Will Startup Fishbowl Become the Social Media App for Your Industry?

Brian Kenny: At 10:30 pm on October 29, 1969, history was made. It was at that precise moment that UCLA undergrad Charlie Kline sent the very first message on ARPANET, precursor to the internet. It may have been the single most important development in communication since Alexander Graham Bell shouted, “Watson, can you hear me?” Kline’s message, the word “login,” lacks the dramatic flair of Bell’s, and actually, due to a system crash, only the letters L and O came through in the first transmission, which I guess is sort of dramatic. But no one in the computer lab at Boelter Hall that night could have imagined that those two letters would spark a communications revolution that, 50 years hence, would connect billions of people on hundreds of social networking platforms around the world. What happens on those social networks? Well, that's another story entirely. Today we'll hear from Professor Leslie John about her case entitled, Fishbowl. I'm your host Brian Kenny and you're listening to Cold Call, recorded live in Klarman Hall Studios at Harvard Business School.

Leslie John is an expert in negotiations and her research centers on how consumers’ behavior and lives are influenced by their interaction with firms and with public policy. Leslie, thanks for joining us today.

Leslie John: Thanks for having me.

Kenny: This is like your third spin on Cold Call. So we like having you here. We're glad you're back.

John: It's fun.

Kenny: And this is a really interesting case. Anybody who practices social networking, which I guess is everybody, is going to be able to relate to this in some way. Start by setting up the case. Who's the protagonist and what's on their mind?

John: There are two protagonists, Matt Sunbulli and Loren Appin. They're the co-founders of Fishbowl, a social media app for professionals to connect. But unlike LinkedIn, where the goal is impression management and users present a very curated image of themselves, on Fishbowl people get real. Fishbowl is intended to be a space for professionals to ask the questions they may be uncomfortable asking [in person]. They can ask questions anonymously to give support, and even to just crack jokes. It's got a very different vibe than LinkedIn.

The question that is at the top of Loren’s and Matt's minds is how to think of ways to monetize. They're at this point where they've built a robust, highly engaged user base, and they're trying to think of scaling up and possible monetization, how to make that work. The specific question on the table is whether to formally integrate employers.

So what does that mean? Currently, the platform consists of employees in certain industries, currently in advertising and consulting. If you're an employee in one of these industries, you can access this app. Now, employers have been very interested in the platform because, of course, there's very interesting information that's disclosed on this platform—employers could learn a lot about their employees. Employers joining the platform … could be a possible lucrative revenue stream, so Appin and Sunbulli are asking themselves, should they formally integrate employers? Should they let McKinsey have an account where McKinsey would potentially pay a monthly fee or something like this? On the one hand, they're excited because this could be very lucrative. But on the other hand, they're worried this might be antithetical to the safe space they've created.

Kenny: There's lots of nuances to this. What led you to write the case? How did you hear about Fishbowl?

John: I'm fascinated by social media. I am fascinated by people's apparent willingness to reveal about themselves. As a researcher, it provides a lot of grist for me, research ideas. For example, it's interesting to me how people disclose all kinds of things on social media, on Fishbowl. On Fishbowl they'll disclose things like, things that are illegal. Like illegal use of firm money, for example.

Imagine you're on Facebook, you see some of the things people post, and I wonder to myself, “If all of your Facebook followers were in a room in front of you, would you really be saying this stuff?” There's some kind of illusion of intimacy or lack of standards. There's all kinds of fascinating things from a psychological perspective that go on. Fishbowl similarly has all kinds of really interesting dynamics. And then also from a business perspective I'm really interested by the business problem of how social media sites capture the value that they've created. It's become a very challenging issue in light of reasonable privacy concerns. So I'm interested in that side of it too.

Kenny: In your mind what are some of the key developments that have happened over the last decade and how have the networks changed and morphed?

John: One thing that's changed is that the social media sites—how do I say this—their tentacles are reaching further into different areas of our lives… There’s that George Costanza quote from Seinfeld, where his worlds are colliding. He's doesn’t want his girlfriend to meet this other aspect of himself. When you think of how Facebook started out, well there's Messenger and integration with all kinds of other apps.

There's also this interesting dynamic whereby people seem to be sharing more but revealing less. There's this paradox whereby people maybe seem to be presenting themselves in more and more of an idealistic light. And that presents challenges. That's a reason why one impetus for Fishbowl was this resistance to people who are presenting this curated view of themselves and the burden it must be if you're an active user.

"One impetus for Fishbowl was this resistance to people who are presenting this curated view of themselves and the burden it must be if you're an active user. "

Kenny: And we've got a generation of workers who are coming now into their careers who grew up using this technology and probably grew up presenting their lives very much in a way that you described. This sort of idealistic version, pictures of me and all the places I want to be or that others want to be. They're very comfortable with this curated view of their lives.

John: I can't imagine growing up now. Can you imagine if there was Instagram in high school?

Kenny: Too much pressure. Let's go back to the founders of Fishbowl, Matt and Loren. Interesting story that the case reveals about how they stumbled onto each other and onto this idea.

John: They're both successful serial entrepreneurs and they met at an incubator. Their startups were beside each other and they both eventually sold their companies… At the companies that acquired their startups, they were just working there for however long they had to and noodling on what would come next. They stayed in touch during that time, kind of incubating that idea to form a social business network where people could really get real and have their questions answered that they felt uncomfortable asking.

Kenny: Is that the sort of fundamental differentiator between Fishbowl? The notion now of an entrepreneur thinking about, “Hey, I'm going to start a social network,” seems a little crazy because there are such a well-established social networks out there in LinkedIn and Facebook in particular, but all these other platforms that we've talked about. How did they think that Fishbowl would be different and would attract users?

John: One of the differentiators you can see is in the engagement level. Their users are just so engaged. Part of that is because people have a lot of things on their mind that they really are not comfortable asking face to face. Imagine starting off at a consulting firm. You're a new hire, and there's so many norms you need to abide by that you don't even know of. How do you how do you speak to your directors? On LinkedIn you wouldn't dare ask a question that would present you in a vulnerable way, right?

Kenny: Sure.

John: Facebook is social—it's for friends and not really for professionals. And then Slack is like a workplace communication tool. So it's more focused on the task at hand and it's also deeply embedded within employers. Fishbowl seems to occupy a unique space.

Kenny: I guess the cloak of anonymity helps people feel like they can ask candid questions and give candid answers.

John: The anonymity is really fascinating because it's anonymous, but not, right? Fishbowl knows exactly who you are. They have your employer email address, but you can post anonymously if you'd like. This is just one of many really interesting rules on this platform that dictate user engagement, which in turn is what creates the value to be captured that [Sunbulli and Appin] are thinking about. The fact that they know who you are helps you censor a little bit, but then the fact that you can be anonymous helps you disclose and be vulnerable.

Kenny: How does it work? I couldn't go through the whole process because I don't work for a consultancy. Have you been on the platform yourself?

"Users ... interested in moving to other consulting firms would be able to check out profiles of different companies and talk to the employees of those companies."

John: Yes, I have a view-only access which is very interesting; I’m kind of a voyeur.

Kenny: I guess Fishbowl is an appropriate name from that perspective, right?

John: Exactly. When you have an account you make a profile just like any other social media site. And then there's something they call them bowls, different topic areas where you can post questions and respond to other users. They have various ways of celebrating posts, you can thumbs-up and happy face and laugh, all these things. There are different levels of accessibility for the different bowls. I know that's a bit abstract.

Kenny: I'm assuming none of my bosses are on the platform, right? Is that a fair assumption?

John: No. Any employee except for HR at a consulting firm can join the platform. Your director, partners, can be on the platform and they can also post anonymously if they want. So you may be interacting as a user with a partner, but you have no idea. They find that higher-status employees will often post by title. There are different ways of posting, you can have your title public, you can even post by name, if you want. So the people that are higher ranking tend to post a little bit more identifiably, which according to the co-founders, users find really helpful because then you know who you're talking to. If you have specific questions you don't have to tell them who you are but you know who they are.

Kenny: I'm going back to the Dilbert cartoons with the evil HR cat who's in charge. I would be worried that management has some nefarious plots here and they're going to try and get information on the platform that they can use in some way.

John: That's the crux of the concern. On the one hand, you might say, “Well, what's the difference? Partners are already on it anyways.” But I think there's a fundamental difference because they're on as individuals, whereas if you formally integrate employers it means there's going to be an HR machine with access to the data, potentially. There's all kinds of things that they could potentially do. I don't think that they will do all of these things. But you could envision a version where you mine users' posts to understand their sentiment. And if an employer knows who the grumpy employees are, and if they have to make layoff [decisions] ... maybe I'm catastrophizing but you can see there's a lot of room for creepiness.

There's a lot of room for potential employer integration that benefits users. Users, for example, who are interested in moving to other consulting firms would be able to check out profiles of different companies and talk to the employees of those companies. That could be a way for employers to recruit. Mutually beneficial goals there.

Kenny: You can see across consultancies, you're not locked into your organization?

John: You're not locked into your firm. You can look across the platform, too. So there's potential for mutual benefit. By that I mean bringing in employers formally without destroying the user experience. But there are definite risks to it. The problem is that … you could erode the user experience, which s the entire source of the value created in this case. You risk destroying the whole thing. That's what they're really grappling with.

Kenny: Is there another way they can do it? Do they have a business model without letting employers in?

John: They've considered other ways of monetizing the platform. Now you start to think of the ways that social media apps generate revenue. Advertising. Well, advertising isn't really going to work at this stage because they're not big enough. What about a seed model? One way Slack generates revenue is the employer pays for X licenses. That feels way too close, the employer paying for your account as an employee. That's seems antithetical. And then there's this idea of employer integration, where the employer might pay a fixed monthly fee to have access to special features: the ability to create a profile, the ability to have an employee-ambassador, kind of a lead user who answers employees’ questions. But here again you can see the duality of it. If I'm a user, and all of a sudden there's this employee-ambassador, does it make me think HR or does it make me think helpful colleague?

They considered these other possible revenue streams and concluded that for the reasons I just outlined, those weren't the right things to do right now. [However,] the idea of monetizing via integrating employers they saw as an opportunity for a mutually beneficial space. I'm skeptical as to how easily that can be pulled off because of the concern that you're kind of destroying the value. But there's also this potential benefit.

The co-founders, they're really sincere ... I spent a lot of time with them, asked them lots of tough questions, and pushed them on their motivations, and I really got the sense that their goal is really to help people and to help people who are uncomfortable asking sensitive questions. To help people have more productive, happier work lives. If they're able to integrate employers, it also spurs growth because users who may be laggards or are skeptical of joining, if the employer is on it, it validates the platform and it'll help other users to join. That's their vision. I think it's easier said than done. There's all kinds of potential landmines in there.

Kenny: My frame of reference keeps going back to Facebook. My kids were all on Facebook, and as soon as I got on Facebook my kids were off of Facebook. I wonder if this is the same kind of phenomenon?

John: Exactly. Yes, that's really interesting.

Kenny: It seems like another option for them might be to start to grow their user base beyond just consultancies as a way to generate a larger platform offering.

John: Yes. They are thinking of expanding to other industries as well. That's another growth engine potential that they're thinking of.

Kenny: Have you had an opportunity to discuss this case in class?

John: Yes.

Kenny: I'm curious [about the students’ response]. These are people who live in this space. Many of our students come to HBS out of the consulting space so have a lot of firsthand experience about how that world works.

John: The co-founders were here when I taught it. Users who are in love with the app revere the co-founders. But I know people who use it that think, “Oh, it's just a gossip app.” The vision of the co-founders is this lofty thing, [but] that's not what it is. So it's interesting hearing from users themselves and the very different experience they have with it. They do have concerns about employers coming on and about stuff already on the Fishbowl app. That's another problem, potentially, right?

Kenny: And as part of this, there is this phenomenon of social networks that we're all starting to experience which is nothing ever goes away. Everything you put out there remains on the record in some form and can always come back to haunt you.

"There's a lot of room for potential employer integration that benefits users."

John: The media regularly highlights cases of people who have been venting about their employers on Facebook and then they forget that their boss is on their Facebook, is a “friend,” and then they get fired. That happens, and we know that most employers look to your social media presence when making hiring decisions. And doing so doesn't make them more impressed with you. It makes them less impressed with you.

Kenny: It’s like we've entered a new era where people are connected in ways that they weren't on the job, and like you said, it spills over into their personal lives. Do you see this impacting the way people engage with each other in person when they're in the office?

John: That's interesting. I don't know, I think there could be a space where it could serve as a foot in the door to start having difficult conversations. Sometimes the hardest part of difficult conversations is just starting them. In fact, a colleague of mine and I, Mario Small, he's a brilliant sociologist. We've started work on trying to understand how often people avoid talking to others, and that when we have something to talk about, we are more likely to avoid talking about it with close others than not. Does that make sense? We are more likely to avoid talking about it than we are to talk about it.

Kenny: I think we all experience that. I know walking across campus, I experience people looking down at their phones more often than looking up from them. So we do seem to have isolated ourselves a little bit. Thanks so much for joining us today Leslie.

John: Thank you for having me.

Kenny: If you enjoy Cold Call, you should check out Managing the Future of Work, a podcast that looks at how to survive and thrive in the age of artificial intelligence and learning machines hosted by Harvard Business School professors Joe Fuller and Bill Kerr. Thanks again for listening. I'm your host Brian Kenny, and this is Cold Call, an official podcast of Harvard Business School.

 Close