I’m an Eat24 customer. The restaurant delivery service offers a lot of local businesses here in Concord, so whenever we don’t feel like cooking or going out, I just fire up the Eat24 app on either my phone or tablet. We decide what kind of food we want (we’re partial to a local Chinese joint), check off the items for delivery, pay with the card on file, and 45 minutes later we’re chowing down.

The company is pretty responsive, too. Once, we ordered from a restaurant that was closed even though the app said it was open. We got an email within a couple minutes notifying us that they had canceled the order. But what if I had a problem the company didn’t address? Like 35% of people who like brands on Facebook, I get the feeling that brands with a Facebook presence listen. In fact, most of my experiences reaching out to brands via their Facebook pages have paid off. (Not all. I’m talking to you, CVS. I’ve shared the same issue on your Facebook page at least three times, and you’ve never responded.)

If a problem arises with Eat24, however, I won’t be visiting Facebook to get answers or share information. The company has deleted its Facebook account, citing the lack of organic reach for its posts.

There’s no question Eat24’s breakup letter was clever. Published to the company’s blog, it has generated over 600 comments along with a ton of media coverage. The crux of Eat24’s issue with Facebook comes down to this:

When we first met, you made us feel special. We’d tell you a super funny joke about Sriracha and you’d tell all our friends and then everyone would laugh together. But now? Now you want us to give you money if we want to talk to our friends. Now when we show you a photo of a taco wrapped with bacon, you’re all like “PROMOTE THIS POST! GET MORE FRIENDS!” instead of just liking us for who we are. That’s hella messed up.

Facebook communications executive Brandon McCormick responded on Eat24’s Facebook page before it was deleted, adopting the same breakup tone, noting that “The world is so much more complicated than when we first met—it has changed.,” he wrote.

The collection of coverage and commentary on the declining organic reach of posts to company pages reflects an understanding of those changes. Even Facebook admits it’s dropping to about 1 to 2%. The rush to assume this is a cynical move by the social network to force brands to advertise ignores other reasons. For one, as people like more and more brands, Facebook’s algorithm needs to be judicious to keep from cluttering news feeds with too many promotional posts. The goal in picking the posts—from friends as well as brands—that find their way into a news feed is to ensure you read high-quality content you’ll find interesting.

In response to the backlash from plummeting reach, several experts have pointed out that it’s still possible to earn news feed placement well above the norm. You just have to work harder to do it. Writing for re/code, Salesforce ExactTarget CMO Michael Lazerow points out that, to be effective, poasts need to be timely and relevant, shareable (something customers will actually want to share), and genuine. Most of what I see posted to company pages gets nowhere near these ideals. Other posts have more detailed recommendations. One, for instance, notes that a post with multiple images can earn reach around 250% better than average. (Author Jon Loomer also notes that reach isn’t everything; are you also measuring post clicks?)

The re/code piece also wonders why all this ire is aimed at Facebook when Google and Yahoo both followed the same path, starting out with organic reach for brands and then, as they grew, shifting to a paid model.

Ultimately, though, the most naive and damaging part of Eat24’s abandonment of Facebook is the company’s apparent belief that its presence was all about getting its content into the news feed, and its failure to recognize that its page is also a focal point for customer engagement.

Consider Chili’s recent experience (the subject of another post I’m working on). The restaurant chain had signed up to support the National Autism Association until customers began letting Chili’s know—via its Facebook page—that the campaign would tangentially support the association’s assertion that vaccinations are linked to autism. (They’re not.) With that intelligence in hand, Chili’s canceled the campaign.

Chili’s is just one of thousands of cases in which customers connected with the brand through its Facebook page. But that kind of connection clearly isn’t a priority for Eat24, which just can’t fathom why they’d want to maintain a presence if the page that costs them nothing to maintain doesn’t result in its promotions cluttering up users’ news feeds.

Which means that, if I have feedback for Eat24, it’s not likely they’ll ever hear it. I don’t want to listen to tinny hold music when I call. I don’t want to craft a 140-character-or-less comment on Twitter. For interacting with companies, Facebook just works.

But the company has to be interested in that interaction; it has to want to be available where its customers want to connect with them. Eat24 clearly is not. All they want is the free reach. That’s the most naive part of Eat24’s decision: It’s not about me; it’s about them.