Analysis of Facebook’s Auckland Flatmates & Flats Wanted Page Fee Proposal

Overview

• Context: A proposal to charge fees for posts on the Auckland Flatmates & Flats Wanted (AFW) Facebook page sparked significant backlash from its 202,000+ members.

Key Issues and Market Implications

Fee Proposal Details

• Proposed Fees: Admins suggested a $3 fee per post, with $1 of each charge going to charity.
• Unclear Implementation: The exact fee structure and allocation of funds were not clarified by the admins.

Facebook’s Policies

• Terms of Service Violation: Charging fees for posts on a Facebook page violates its terms, risking account restrictions or bans.
• Regulatory Risk: Admins face potential legal consequences for operating outside Facebook’s guidelines.

Member Reactions and Backlash

• Negative Feedback: Members expressed outrage over the fee proposal, with many questioning the necessity of charges given Facebook’s free platform.
• Emotional Responses: Over 160 members responded with laughing emojis, leading to bans of 88 individuals. A Reddit thread highlighted further frustration.

Competitive Dynamics

• Group Pause and Ban: The group was temporarily paused on March 18, preventing new posts or memberships until at least March 21.
• Comment Disabling: Comments were turned off to manage negative feedback, indicating a shift in engagement strategy.

Long-Term Effects and Fragmentation

• Potential Shutdown: Admins hinted at shutting down the group due to backlash and high demands, potentially fragmenting the market for flatmate connections.
• Member Migration: Members are encouraged to create or join alternative groups, fostering competition among similar platforms.

Strategic Considerations

• Resource Burden: The original admin emphasized the personal time and resources invested over ten years without compensation.
• Failed Collaboration Attempts: Past issues with other admins attempting control or letting scams through have strained group management.

Member Support Offered

• Unpaid Offers: Some members volunteered to help moderate without charge, but were declined despite prior experience.

Moderator’s Perspective

• Effort Recognition: The moderator highlighted the significant effort admins invest, though this was met with skepticism from members.
• Shutting Down Plans: Admins are considering closure due to high demands and negative reactions, signaling a potential shift in market dynamics.

Conclusion

The fee proposal underscores challenges in managing large online communities and highlights risks of violating platform policies. The backlash indicates strong member loyalty to free services, potentially leading to market fragmentation as members seek alternatives.