Horizon Workrooms.

• All of this is on point with the show we did back in August. MSP176.

• Which was about various companies seeking to develop their own interpretations or flavors of the metaverse.

• And Facebook's own stated intention to pursue and develop those metaverse link technologies.

• In fact, to become the dominant or pre-eminent metaverse provider.

• So this would help to create that image: to create the idea Facebook is part of something bigger.

• Now some people might argue that that's as much of a negative as it is a positive.

• A lot of people already think that Facebook is too big and too powerful.

• Signaling that those social media networks a simply a cog in something much larger might turn out to be an own goal in the long run.

• But from a branding perspective it's quite a solid idea.

• If you pull it off successfully, then you're creating lots of different boxes for all of those products and services to sit in.

• Each with its own brand and identity within this larger group.

• Like KitKat and Milo within Nestle.

Richard Bradbury: Is it likely to dispel any of that negative publicity that Facebook is currently attracting?

Matt Armitage:

• That’s a much more complex question to answer.

• My feeling is no. When you look at companies that have rebranded to escape a toxic reputation,

• Two of the most prominent are Andersen Consulting, which became Accenture.

• And the private security company Blackwater which became Xe and then Academi.

• I don’t think Facebook can be compared to either of those examples.

• But the larger issue is the role of mark Zuckerberg himself.

• He retains the majority of the voting shares within the current Facebook structure.

• So he’s much more closely linked to the identity of the company than, say, Brin and Page were to Google.

• And they’ve successfully been able to put distance between themselves and Google since becoming alphabet.

• We've seen a Microsoft without Bill Gates.

• An apple without Steve Jobs.

• The jury is out on the Bezos free Amazon.

Richard Bradbury: But there doesn't seem to be any similar succession plan in place for Facebook?

Matt Armitage:

• Yes, in whatever the company becomes and whatever it calls itself, it's still going to be mark Zuckerberg’s company.

• and I think that symbolizes those differences in perception.

• Between those that view Zuckerberg’s role at that new organisation in a positive light and, you know, everybody else.

• in that context, it will be hard to create that sense of space in the company.

• As to why do this at all?

• With the information that's come out of Facebook over the past few weeks, whether officially or through leaks,

• We know that the company is very concerned about its appeal to Gen Z and Gen A consumers.

• The generation that sees both Facebook and Instagram as old.

Richard Bradbury: The same demographic that will be crucial demographic for those metaverse developments?

Matt Armitage:

• yes. We have this situation now where a lot of VR and AR tech is quite expensive.

• So while it may appeal to a younger user base, it's actually those child free Gen X and Gen Z consumers

• Who have the money to buy that kind of product.

• But as with any new technology, we're seeing those costs drop, we're seeing the devices get smaller and more usable.

• They're becoming more adaptive.

• And as we pointed out in the previous metaverse episode, Facebook is up against companies like epic games,

• The makers of Fortnite.

• to define and own these new metaverse spaces.

Richard Bradbury: would a new name be enough to allow or enable whatever Facebook becomes to appeal to that demographic?

Matt Armitage:

• It's certainly not a done deal.

• A brand is more than a name.

• Let's not forget that the metaverse isn't the only development Facebook has in the wings.

• There are still plans for some kind of crypto or blockchain backed payment system.

• so a lot is going to depend on the kind VR and AR based products that Facebook is able to release.

• as with demo-tech like horizons workspaces, a lot of the Facebook branded advances recently have been in the working space, whether collaborative or remote working.

• That won’t appeal to teens.

• Even if you're able to introduce that context of education into the metaverse products,

• I think that chunk, that group of services is going to be far less appealing to that younger demographic

• which will be looking for a metaverse that is dominated by entertainment.

• So if that newly re-branded Facebook holding company is able to create products that have their own brand identity

• And that appeal to those younger consumers, then they may be able to create the metaverse Mark Zuckerberg dreams of.

Richard Bradbury: How are governments, and politicians and social organisations likely to respond to a new Facebook with an even larger remit or sense of purpose?

Matt Armitage:

• That’s why I say that this announcement, if it does go ahead, is oddly timed.

• While a great deal of attention has been given to Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower, as she’s now known.

• There has also been a lot of attention given to Facebook’s response to the evidence she’s presented.

• Particularly, the lack of response from CEO MZ and COO Sheryl Sandberg.

• And a lot of the FB execs who have been wheeled out have been accused of doing a rather milquetoast and lacklustre job of defending the company.

• Now, again, maybe that’s another one of those distortion lens issues.

• We know from watching Trump surrogates defend the former US president throughout his tenure,

• That it was far more important to speak to an audience of trump than it was to successfully defend his positions.

• So, perhaps we’re seeing a similar filter scenario at play. That it’s more important to repeat those talking points for a specific viewer

• Than it is to have anyone believe them.

Richard Bradbury: When we come back. How much do we really have to fear from Big tech and who should be governing them?

BREAK

Richard Bradbury: I know that you will want to talk about the role that governments have to play in placing limitations on technology companies. But before we get to that point, I want to ask: how smart are we?

Matt Armitage:

• This is a contentious point, isn’t it?

• We like the services and devices that companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, TikTok, Samsung, Oppo, Huawei, Netflix and plenty more offer us.

• As we discussed in the episode about Disney and sentient AI, the corporate leaders in some technology fields are not ones that we would expect.

• And that adage that every company is a technology company now, isn’t too far from being true.

• We see this huge blurring of lines, with companies like Nike preparing to sell you digital versions of their shoes and clothes for your avatar.

• Cosmetics companies working with MMORPGs and creating real world semi-cosplay looks.

• And creating health and beauty apps that collect colossal amounts of product centric data about their customers.

Richard Bradbury: That speaks to the opportunities that commercial companies see in the technology space. But it doesn’t really address that issue of how smart we are and how much agency we have.

Matt Armitage:

• That’s why it’s such an interesting question.

• New York Times tech writer Shira Ovide wrote a piece earlier this month that really resonated with me.

• And she essentially said that each of these scandals, whether about Facebook or other tech companies, are like building blocks that make us a little bit savvier.

• For example, Cambridge Analytica made us more aware what can be done with all those data points that Facebook and other companies collect about us.

• We now know how countries can act to influence the elections of rival nations using disinformation.

• We’ve learned how algorithms can focus our attention and maximise our use time by popularizing extreme viewpoints.

• And then provide us with the mechanism to share that information and create those feedback loops that box us in.

• Every scandal makes us smarter. It reveals more about the motivations and the mechanics of these companies.

• A few years ago, anyone talking about surveillance capitalism would probably have been branded a conspiracy theorist.

• Now it’s mainstream terminology.

• We’re no longer giddy about these companies and their products, and we’re having serious conversations about their power and influence.

Richard Bradbury: The disruption effect?

Matt Armitage:

• That’s a pretty good way to sum it up, I think.

• We’ve always said that technology moves faster that a society’s ability to absorb and adapt to the realities it both brings and alters.

• Especially the move fast and break stuff model. Because we’re constantly in damage limitation mode,

• Sweeping up the mess it leaves behind.

• But many of these companies are getting to an age and size where they don’t move fast.

• And where their own behaviour patterns become codified.

• They become the dinosaurs they displaced.

• Which is where we are able to begin that process of understanding how they work and what they really do.

• We are more comfortable with the underlying concepts of algorithms, AI and their uses.

• We’re at that point where we can’t be brushed off by some CEO talking about principles of democratic access and holding privacy dear.

• We understand that when they say democratic access, that means their ability to operate unregulated and to do what they want with our data,

• While privacy is the proprietary nature of their products and policies that prevent us from finding out exactly what information they have on record about us.

• And what third party commercial companies they’ve given access to that information to.

Richard Bradbury: Do you think that that’s one of the attractions of the metaverse? Opening a new frontier to exploit just as lawmakers start to get a handle on how to regulate the current incarnation of the Internet?

Matt Armitage:

• No. I’m sure it doesn’t hurt, but I think we would be slaloming off into conspiracy territory if we explored it too deeply.

• At one level, the metaverse is simply a logical progression of the internet, given the technology and equipment that is currently or will soon be available.

• It doesn’t hurt that there’s a whole lot of new hardware and online services that companies will be able to sell to us as a result.

• But I don’t see this as a tactical shift. Especially as that metaverses currently has no definite shape or composition.

• So any moves companies make in that direction is currently speculative in nature.

• Companies like Facebook and Google, or Epic Games for that matter, aren’t about to turn their backs on the model that generates their profits.

• To focus on something that might take another 10 years of intensive investment and competition to define and dominate.

Richard Bradbury: Which still leaves with that problem of regulation.

Matt Armitage:

• And that’s one of the things Facebook has been making in its own comments.

• Pushing back on lawmakers to say: you tell us how to regulate.

• With any big tech company there’s a certain amount of sleight of hand involved in comments like that.

• Firstly, they are aggressive lobbyists – so they are certainly not intending to take a passive role in the drafting and composition of that legislation.

• And bills like this take a long time to discuss, compose, negotiate, table, pass and enact.

• We saw that with the current gold standard of legislation the EU GDPR, which was a great tool to govern data collection in the mid-20 tens.

• By the time it was enacted, the digital world had already moved on.

Richard Bradbury: Where do governments fit in?

Matt Armitage:

• Genuinely, I’d like to give a definitive answer here. But I don’t think anyone can.

• The response to move fast and break things may have to be hastily formulated and imperfect bridging legislation.

• We’ve seen something a little bit similar in drug laws.

• Where blackmarket chemists tweak the formulations of synthetic drugs, creating new analogues that skirt prohibition.

• Resulting in this constantly updated list of new substances.

• Perhaps tech legislation has to become similarly adaptable to respond to each new iteration.

• I think where we get into thornier territory is intent and oversight.

Richard Bradbury: Such as publishing the algorithms?

Matt Armitage:

• That’s been one suggestion.

• Of course, as we’ve discussed before, it’s not one algorithm that runs our newsfeeds, search results etc.

• It’s lots of them. Some interconnected. Some separate.

• So, yes, there have been calls to make that proprietary code more transparent.

• If you want a good example of how even well-meaning algorithms can distort the markets they’re supposed to regulate,

• Check out Maia Salavitz’s article on Wired.com called The Pain Was Unbearable.

• About a privately health company algorithm that a number of US states are using to assess the risk of dependency among pain patients.

• And the culture of disassociation that surrounds this kind of tool: if you have issues with how the code categorizes, you can’t appeal directly to the company, only to your state health board,

• Which doesn’t necessarily know how the company’s algorithm works or how and why it arrives at its classifications.

• Let alone why public bodies are relying on a privately held database to make policy decisions.

Richard Bradbury: What about the case for making that information available to independent research bodies to make their own reports?

Matt Armitage:

• That’s one of the measures that’s mentioned in relation to the addiction risk algorithm.

• Making its findings available to academic and research institutions so that it’s transparent and can feedback into medical thinking.

• And they can also make recommendations on how to improve the tool itself.

• But even then, those moves can be problematic. Is publishing that information giving hackers the information they need to attack sites?

• Are you giving governments the ability to snoop on what their citizens or other countries citizens are doing?’

• China has its great firewall. Other countries are trying to emulate that model.

• Like Iran and Russia.

• Countries are routinely banning tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of Ips in a bid to control what information their citizens can and can’t see.

• As we see this growing tide of autocratic action and control - even in supposedly liberal countries.

• Can we trust that the governments trying to limit the reach and activity of tech companies are doing so in our best interests?

• We’ve seen tech companies push back against attempts by nations to access and monitor user data.

• There are no simple solutions here.

Richard Bradbury: There’s also the case breaking up companies like Facebook and Alphabet. Is it realistic to look at splitting search from health tech, for example. Or separate companies for Facebook and Instagram?

Matt Armitage:

• This point is something I think we need to come back to in another episode.

• Because it also relates to very large and rich companies being able to use their financial might to buy out entire markets.

• That Facebook acquisition of Giphy is a good example: should the leader in social media also be the leader in Gif creation?

• It makes sense for Facebook. Does it make sense for competition and markets?

• So, yes, there is a greater and more aggressive role for competition regulators to play in this debate.

• But don’t forget, that it’s also possible for autocratic countries to politicize competition regulators.

Richard Bradbury: This is where you tell us that the first step is to make these services pay-to-play?

Matt Armitage:

• Partly. I think there’s certainly a case to be made for more openness.

• Particularly when digital products are supposed to be delivering a public good like health-related risk assessments.

• Part of the reason that we’re twisting ourselves into these legislative pretzels is because of the business models that a lot of digital companies follow.

• Monetizing our data. Maybe we should look at limiting how digital companies work with third party advertisers.

• Maybe even encouraging them to adopt the business model a lot of gyms use.

• Sign users up for 12 or 24 months and then hope that they don’t overuse your service and increase your costs.

• Instead, we have plans for a tool on Instagram that reminds teems that they’ve spent too much time watching content that might be bad for them.

• Why not take their money and generate profits by convincing them not to log on in the first place.

Richard Bradbury: There’s also the option of mandating changes to the way that algorithms work, rather than publishing them or making them publicly accessible.

Matt Armitage:

• That could also be another, fairly straightforward first step:

• To mandate how those algorithms behave.

• For example, simply presenting you with the most recent content from within your network.

• And not nudging you with related content or new people to follow.

• This is often remarked on as the place where users begin than descent into those rabbit holes of more and more extreme information.

• We could it out. See if it works like a harm pressure valve.

• But even if we persuade Big Tech to move from free to paid services,

• It doesn’t address the digital players who have amassed their size and power by selling us stuff.

• Apple. Amazon. Microsoft.

• There’s a misconception that fixing Facebook is the same as fixing tech.

• And I get that people want to look at that simplified model.

• Even that basket – Big Tech – doesn’t serve us well. It makes us see more similarity than actually exists.

• Because Amazon and Facebook are as different as Nestle and Pfizer.

• So, our solutions for deciding how much power and influence they wield have to be different, too.

• The good thing is, as Shira Ovide notes. We’re learning. The more we learn, the better we can act.