Will business use social media or simply hijack it?
The authors of Groundswell seem to paint a rosier picture of business/consumer engagement through social media than what we may actually see in our virtual communities.
I realize that in spite of the updates for the 2011 edition of the book, things simply change too fast for a print medium, but it was still interesting to look at some of the authors' comments and see what has happened in just the past few years. I hate to bear bad news, but for example, Ebay is no longer a "community of small businesses (and in fact, a major complaint from Ebay sellers on sites such as ecommercebytes is that the company is limiting communication between buyers and sellers as well as actively forcing small sellers off the site), Craigslist is now probably more famous for facilitating the murders of "escorts", and the all pervasive Facebook seems to raise privacy concerns on a daily basis.
I can understand the benefits of social media engagement, and realize that it is now an essential business practice, but have been around long enough (and become cynical enough) to know that there can be dark side - which will be chosen when expedient. Viral marketing (what we use to call "word of mouth") may not be considered efficient enough when it is easy to simply game the system.
Business now may have someone to monitor social media sites and respond to comments, which is a good thing. But we now have to be concerned with reviews may be written by those same people, or other reviews whose sources and motivations may be suspect.
Sometimes users hand over control to others willingly, so that messages masquerade as user posts. Some of my Facebook friends seem to post quite a number of status updates regarding on-line games, or an obsession with sales on footwear. But I then started noticing that registering on some sites includes in the fine print an indication that you will allow the site to post to Facebook for you. Hmmm. I don't think I'll check the "Accept" box on that one.
I realize that in spite of the updates for the 2011 edition of the book, things simply change too fast for a print medium, but it was still interesting to look at some of the authors' comments and see what has happened in just the past few years. I hate to bear bad news, but for example, Ebay is no longer a "community of small businesses (and in fact, a major complaint from Ebay sellers on sites such as ecommercebytes is that the company is limiting communication between buyers and sellers as well as actively forcing small sellers off the site), Craigslist is now probably more famous for facilitating the murders of "escorts", and the all pervasive Facebook seems to raise privacy concerns on a daily basis.
I can understand the benefits of social media engagement, and realize that it is now an essential business practice, but have been around long enough (and become cynical enough) to know that there can be dark side - which will be chosen when expedient. Viral marketing (what we use to call "word of mouth") may not be considered efficient enough when it is easy to simply game the system.
Business now may have someone to monitor social media sites and respond to comments, which is a good thing. But we now have to be concerned with reviews may be written by those same people, or other reviews whose sources and motivations may be suspect.
Sometimes users hand over control to others willingly, so that messages masquerade as user posts. Some of my Facebook friends seem to post quite a number of status updates regarding on-line games, or an obsession with sales on footwear. But I then started noticing that registering on some sites includes in the fine print an indication that you will allow the site to post to Facebook for you. Hmmm. I don't think I'll check the "Accept" box on that one.
 |
| Photo from www.npr.org |
Fake Yelp reviews by both individuals and business (pro and con) have been an ongoing issue with that service (further complicated by the claims on some business forums that purchasing advertising on Yelp mysteriously makes bad reviews disappear.
From the first days of posting user reviews on Amazon, it was suspected that authors could nudge things along (at far less cost than publisher's had to expend manipulating position on the traditional "best seller" lists).
But according to an article in the New York Times, Amazon reviews could actually be purchased.
In The Best Book Reviews Money Can Buy, by David Streitfield, Published: August 25, 2012:
"Suddenly it hit him. Instead of trying to cajole others to review a client’s work, why not cut out the middleman and write the review himself? Then it would say exactly what the client wanted — that it was a terrific book. A shattering novel. A classic memoir. Will change your life. Lyrical and gripping, Stunning and compelling. Or words to that effect.
In the fall of 2010, Mr. Rutherford started a Web site, GettingBookReviews.com. At first, he advertised that he would review a book for $99. But some clients wanted a chorus proclaiming their excellence. So, for $499, Mr. Rutherford would do 20 online
reviews. A few people needed a whole orchestra. For $999, he would do 50. "
But the purchased reviews actually seem small-time compared to what you can accomplish with a more concerted effort. According to a Slate Magazine article, an activist group has been manipulating reviews for what they consider the public good. The book, Tinderbox, is about the causes and possible solutions to the world wide AIDS epidemic. Apparently, even though the issue of male circumcision is a minor part of the book, it was enough for a group to take action.
"Infuriated by the authors’ inclusion of male circumcision among effective HIV prevention approaches, anti-circumcision activists launched a smear campaign to discredit the book and its authors by spreading misinformation on Amazon. The intactivists co-opted Amazon’s normally informative readers’ reviewing system through a sudden mass-posting of viciously negative, one-star reviews. These reviews were then rated en masse as “helpful,” which made them rise to the top of the book’s webpage. At the same time, all the positive reviews of the book were marked “unhelpful,” instantly pushing them into obscurity. Anyone who ventured to the site would see a string of negative reviews urging the potential buyer not to bother wasting their money on this “misguided propaganda” for the practice of male circumcision. "
Without debating the issue this group has with the book, the more important issue is the manipulation of reviews, no matter how well-intentioned.
What will all of this do to long-term credibility when you can no longer trust what you read? Will someone create a site with the equivalent of "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" (hey, didn't advertising with Good Housekeeping possibly influence those?) to establish confidence.
Even with no sinister motivations, how trustworthy are on-line reviews? After all, we all know people whose recommendations we take seriously, and those we use as a barometer of what to avoid. How do we determine the value of utter strangers? One of our only hopes seems to be that the same social engagement that business (or other organizations) will be using to manipulate the system, will have the power to expose this manipulation.
As the old cartoon caption said, "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog" - and maybe that is why the reviews of dog foods have been so glowing.
Just for fun, here's a Handy Guide to Fake Reviews published on the NYT site
to help suss out fake reviews when planning your next trip:
