Comments on: Every action has a consequence http://elixsir.com/every-action-has-a-consequence Quench your thirst for knowledge Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:52:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1-alpha By: Tyme White http://elixsir.com/every-action-has-a-consequence/comment-page-1#comment-1664 Tyme White Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:13:40 +0000 http://3by9.com/?p=216#comment-1664 There is a basic foundation (sanctity) in business: both people need to honor the agreement made and not change the rules on the fly. Trust is important. When you enter into a business arrangement even if you try to lock down all the possible contingencies, it still boils down to trust. If I give someone $X, I expect to get what I paid for. If I purchase a house I don't expect to get kicked out at will. If I rent an apartment I expect my renter's rights to be withheld. When the bank gives me a Privacy Policy I expect them to honor it. When someone buys a car they expect the dealer to honor the warranty. I can go on like that all day. In the end, if the terms are agreed to then it is expected to be honored. Most people when entering agreements TRUST this will happen. Facebook has a policy - NO notifications on friend removal. It's a very simple policy. Burger King opted not to accept it. You agree with Burger King. So if you have a house, I expect you not to care if your bank forecloses on it outside your agreement. I expect you not to care if your car dealer doesn't honor the warranty. Don't complain - not one word. I expect you not to care if your boss decides to pay you once a month instead of once a week. Don't even get angry about it. When you enter an agreement, and both parties agree to the terms (BK shouldn't be on FB if they didn't agree), I expect you not to say one word. If BK launched the campaign without notifying users then that's another story all together. But hey, why not break an agreement as long as the company can profit right? And remember, when that same disregard comes back at you...not.one.complaint because you can't have it both ways. Agreements can be broken (without both sides agreeing to the change) or they can't. :) One last point...many people on the net want people to follow them. They want traffic for their site. And many don't know most of the people following them. Yes there are people who use FB for friends only but there are many like me that accept members in the community that I don't know at all (and I would never diss them by exchanging their interest in me for a $3 sandwich). So to assume (and that is one HUGE assumption) that it was not a big deal to either party is just that, an assumption. But again, that's not the point. FB has a policy. BK broke it and the trust behind a business relationship. App should be banned. It's just that simple. There is a basic foundation (sanctity) in business: both people need to honor the agreement made and not change the rules on the fly. Trust is important. When you enter into a business arrangement even if you try to lock down all the possible contingencies, it still boils down to trust. If I give someone $X, I expect to get what I paid for. If I purchase a house I don’t expect to get kicked out at will. If I rent an apartment I expect my renter’s rights to be withheld. When the bank gives me a Privacy Policy I expect them to honor it. When someone buys a car they expect the dealer to honor the warranty.

I can go on like that all day. In the end, if the terms are agreed to then it is expected to be honored. Most people when entering agreements TRUST this will happen.

Facebook has a policy – NO notifications on friend removal. It’s a very simple policy. Burger King opted not to accept it. You agree with Burger King.

So if you have a house, I expect you not to care if your bank forecloses on it outside your agreement.

I expect you not to care if your car dealer doesn’t honor the warranty. Don’t complain – not one word.

I expect you not to care if your boss decides to pay you once a month instead of once a week. Don’t even get angry about it.

When you enter an agreement, and both parties agree to the terms (BK shouldn’t be on FB if they didn’t agree), I expect you not to say one word.

If BK launched the campaign without notifying users then that’s another story all together. But hey, why not break an agreement as long as the company can profit right?

And remember, when that same disregard comes back at you…not.one.complaint because you can’t have it both ways. Agreements can be broken (without both sides agreeing to the change) or they can’t. :)

One last point…many people on the net want people to follow them. They want traffic for their site. And many don’t know most of the people following them. Yes there are people who use FB for friends only but there are many like me that accept members in the community that I don’t know at all (and I would never diss them by exchanging their interest in me for a $3 sandwich). So to assume (and that is one HUGE assumption) that it was not a big deal to either party is just that, an assumption. But again, that’s not the point.

FB has a policy. BK broke it and the trust behind a business relationship. App should be banned. It’s just that simple.

]]> By: Cory O'Brien http://elixsir.com/every-action-has-a-consequence/comment-page-1#comment-1663 Cory O'Brien Sat, 17 Jan 2009 23:32:45 +0000 http://3by9.com/?p=216#comment-1663 I think that Burger King knowingly went around Facebooks rules because they knew it would stir up some controversy, and controversy means free press for them. (Such as this article and the many others that were written about the campaign.) In addition, they used the fact that Facebook shut them down to their advantage by stirring up even more controversy, and creating even more free publicity, by putting up a landing page that said the app itself had been 'sacrificed'. While I agree with you, and the potential for a few hurt feelings is definitely there, I think that most people either knew the people they sacrificed, and then just added them back as friends, or they didn't know them at all, so the loss of the Facebook 'friendship' was no big deal to either party. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if any stories come out about people that were really hurt by the campaign, but for now, I think I side with Burger King on this one. http://thefutureofads.com/2009/01/09/burger-king-lets-people-sacrifice-friendships-for-whoppers/ I think that Burger King knowingly went around Facebooks rules because they knew it would stir up some controversy, and controversy means free press for them. (Such as this article and the many others that were written about the campaign.) In addition, they used the fact that Facebook shut them down to their advantage by stirring up even more controversy, and creating even more free publicity, by putting up a landing page that said the app itself had been ‘sacrificed’.

While I agree with you, and the potential for a few hurt feelings is definitely there, I think that most people either knew the people they sacrificed, and then just added them back as friends, or they didn’t know them at all, so the loss of the Facebook ‘friendship’ was no big deal to either party.

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if any stories come out about people that were really hurt by the campaign, but for now, I think I side with Burger King on this one.

http://thefutureofads.com/2009/01/09/burger-king-lets-people-sacrifice-friendships-for-whoppers/

]]>