Facebook will shut down its physical gifts service this week
fastcompany.com
fastcompany.com
It took me 3 days to get a response from Facebook through their help system.
Meanwhile, Facebook had already told my grandmother flowers were on the way. They even provided a tracking number that did not exist.
I wonder how much the lack of customer support played a role in the 20% physical goods number. IMHO physical gifts was a poorly executed feature.
There's so many shipping systems out there and none of them talk to each other. If someone were to create software that integrated every vendor with every distributor I think they would do very well for themselves.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/18/facebook-acquires-karma/
http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/27/facebook-gifts/
The latter article is very funny in retrospect.
The very use case I wanted for Facebook gifts were when I'm in California and want to send gifts to friends back in Canada (and vice versa).
Sure, maybe the gifts are cheesy (coffee mugs, etc) and limited, but I have always found that a real physical product in someone's hands has more impact than an impersonal gift card. I'm sad to see this service go, but I hope someone steps into this niche.
Facebook should try again and partner with a site like Etsy (disclaimer: I used to work there) to provide users with an inventory of actually meaningful and cool items customized for the person they're sending to, not mass produced garbage or fatty junk food like cookies and candy that will just sit for a while and get tossed. Receiving a Facebook Gift should feel warm and fuzzy, not like a robot delivered you a souped-up McDonald's Happy Meal. To address the price problem, they should make it straightforward and easy for multiple friends to throw in $10 each for a nice, meaningful gift together. They'd make a fortune.
Facebook should test its ideas better before full-scale rollout. Launch a feature at a few schools, test the adoption metrics, and rebuild for scale if it gets traction.
Of course, this assumes they didn't do exactly that. Can anyone within the walls comment?
Most of the time they do, and I imagine they did with this, as well. Did I miss any evidence in the article that suggested that they didn't? Just because they are turning it off now doesn't mean at the beginning it wasn't successful.
Trust factor amongst the technocracy (here), but I wonder if this will have the same end-result of non-usage.
This tweet from Chris Dixon a year ago summed it up best for me: "It's all about the mental state. are you sharing photos online vs giving something offline. the numbers show it's hard to switch".