So firstly, not many companies even have the financial means to make a serious bid to purchase a controlling stake in Facebook. And even if those companies that could make a bid decided to, how Facebook’s users would find out before people like, say, the media, would is extremely questionable. Anyways, for the purposes of this article, we’ll take it at Facevalue that Facebook is being wooed by some corporate giant looking to turn it into a paid service. So now the question is, who the F*&k would actually be stupid enough to think that would work?

Firstly, Facebook has been free to all users since inception. Sure, there are very valid situations in which giving something away for free to get people interested and actively participating before charging for the service is a valid strategy. In such situations though, it’s absolutely imperative that the company discloses that he service is a free trial and that payment will eventually be required. Even then, the majority of people who tried it out for free will jump ship as soon as there is a dollar involved, but some will stay, knowing full well what they were getting into. On the other hand, giving something away for free for so long that it’s expected that it will last that way forever, and then suddenly dropping a dollar amount on it, is an amazing way to royally piss off one’s user base.

Secondly, social networks are so easy to build now that the barriers to entry to competitors are absolutely minimal. You can go on any number of message boards or websites and find pre packed, ready to go scripts and software suites that will instantly give the buyer a relatively powerful social network. The difficulty in running a social network like Facebook isn’t in the coding. Many capable web developers are available that can do that work. The difficulty is in managing (and affording) the massive amounts of traffic, and that’s a pretty nice problem to have to deal with! If Facebook went paid, within days there would be a competitor ready to offer the same services free of charge, and that brings us to our third point.

Social networking users are ridiculously fickle. Facebook users bitch for hours about the smallest changes to the interface. Why anyone would ever think they’d look the other way on a change like paid membership is beyond me. If Facebook went paid, the speed with which essentially the entire membership of Facebook would flock to the next big thing would be absolutely mind blowing. Personally, I think it would probably take less than a week for the news to get out about the new coolest site to be on and in turn for Facebook to all but crumble.

So let’s say that Facebook did want to add a new revenue stream to try and backup their massive valuation. What could they do? They could take a page out of the Wikipedia book. Wikipedia is free. Everyone knows that, and in particular, Wikipedia knows that. Rather than try and charge users, Wikipedia adopted a donation system. That donation system has now produces millions of dollars of revenue, all from the hearts of its users. People love Wikipedia, but people may very well love Facebook more. There is no guarantee the user base of Facebook would be as generous, after all, most of them are students, and students are poor. However, if the decision is between taking donations and making some money, or charging a mandatory fee and losing your entire membership and making no money, then I’d say the choice is clear.

Sure, some members would stick around and pay the membership fee to use Facebook…initially. But when the population of Facebook users goes into all but extinction, there won’t be any reason for those few that gladly would pay to stick around, and in time, they too will leave. So charging a fee for use, would be, without a doubt, a guaranteed death sentence for Facebook. Personally, I don’t believe anyone, anywhere who knows their head from their ass would be stupid enough to make that change, let alone a company so well established in business that they could afford to actually buy Facebook and implement it.

So is Facebook being courted by some greedy corporate fat cat? Probably not, but even if they are, I wouldn’t worry about the service becoming paid, so please, stop inviting me to join those stupid protest groups!

First of all, let’s begin with a simplified example (very simplified), Jim and Bob both have the same car for sale. Each one goes to Craigslist and quickly types up a for-sale ad. They go as follows:

1) Car for sale:

• The cars is a four door sedan.
• The car has well maintained air conditioning.
• The deck is a CD/MP3 player.
• The car has a 120HP 4 cylinder engine.
• There is an anti-theft device installed.
• The car has recently purchased snow tires.

2) Car for sale:

• Spacious four door sedan seats five, making road trips or family outings more comfortable.
• Strong, well maintained air conditioning ensures you’ll be cool and comfortable on hot summer days.
• CD/MP3 player plays any CD type or can be hooked up to an iPod, so your music is at your fingertips regardless of format.
• 120HP 4 cylinder engine has kick but goes easy on the gas so you’ll save at the fuel pumps.
• Anti-theft device ensures peace of mind. Your car will be safe regardless of where you park it.
• Recently purchased snow tires ensure safety by maintaining grip in even the worst winter conditions.

What’s the difference here aside from the second for sale ad being wordier than the first one? The word count isn’t the important distinction here. Yes, the second one is longer and more descriptive, but it’s what the second one is expanding on that counts. These two ads (while both poor on the grand scale, cut me some slack, they’re just an example!) demonstrate the difference between selling based on features and selling based on benefits.

The first ad describes the car just like the second one does. Each ad covers the exact same aspects of the car as the other, but the second ad is the one that will sell. Why? Simple. The first ad focuses on the features of the car, whereas the second ad lists the features, but focuses on the benefits of those features, and benefits are what consumers care about.

What’s the difference between a feature and a benefit? A feature is a cold, emotionless, technical aspect of a product or service. A feature is a description of something the product has or does, but not what it does for you. A benefit on the other hand is exactly that. A benefit is what the consumer gets from the feature. A benefit describes how a feature will make a customers life easier or happier. It’s emotional and exciting. Features are cold and boring. For example, take the snow tires. The snow tires themselves are a feature of the car. But subconsciously the consumer is saying “why do I care about snow tires?” The answer is the benefit. “I care about snow tires because they’ll keep me safe when I’m driving in conditions that could otherwise result in an accident”. Likewise, numbers such as 120 horsepower or four cylinders might just go in one ear and out the other, but telling a customer that the engine will save them money when they fill up their car will likely peak their interest.

The point to drive home here, that is all too often overlooked, is that people make desicions emotionally. Consumers aren’t computers that take in raw data, process it and make a decision based on what the calculations say the best decision is. When people make buying decisions, they react to emotional stimulus, so your sales copy should be providing it generously. Benefits are emotional, they answer the ultimate question on every buyers mind, “what’s in it for me?” (WIIFM). On the other hand, features are bland, they evoke no emotional response, and worst of all, when listed without benefits, they make customers search for the answer to that ever important question. Don’t make your customers have to dig in their brains to answer WIIFM. Tell them yourself!

Keep in mind, features are important. First of all, you’ll always have the tech-heads who gobble up features like they’re candy and ask for more. For these people, seeing that list of specs is a thrill. Secondly, it’s always good to list the features simply because even if the potential buyer isn’t a tech-head, it still makes it very clear what the product does and does not do. That being said, listing features alone is leaving money on the table. Features always work best when coupled to a benefit. When you’re writing your sales copy, if you absolutely have to choose between listing one or the other (you have a word count limit or there isn’t much space for text), shoot for benefits, but whenever possible, marry them. Give your customer the raw information so they know the nitty-gritty of the product, but then tell them about all the wonderful things that the nitty-gritty will do for them.

Remember, people are emotional creatures, they make buying decisions with emotion, so evoke emotion! Telling me your airplanes seats are 21″ wide make me shrug my shoulders and say “meh, I can probably get a cheaper price”. Telling me your 21″ wide seat is the most spacious in the industry, so I’ll have plenty of room to get comfortable during my long flight makes me say “wow. My comfort is worth a little extra money!” Sell me the feature and I may go elsewhere, sell me the benefit and I just may stay!