My long held contention - which I have repeated in this forum many times and wrote into a formalized blog posting 12 years ago[1] - is that flat rate data service offerings pit the provider against the consumer in an antagonistic relationship.
Which is to say: the provider has a vested interest in minimizing your usage and incurred costs which runs directly counter to the consumers desire to use as many resources as possible. This antagonistic relationship leads to all manner of dysfunctions and bad patterns.
When I see serious businesses "enhancing engagement" with facebook pixels, I think that perhaps that is one more side effect of that antagonistic provider/customer relationship.
HOWEVER, it turns out that the tracking code was on the B2 side of things - the people-paying-money side of things - and not on the who-will-let-me-upload-movies-forever side of things.
So my sense was wrong.
I was suggesting that this might not be as brand damaging - and trust eroding - as my parent suggested. After all, both sides of that unlimited flat rate storage relationship are pretty dysfunctional. If this was on the B2 side of things then I take it back - it's probably quite damaging.
Regardless: I stand by my disdain - and continue to warn against - flat-rate service offerings. You want your provider to happily enable you to use more of their product.
Which is to say: the provider has a vested interest in minimizing your usage and incurred costs which runs directly counter to the consumers desire to use as many resources as possible. This antagonistic relationship leads to all manner of dysfunctions and bad patterns.
When I see serious businesses "enhancing engagement" with facebook pixels, I think that perhaps that is one more side effect of that antagonistic provider/customer relationship.
HOWEVER, it turns out that the tracking code was on the B2 side of things - the people-paying-money side of things - and not on the who-will-let-me-upload-movies-forever side of things.
So my sense was wrong.
I was suggesting that this might not be as brand damaging - and trust eroding - as my parent suggested. After all, both sides of that unlimited flat rate storage relationship are pretty dysfunctional. If this was on the B2 side of things then I take it back - it's probably quite damaging.
Regardless: I stand by my disdain - and continue to warn against - flat-rate service offerings. You want your provider to happily enable you to use more of their product.
[1] https://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2009/11/flat-rate-stor...