New Features: Changes to the Facebook Support Tab and Private Communities

  • Announcement
  • Updated 2 years ago
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members.

Who doesn't like new stuff, right?

By popular demand, we're bringing you two new features: the ability to change the name of your Facebook Support Tab and Private Communities for Enterprise.

You asked for a way to limit the topic options as well as a way to rename the tab, and we heard you. Based on your feedback we've built a simple admin panel for the Facebook app where you can select from one of five popular options.



Each option changes the app content types and the tab name, and selecting a new application style is as simple as selecting an option, then uninstalling and reinstalling the application. None of the content in your community is affected by this change so try out several styles and see what works best for you.

To add the Facebook Support Tab to your community or configure it with these new features, go into your community's Admin panel and click on Facebook on the left side.

And so many of you have asked us for a Private Community option; I'm happy to say that option is here! If you're on Enterprise you'll have the option to take full advantage of this new offering.

Here's how it works: Using FastPass, your community moderators can create a private community of authorized members for purposes as diverse as subscription customer support to product testing (beta communities) to customer insight panels that work much like dedicated focus groups. Get Satisfaction clients who establish a private community can rest assured that the content created in those communities will stay private without requiring users to learn a new user interface, the same industry recognized user experience now enables public and private communities.

Contact Enterprise Sales at sales@getsatisfaction.com or (877) 339-3997 for more information including requirements.

Morgan Sherwood

  • 307 Posts
  • 41 Likes
  • w00t!

Posted 4 years ago

removed

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Likes
I spoke with one of your sales folks a couple weeks ago about Private Communities. I told him my startup wanted to make our GS Start Plan community private because we'd be using your product for internal ideation. He sympathized, and then asked if we could afford your $7200/year plan to get this feature.

Why would you prevent startups like mine from using your product by pricing this feature so high? I read a few of your employees' forum comments on this: You see your product as a channel through which customers (and only customers) are able to provide feedback to a company. Why such a narrow view? Can you not see the perspective of a company wanting to crowd-source its employees' ideas? Can you not appreciate the need for private, internal ideation? Were you ever a startup with new, innovative ideas or did you skip that step?

Instead we are doing stupid things like setting up private Reddit subreddits. UserVoice charges $95/month for this feature and it's still too expensive for us. There are so many startups like mine which could use a private employee-voted feedback system. It's surprising to me that you would make this feature so exclusive.

Jeff Nolan, Champion

  • 137 Posts
  • 19 Likes
Chris,
There are a lot of technical reasons for this but the bigger issue is that we are grappling with the on/off model aspect of private communities. What I mean by this is that our founders were originally motivated by the promise of a better way for companies and customers to talk to each other and we resisted the "cheap thrill" of going after employee collaboration because it didn't fit with what we originally established as the vision... and needless to say, there are a lot of other companies doing internal collaboration and very few of them try public communities because it is really difficult to do both variants.

Sometimes you have to declare, as a business, what you won't do and while we do now offer a private offering for enterprise customers, this is technically challenging solution for us to offer given the nature of our network approach and something we struggle with going to our broader market.

I think it's fair to say that offering all all private option for is something we fear will break our network model, but irrespective of that dimension, you still need a single sign on solution for maintaining the access list in a private community so that becomes a barrier because Fastpass is only available at the higher tiered plans (it imposes an additional layer of technical complexity).

We're struggling with this issue, to be completely transparent about it.

Alastair Woods

  • 0 Posts
  • 0 Likes
BS Jeff.

Restricting the ability for companies to choose how they use your service to an "enterprise model" that is 500% more expensive than the next highest plan is obscene, greedy and hypocritical.

I'm shocked that the enterprise plan costs so much more and that your pathetic excuse as a company rep is that the company is 'struggling' with the idea that it's customers actually require confidentiality sometimes.

I thought Get Satisfaction was a great idea for customer service yet you are blatantly ignoring your own customers by attempting to dictate the terms on how WE interact with OUR customers. I'm sorry but your own terms of service clearly state that all data in my community remains MY property. MY customers are MY customers not your customers despite the fact that you host the platform.

Chris Beaman, Myself and thousands of other community admins are your customers. Every business I have ever worked for has relied heavily on communication between staff members, not just between staff and customers.

I have only just signed up for your trial period as I am assessing it's ability for our business. At this stage I will not be continuing to integrate your product into our business which is a pity as I was very excited at the prospect of providing this service to our customers. If you cannot differentiate between your customers and the end users then your product is of no use to my business.

It's pretty evident that even with ready access to the best customer service tools available, the only true way to provide great service is still an ability to listen and adapt. Something that cannot be bought for $7200 a year.

Jeff Nolan, Champion

  • 137 Posts
  • 19 Likes
Alastair,

Actually the terms of service is very clear about content ownership, refer to sections 3.4 and 3.5. The individual end user owns all content they post throughout our network.

"Your own text, images, audiovisual media and any other form of intellectual property, including the data, ideas, inventions, designs, patterns and processes in such material (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Get Satisfaction Service belongs to you and you may use it in any other way without restriction. "

and in 3.5
"Content posted by another person or company on or through the Get Satisfaction Service belongs to the poster."

Get Satisfaction was conceived as an open and public community platform, I did not dispute the validity of private collaboration but stated that it required us to deviate from our original network model and architect a derivative product, and because of the technical requirements in implementation we limit it to our Enterprise tiers.

I am sorry you found my answer to your original comment "pathetic". I offered an answer that represents an unvarnished view on the matter. I would also like to add that our customers are every single individual that uses Get Satisfaction, as well as the clients who pay us and it is not a matter of being unable to differentiate between end users and clients but rather being unwilling to discriminate against end users because they don't pay us every month.

Alastair Woods

  • 0 Posts
  • 0 Likes
Thanks Jeff, yes I am aware of the terms. I am all for an open and public community forum, but ultimately when a private company decides to invite it's customers to interact and engage with each other and the companies representatives using an open community forum such as GS or FB or Twitter, that company still has to maintain a level of control and moderation in order to protect their brand. This is very difficult to do on FB or Twitter as they have very few tools for community management. Every week there are new experts advising on best practices for harnessing social media and still big companies like Qantas* & Coca Cola** make mistakes.

I thought GS may address some of these issues by offering a service that companies would want to adopt designed around the concept of an open community platform, yet with the much needed control that existing platforms don't offer. You do after all, market your product specifically to businesses wanting to provide a service to their customers, not mums and dads wanting to chat about personal interests (although i'm sure it can and has been used for that).

It seems that GS has been developed with a very narrow view based entirely on the ideology of what the end user may want, without much consideration for the fact that millions of businesses don't provide products to the public. My business for example has a mixture of public visitors who use our services for free and content providers who have a contractual business relationship with us.
Both our public visitors and our content providers are our customers but we cannot treat them the same on a community platform like GS. They are not the same Jeff. Take a look at your own GS service plans, you do not price your subscriptions on the number of users required whilst offering the same level of tools or services across all plans. You offer more tools and support through a dedicated account manager for those who are capable and willing to pay for it. If that's not discrimination then aristocracy must be a figment of my imagination.

I stand by my statement that my customers are not your customers, despite your argument that you treat every user of GS as an equal and are unwilling to 'discriminate' between paying clients and their customer base. It is not a matter of discrimination Jeff, it is a matter of a users knowledge that your company even exists. If my GS community is branded with my logos and styling and does not contain any visible GS branding, then my customer will not be aware of your existence. If they are not aware of you, then they are not YOUR customer. The role of GS is no different to a manufacturer such as Foxconn which builds the iPhones for Apple. In the eye of most iPhone users, Foxconn does not exist. The iPhone users see themselves as customers of Apple and will contact Apple for service enquiries, complaints and upgrades/renewals.

It is a pity that GS has failed to take into account that many businesses have complex, legally binding business relationships with their existing customer bases and must 'discriminate' between the general public and those who are paying for a premium service.

*http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-22...
**http://www.smh.com.au/business/cocaco...

Jeff Nolan, Champion

  • 137 Posts
  • 19 Likes
Alastair,
At this point I'm not sure what point you are making beyond browbeating me about the fact that products which offer substantially higher value to organizations that have a strategy around social support come with a higher price tag.

We actually have customers who use Get Satisfaction in the manner that you wish (yes, I have taken the time to understand your business as best I could from your public facing sources). As you are aware, we can stand up a community that is private in every sense of the word (not exposed to search engines, social sharing is turned off, content cannot be exposed to other user dashboards). The private option looks the same as our public communities but cannot be intermingled with public, which simply means that if you want to have a public community for customers of your partners, for example, then that would exist as a separate community without the private restrictions.

Private communities have a cost associated with them and are provisioned to enterprise grade pricing plans as a result. Please don't call us greedy or hypocritical for doing exactly what you and every other business does, which is to price our products according to what they cost and according to how those products fit into a business strategy.

As for your, ours, their customers... we will agree to disagree. I have a responsibility to deliver a service that meets the needs of millions of end users and unlike Foxconn, to use your example, I am not a contract manufacturer who's responsibility ends when the product leaves the loading dock. If I fail to deliver a reliable service, compelling user experience, and new and improved features on a regular basis, you - as my client - will not get value from what you are paying for.

There are a range of community platform alternatives you can consider if Get Satisfaction does not offer the price:value ratio that you are expecting. I believe we have a better product but that is ultimately for you and every other customer or prospect to decide.

Alastair Woods

  • 0 Posts
  • 0 Likes
It's quite simple Jeff, up until this last response, your previous 2 comments on this topic gave me the impression that GS wants to dictate it's ideologies on my business instead of simply providing a software platform at a fair price for me to use according to my business needs.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that GS cares deeply about the end users experience as of course that is incredibly important - it is what we are all out to achieve. However I was astounded by your response to Chris Beamans enquiry and my subsequent comments as they seem quite conflicting. At first you attempt to justify restricting the ability for your clients to create private communities to the enterprise subscription with a 500% premium because you are grappling with the technical side of things as they conflict with your founders original vision???

I called BS because I don't believe that is a justifiable reason for charging such an excessive mark up for that service. I also don't believe that the addition of new permission settings to allow your clients to control the openness of their communities was really that technical compared to the existing GS system that you guys have developed.

You made it sound like GS really hates the whole idea of privacy and confidentiality within business and that you were forced to begrudgingly develop this service. So instead of offering it to everyone at a reasonable price recouping your costs through volume sales like the rest of the GS system you priced it out of reach of the majority of your clients.

I have no problem with companies making money but I will call GS hypocritical for at first trying to be all high and mighty claiming you don't 'discriminate' and implying that companies such as mine that offer various levels of products, services and support according to a paid subscription level are of a lower standing than GS when your own subscription levels allow you to do the same.

I want to thank you for summarising the capabilities of private community settings. It'd be great if it were within my budget as it's very likely that we would have used such a system for many years. As it is not available in any of the lower levels I will have to look elsewhere.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.