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?
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.
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?