Fishbowl

Leslie  John

Case | HBS Case Collection | December 2018

Fishbowl

Abstract

Fishbowl is a social media app that allows professionals to connect with other relevant professionals both within their company and across industry. Unlike many other social media apps, on which users typically present idealized portraits of themselves, on Fishbowl, people get real. Fishbowl prides itself in being a “safe space” that allows users to feel comfortable interacting with candor—whether to ask difficult questions in order to give and get advice or just to vent or crack jokes. A key part of the user experience is the ability to post anonymously. But to ensure relevance of posts, when a user signs up, Fishbowl verifies their identity by requiring them to provide their full name, employer email address, LinkedIn account, and contact list. Fishbowl has several hundred thousand users and is now looking for ways to monetize the platform. As such, founders Loren Appin and Matt Sunbulli face a mission-critical decision: should they integrate employers into the platform? Although formally integrating employers would provide a much-needed revenue stream, at the same time Appin and Sunbulli worry that doing so could destroy the user experience. Is formalizing employer relationships antithetical to the safe space they have created?

Keywords: social media; platforms; privacy; Technology Networks; Business Model; Trust; Growth and Development Strategy; Decision Making; Consulting Industry; Technology Industry; Advertising Industry; United States;

Language: English

Format: Print

22 pages

Educators Purchase

Citation:

John, Leslie. "Fishbowl." Harvard Business School Case 919-013, December 2018.

Article | Journal of Experimental Psychology: General | April 2019

Shooting the Messenger

Leslie John, Hayley Blunden and Heidi Liu

Eleven experiments provide evidence that people have a tendency to “shoot the messenger,” deeming innocent bearers of bad news unlikeable. In a preregistered lab experiment, participants rated messengers who delivered bad news from a random drawing as relatively unlikeable (Study 1). A second set of studies points to the specificity of the effect: Study 2A shows that it is unique to the (innocent) messenger and not mere bystanders. Study 2B shows that it is distinct from merely receiving information that one disagrees with. We suggest that people’s tendency to deem bearers of bad news as unlikeable stems in part from their desire to make sense of chance processes. Consistent with this account, receiving bad news activates the desire to sense-make (Study 3A), and in turn, activating this desire enhances the tendency to dislike bearers of bad news (Study 3B). Next, stemming from the idea that unexpected outcomes heighten the desire to sense-make, Study 4 shows that when bad news is unexpected, messenger dislike is pronounced. Finally, consistent with the notion that people fulfill the desire to sense-make by attributing agency to entities adjacent to chance events, messenger dislike is correlated with the belief that the messenger had malevolent motives (Studies 5A, 5B, & 5C). Studies 6A & 6B go further, manipulating messenger motives independently from news valence to suggest its causal role in our process account: the tendency to dislike bearers of bad news is mitigated when recipients are made aware of the benevolence of the messenger’s motives.

Keywords: judgment; communication; sense-making; attribution; disclosure; Interpersonal Communication; Perception; Judgments; Motivation and Incentives;

Citation:

John, Leslie, Hayley Blunden, and Heidi Liu. "Shooting the Messenger." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 148, no. 4 (April 2019): 644–666. View Details

Cite View Details Find at Harvard Read Now

By the time Dan Doctoroff, CEO of Sidewalk Labs, began hosting a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” session in January 2018, he had only nine months remaining to convince the people of Toronto, their government representatives, and presumably his parent company Alphabet, Inc., that Sidewalk Labs’ plan to construct “the first truly 21st-century city” on the Canadian city’s waterfront was a sound one. Along with much excitement and optimism, strains of concern had emerged since Doctoroff and partners first announced their intentions for a city “built from the internet up” in Toronto’s Quayside district. As Doctoroff prepared for yet another milestone in a year of planning and community engagement, it was almost certain that of the many questions headed his way, digital privacy would be among them.

In August 2017, Commonwealth Bank of Australia was looking for ways to differentiate itself from competing banks and was also trying to improve the financial well-being of its customers. One domain where this was particularly relevant was in its bank-issued credit card business, where customers routinely selected cards that although profitable for the bank could be a poor fit for customers’ needs—leading to low satisfaction scores, cancellations, and occasionally, financial distress. To that end, the company’s Behavioral Economics team had developed a provocative experiment dubbed “The Good and the Bad.” Rather than just presenting the strengths of its various credit card offerings, they proposed also promoting each credit card’s less-obvious drawbacks. Being transparent with customers might help them make better choices, but would those choices come at the expense of bank performance? Should a company choose to be in the sales prevention business?

Faculty & Research

Fishbowl

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author