In the fall
of 2015, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi
pitched an idea to connect over 600,000 villages in India via fiber optic
internet. The idea was to provide free internet access to developing areas of
the world. However, this pitch, an idea entitled Facebook’s Free Basics, was
rejected by these very villages, resulting in India banning the idea entirely.
While Zuckerburg believed that India needed more connectivity, what he did not
do was research and listen to his Indian audiences about what they would want. As
a result, an idea that looked good on paper did not translate well when put
into practice.
Zuckerburg
himself expressed disappointment in the fact that his plan did not work. However,
it was Facebook board member Marc Andreessen who truly offended the people of
India. During the fallout and ban of Free Basics, Andreessen tweeted that “Anti-colonialism
has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades,” sparking
outrage among the people of India, as the tweets touched on a subject that is
sensitive among the population of India, given the country’s history.
Zuckerburg reached out and explained that Andreessen’s comments did not reflect
the views of Facebook. However, the damaged reputation was only further damaged
by the comments Andreessen made.
This particular
case of insensitive comments directly correlates with what we are learning in
class about the importance of the “local” versus the “global” (Pal & Dutta,
2008, p. 162). While the global trend is toward connectivity and access, at a
local level this does not always work. However, instead of taking the time to
do audience research and listen to what the local level wanted, Zuckerburg
applied a global view to the situation and made assumptions that ultimately caused
his plan to fail. Andreessen’s comments also represent a globalized view
instead of a localized one. He was speaking as an upper-class white male, not
as someone who could or should have been a voice for the people of India.
A public
relations professional could take away a lot of valuable insight from this
case. First and foremost, Facebook, under Zuckerburg’s leadership, should have
done more research into whether Indian villages wanted connectivity, what exactly
they wanted, and what was the best way to pitch this idea to the people who
would potentially benefit from it. Pal & Dutta explain that, while a
technoscape may help connect more people and increase knowledge flows, both
tangible and intangible, a public relations professional has to look at the
differences in connectivity among different populations (2008, p. 166). The
population that Facebook was attempting to connect may not have known anything
at all about the internet or why it would be beneficial, yet this was not taken
into account by the company.
In looking at this situation, it is
clear that Zuckerburg and Andreessen were both viewing the situation through a
modernist perspective, because they were attempting to use a traditional
worldview of “everyone should have internet access” to frame the situation.
However, what they should have done is look at it through a postmodern view, in
which there are differences among different populations. Do the villages of
India need internet access? Maybe, maybe not. But with a bit more research into
the differences and ideologies of that population, Zuckerburg could have
figured out the best course of action to roll out his plan, according to what
the people actually wanted.
No comments:
Post a Comment