Stop Bashing the New Facebook

The rational part of me knows that the new HOLLIS search system is much improved. It’s got a snazzy new look, it integrates different types of media in one search, and it’s even got spelling suggestions. But I still find myself clinging to the classic HOLLIS system like an old security blanket. It may be simple and worn out, but at least it’s familiar.

Fortunately, my irrational dislike of change has a scientific explanation. People generally prefer things they have seen before, which is something psychologists call the “mere exposure effect.” The frequency of contact consumers have with a product also plays a role. If Delta Air Lines announces a new design for its signs and logos, it’s not a huge deal because people only fly infrequently. On the other hand, when customers use a product every day, the effects of a redesign can be jarring.

People rarely approve when a newspaper, the quintessential quotidian good, changes its layout. Similarly, when Starbucks briefly started using its old logo on coffee cups about a year ago, daily drinkers weren’t happy. And, when the Red Sox announced they would be wearing new “retro” gray road uniforms last December, the fan response was tepid at best, with the greatest vitriol directed at the biggest change—putting hanging socks on the hat. Baseball games occur almost daily during the summer months, so it’s not surprising that fans would bristle.

The issue of daily usage helps explain the most reviled design change this year, the latest version of Facebook that aired in Februrary. The newest Facebook is a perfect storm of redesign hatred because of the website’s widespread use and the intense need for familiarity by its users.

By its own count, Facebook has more than 200 million active users, half of whom log on once per day. Users obsess over their profile photo and information in the “About Me” section, and they certainly don’t want the look of their profile changed without permission.

In the past, Facebook has been fairly sensitive to its customers when adding new features that were initially unpopular. The addition in 2006 of a news feed—a box brimming with information about friends’ actions, such as changing relationship statuses or uploading photos—was criticized for infringing upon user privacy. Founder Mark Zuckerberg responded by asking people to “calm down” and then introduced settings that allowed users to limit the information that would appear in other users’ feeds. Last summer, people were given an option of switching to a new layout before everyone was automatically switched over in September 2008.

But the changes made during the last two months did more than just add features. They altered the core concept behind the website, essentially condensing all of its features, including posts between friends, into a constant stream of Twitter-esque news snippets. This time, there was no “trial” period, but only a short notice about a week before the changes took effect.

Things quickly got ugly. In a poll on Facebook’s website, 94 percent of voters were against the new design. Even Facebook employees apparently were dissatisfied, leading Zuckerberg to send an internal email saying that companies shouldn’t listen to their customers.

But Zuckerberg must be at least partially right, because no one is leaving. In fact, Facebook continues to grow. Are users too addicted to quit? It’s more likely that Facebook usage became so widespread that, like cell phones and e-mail, people of a certain age would be more inconvenienced by signing off than by sticking with a flawed system.

For newspapers, an industry already in steep decline, an unpopular redesign can be the last straw that pushes readers to cancel their subscription. A survey of major paper redesigns in the last five years suggests that most papers either continued to slide or did worse after changing their design. Thus, back in 2006, when Facebook was still an upstart company trying to compete with MySpace, Zuckerberg had to tread more lightly to cater to his fledgling user base. With Facebook now as healthy as ever, Zuckerberg is free to change what he wants, when he wants to.

Personally, I don’t care for the changes. I think of Facebook as a way to organize group photos and learn about parties, not a social news ticker. However, it’s entirely possible that I don’t like the new Facebook because I simply crave familiarity like the rest of humanity. If Facebook had these features from the beginning and the management tried to remove them, I’m sure that the outcry would be just as loud. Since Facebook has no incentive to budge, we might as well try to get used to the changes. That’s the beauty of the exposure effect: Pretty soon, everything new becomes familiar again.


Adam R. Gold ’11, a Crimson editorial writer, is a physics concentrator in Adams House. His column appears on alternate Mondays.