Nobody needs to reiterate that Facebook’s post-IPO honeymoon period has gone, well, less-than-swimmingly. As of the writing of this article, the stock has sunk to $27.24 per share. On the plus side, it’s been hovering in the $27-$28 range all day and only dipped below $27 for a brief moment. Ok, who am I kidding – people aren’t too pleased.
Apparently, it’s not just frustration over the stock situation. According to metrics provided by BrandKeys, the distaste left by the disastrous days following the IPO has metastasized and is now affecting how consumers view the company on a couple different levels.
In short, the IPO has negatively affected Facebook’s consumer loyalty and engagement.
BrandKeys’ Customer Loyalty Engagement Index showed Facebook in the top spot in previous months. Thier study encompasses 49,000 consumers, and tracks over 600 brands in 83 categories. In the social media category, Facebook ruled…until the index came out for May.
According to the numbers, Facebook has dropped to 5th on the list, behind LinkedIn, Pinterest, Twitter, and top dawg YouTube.
“First you need be resonant enough with consumers to make the list. Then we’re able to determine how well a brand meets or exceeds expectations consumer hold for the drivers of engagement and loyalty in the category. Five months ago Facebook was doing just fine,” said BrandKeys president Robert Passikoff.
The metrics break down into subcategories, which show that Facebook was hurt in terms of “Self-Image” and “Trust & Security,” losing 11 and 20 points respectively.
Passikoff blames it on the IPO, saying “what was once a community is now being viewed as a business, and that changes things substantially.”
To be fair, a few months have passed sinced Facebook was riding high atop the Consumer Loyalty Engagement Index. The IPO fiasco is a relatively new thing. Plenty of other things could have miffed users in the last few months, including but not limited to privacy concerns and redesigns that pissed off a whole hell of a lot of users (yo Timeline).
But then again, they might be on to something, because, you know, this: