Lessons in Corporate Transparency: Pixelpipe

As more libraries are starting to become more transparent when dealing with the public through social media and other online channels, questions may arise around best practices, and what not to do when you’re interacting with the public. This next case is an excellent example of how not to interact with your customers.

Pixelpipe is an application that allows users to upload videos and photos to multiple online services, such as Twitpic, Flickr, Facebook, Posterous, and others. I have used the service for about a year now, and it was one of the first applications I loaded onto my new iPhone. Pixelpipe had been free for all mobile phone users, but Android users were surprised to find out that the company has decided to start charging them to download the application, while users on other mobile platforms are still able to download the app for free.

Dan Monzelowsky, an Android user, posted a link to a Socialgeist article titled “Pixelpipe: Fail of the Day” to Friendfeed, an online community where users share and comment on content aggregated from various sources on the web. According to Dan, he was surprised and disappointed to find out that the update Pixelpipe had pushed to his phone would now cost him $2.99 if he wanted to keep the same features as before. At the time, Pixelpipe had not offered a free, “Lite” version of the application. Dan criticized Pixelpipe for their failure to make a free version of the application available for Android users, and for making Android users pay for an application that iPhone users were still getting for free.

Apparently, a representative from Pixelpipe started an argument with Dan via Twitter about his article. (This is where things start to go horribly wrong for Pixelpipe). I don’t have screen shots available of the Twitter discussion, but according to Dan’s Friendfeed post, he took issue with the way the Pixelpipe representative spoke to him. The representative wrote “You deleted our free version since there was an optional upgrade available at a small cost & then complained. Seriously, why?”

Now, while it probably wasn’t the best response in the world (snark is never appreciated on the internet), I don’t honestly see that the original response was that bad. But things quickly went from bad to worse.

You are being unreasonable. The mob of users that somehow imagined it was all a nefarious plot to screw them out of $1.99 are acting more like a mob than rational people. You weren’t forced to upgrade. Why do you assume that it was some giant bait and switch? That doesn’t even make sense. Android market share is still tiny. If we were going to attempt some sneaky bait and switch and then run away to Mexico with your 2 dollars, don’t you think we would have done it with a much larger market?

When Dan challenged Tracy’s comments, Tracy kept on going:

I did not step my foot in here to fan the flames. You directly called me a “moron”. Who is fanning the flames? I am just trying to defend myself against somebody that wants to publicly insult others in a childish manner without having to be held accountable for their words. Do you think you get to call me a moron in the Android room without a rebuttal?

As a matter of fact Tracy, yes, he does get to call you a moron without rebuttal. The public gets to call you whatever they want in public without a rebuttal from the company, because, like it or not, that’s the way customer service works.

When engaging the public over a service like Friendfeed, Twitter, or other services, like it or not, the burden of politeness rests with the company and its representatives. Otherwise, when an interaction like this takes place, it begins to look like a Big Bad Company picking on The Little Guy. That never goes over well with your customers or potential customers.

There is a right way to handle criticism like this, and that right way involves never making it a personal argument between two people. When situations like this arise, the best thing for an organization to do is to have an official representative of the company write a blog post that addresses the points the original poster made, and to address the points, not the person.

It doesn’t matter how wrong you think the individual is. It doesn’t matter whether the individual said your kids were ugly and your mother was a jackal (although, if they had, you could probably take them to court for that). What matters most is the impression the company leaves when others have the opportunity to see how that company conducts itself in public and with their customers. Tracy’s actions left me with a very negative impression of Pixelpipe. Before I saw his/her actions, I didn’t care about this Android issue, because I’m not an Android user. But now I obviously cared enough to respond to Tracy on Friendfeed, and to write a blog post that offers a lesson on transparency gone wrong.

Librarians and library staff, let this be a lesson to us all.

Tagged as: Android, libraries, pixelpipe, social media, transparency