The uproar in India over Facebook’s FreeBasics offer got me reading more about Net Neutrality. I always thought that NetNeutrality related more to companies like Netflix who want to pay more to Telco’s for prioritized delivery of content to their paid customers. I assumed, although incorrectly, that Facebook (and Google) approach to Net Neutrality would be to get billions of people in emerging countries free access to internet so that they will choose to use their core services (search, social network etc.).  I was partially right considering Google’s approach to Net Neutrality by installing free WiFi hotspots with Indian Railways, the WiFI balloons in Africa and elsewhere and not limiting access to content.
My conclusion is that FaceBook’s FreeBasics is doomed in any country let alone India. Facebook’s offer is disrespectful of their target audience (the billions in emerging economies and some in developed countries). It is like saying beggars can’t be choosers – you are poor take whatever I offer since it is better than not having anything. However there are several options here – Google’s free WiFi and several policy/infrastructure initiatives by Governments. Even homeless shelters in the US have choice – they get fresh and healthy food and not left overs. There is no philanthropic intent in Facebook providing free internet access by limiting its content to Facebook and some of the services offered by their Telco partners. It has capitalistic intent written all over it with Ad revenues. There is nothing wrong with capitalistic intent in making profits but it should not be in the guise of philonthrophy. In addition Mark Andreessen’s twitter rants with British colonial references makes the matter worse and angers the fast growing and empowered Indian middle–class.
Facebook’s fiasco with FreeBasics reminded me of the analysis I did in 2005 of Google and Yahoo in the early days of search advertising for a marketing class.  I thought it should have been common sense to focus on relevance to users for whom the search service was free. During those initial days Yahoo looked into only the Cost Per Click (CPC) and ignored the Click-Through Rate (CTR). That meant the advertiser who bid the highest got their URL listed on the top of the sponsored search. This is because Yahoo at that time considered advertisers as their primary customers since they were paying. It was not surprising considering that Terry Semel, then CEO of Yahoo, had come from the TV industry. Yahoo took the easy capitalistic mindset of focusing on the advertiser/marketer and ignoring the users who come to the website.
While Google right from the get go used CPC and CTR to make their decision because one of their core values is relevance to its users (people who use their website for search). I had compared annual reports of Google and Yahoo. Google’s annual report was very explicit and detailed in their focus on relevance to end users and still is. Continued success of Google and failure of Yahoo are tied to their core values and how it influences every decision the company makes. Of course, Yahoo has since then updated their process to use both CPC and CTR.

I was once again intrigued to read what Facebook’s annual report had to say.  The first section in Facebook’s annual report titled “Overview” is just 2 lines “Our mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected. Our business focuses on creating value for people, marketers, and developers.”. The annual report then jumps into value of their products to people, value to marketeers and value to developers.
Google’s annual report on the other hand has an “Overview” section that is 3 paragraphs long followed by a whole section with 4 paragraphs on “Serving our users”.  All their products Gmail, Chrome-cast, Chrome browser, Android etc. are all aligned to learning more about their users to better serve their users. I am big fan of how Google has established their mission and culture and also acts on them.
In conclusion, Facebook’s fiasco with FreeBasics appears to be a broader issue. I think it’s longevity as a company will depend on how they refine and communicate their mission and make everyone in the company work towards it. There are several examples of a company’s mission in the book “Built to Last”. My favorite one is Disney’s mission – “To Make people Happy”. Disney theme park is just one of many ways Disney makes people happy.
In full disclosure I want to state that I have never owned stocks of Google, Facebook or Yahoo. Although I wish I had owned them. I am also an admirer of Serge, Larry and Mark. This write-up is my attempt at intellectual analysis of the topic.