October 25, 2007
Consumers Becoming Jaded to Online Reviews
A survey done by the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller has found that consumers are increasingly distrustful of product reviews they find online.
“There’s now a skepticism of what is happening online and an expectation [that] if you’re in a community site and a commercial entity [is] being discussed, there’s someone paid to be weighing in,” Ame Wadler, chief strategic officer at Burson-Marsteller, told Brandweek.
The perception that companies are seeking to influence online conversations has increased in recent years. In 2001, 20 percent of those surveyed said fake reviews were a problem. In this year’s study, that number jumped to 30 percent.
Marketers’ gaffes have certainly led some to conclude that reviews and comments made in community forums need to taken with a grain of salt.
As Brandweek reported, Wal-Mart was criticized for paying for a fake blog while Microsoft took heat for supplying some bloggers with free laptops.
“There’s no rocket science here: transparency matters,” Ms. Wadler said. “Those entities that are the most transparent and say, ‘It’s us and we’re proud of what we’re saying,’ do far better than those organizations that don’t reveal themselves.”
Discussion Questions: How widespread do you believe the skepticism over reviews on websites and posts about companies and products in online forums has become? Do you have any recommendations for e-tailers?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
I would say it’s about as valuable as ‘Consumer Reports’, neither are unbiased, accurate, trustworthy or worth what you pay for them. At least the online consumer comments are free. Wait, nothing is free!
The Zagat survey books are more popular than ever, with more editions being rolled out. They’re all based on voluntary submissions, so they’re subject to the same fraud temptations as online customer reviews. The Zagat folks are careful to screen the submissions for suspicious patterns, they edit what’s reported, and they don’t own any restaurants, hotels, etc. eBay feedback reviews have policing procedures and eBay doesn’t own or produce the merchandise they sell, either. When a retailer allows customer reviews, credibility would be maximized by a public explanation of the policies on free speech, self-promotion, and censorship.
Consumer reviews will only grow in importance as more and more people shop and pre-shop on the Web. There is far less skepticism of consumer-generated content than of advertising, marketing or PR. Any serious abuse by providers will become evident. My message to retailers: Join the conversation.
To me, the larger quantity of reviews pointing in a particular direction, the more likely they are to be correct (I suppose the right words are a good sample size).
One review does not alter my opinion one way or another, but if a product has 200 good reviews and 3 negative ones, I’m likely to buy. If that means the product team has arranged for 200 people to write a good review for money, they have my congratulations (and my money).
When I was moving from Boston to Florida, I tried to do due diligence on moving companies on the web. It was hopeless. There is a web site dedicated to complaining about moving companies and there wasn’t a one that passed the grade. Those reviews became useless to me as well–after all, I HAD to move. I ended up picking a large firm and had a good experience.
Sample size rules.
I subscribe to a wide variety of RSS feeds, using key words. I get press releases, news articles, website additions, and blogs. It surprises me–and I thought I was pretty jaded–how often you find the very same verbiage in all of the above, all at about the same time. In another vein, I pay little attention to hotel recommendations now, based on how often my own experience varies dramatically from what I see online. It’s easy to rule out reviews by the nutcases, because they come across as such hostile and angry people. But it’s hard to tell when a positive review is sincere or paid. I try to stick with sources of information that I know and trust. If that’s a corporation, to their credit, so be it.
Many online shoppers are becoming quite leery of product (even restaurant) reviews because they are often so obviously manipulated by companies or their competitors as to be almost worthless. It is well known that the PR industry has people everywhere writing reviews, knocking other products, belittling the intelligence of customers who buy certain brands, writing letters to the editor, and commenting and making recommendations on blogs and social network sites. Hey, it’s a living, but I marvel at how poorly and how unprofessionally done these PR efforts often are. If your question had read “is the practice ubiquitous?” I would have answered “definitely.” But the question asked “are they influential?” On the main I would have to say “no, not so much.” eBay feedback, because the reviewers are registered and have verifiably done business with that vendor, are generally more believable. My advice to e-tailers is to offer well tested and well described products, use good customer service practices and offer a money back guarantee, as opposed to resorting to snake oil.
Online reviews are here to stay even if we know that some of them come from people with self interest. When was the last time you ask a waitress or waiter to recommend something from the menu even though you knew and he knew that his tip was 1. based on the size of the bill; 2. He knew that if you like what he suggested the odds were that he would get a good tip even it was the the most expensive item on the bill and that if you like what you had the odds were you would come back.
The best way to kill a bad product is to sell it.
I was originally going to respond that it is a sad state of affairs that a media which allowed consumers a free forum to discuss their ire, and praise for products and services has been tainted by the companies who are being talked about. What a terrible loss if there are companies who are planting people in these discussions to defend or speak clandestinely in favor of a copy that is under attack.
But then I read the comments of Forrester Research’s Lisa Bradner, and her challenge that a PR firm did the research. I wondered if the survey was part of a campaign by someone to discredit consumer blogs as a group. Is it possible that an organized effort is being made to keep people away from freely sharing their opinions and advice in these free forums?
Ironic that a PR firm is conducting this survey as PR firms are traditionally paid to influence media without making it look like it was influenced. This changes with social media which is, after all, primarily about people talking to each other, not about people going out to talk to brands. That being said, social computing turns PR on its head. The article captures it well–it’s all about transparency and disclosure which runs against the grain of how PR people are used to working. E-tailers (and everyone else) should take the advice to heart–participate, communicate but be transparent in all things.
The nice thing about online community is that it is pretty effectively self-regulating. There is a hierarchy of opinion that an experienced online citizen will learn to follow. Start with the enthusiast sites, where the community tends to be stable and the participants know each other well. There you’ll see skepticism when “news” or opinions or product reviews are posted by members with little or no prior posts. Some sites have a scoring system for their members, where the rest of the community can collectively increase or decrease the level of trust it places in the member, and can “mod down” bad posts. The ‘wisdom of mobs’ may or may not be effectively wise, but it’s in effect.
Commercial and retail sites tend to have more transient participants, but there the weight of opinion is tracked and easy enough to judge. It’s unlikely that a PR firm or paid effort can shift the weight of opinion if there are enough reviews. So like any statistical evidence, the more data, the more consumers can trust the result. Features like allowing those posting to indicate whether they own the product, whether they have owned similar products, etc. are helpful.
In short, the online consumer review is one of the most powerful forces to hit retailing in a long time. It’s not going away, and whatever the “trust” numbers really are, they are far higher than advertising. Manufacturers and retailers that learn transparency and participation will succeed.
During a recent vacation to Ireland, my wife and I sought lodging reviews on TripAdvisor. Since this was our first trip and wanted unique but up market experiences, we put a lot of weight on the reviews of other travelers like ourselves. We thought the reviews were truthful and accurate, and our experience proved that out.
Their site has several attributes that helped us feel more confident about the integrity of the review.
1. Their tab line “Get the truth and go” connects the experience with their brand. They have a lot to lose if these reviews turn out bogus.
2. Demographics are offered up so you can match your profile (i.e. couple with no kids) against the same.
3. The reviews are broken out by various features so again you can pick what is important to you.
4. Reviewers past reviews are available and connected to a social networking database that enables you to communicate with the reviewer and become part of a network with people of similar interest.
Clearly, they are committed to offering up genuine reviews and I hope their traffic and business model is being served by remaining true to their tag line.
I question the validity of the PR firm’s finding, and would be interested to know which of their clients commissioned the study. A similar study was done recently that indicated purchase frequency is higher if products are reviewed, and the reviewers are trusted. Review sites such as Yelp and Squidoo have become extremely popular, as well as trusted. Transparency of the reviewer is vital for the review to be meaningful, and that goes back to a well-run site. I don’t think it is fair to say that online reviews are no longer trusted by consumers.
Allow me to introduce still another use for online product forums. A close friend’s daughter was recently prescribed an antidepressant drug. She’s very bright and, after taking her meds for a few weeks, decided to seek online forums about her particular prescription. My input was requested when the daughter pointed her parents to a forum that appeared to influence her to discontinue her medication (I consult for a pharmaceutical firm).
A review of the online contributions revealed just two categories of comments: 1.) People asking questions about what they’d “heard” or “read” about the drug, despite the fact that all of their questions are answered on the drug company’s website, on WebMD, and on the printed material provided by pharmacists when they fill the prescriptions. 2.) People complaining about how they “felt” when they consumed the drug. In this case, the comments ranged from “they speed me up” to “they slow me down.” The forum was an enabler, supporting the idea of discontinuing use of the medication.
The late Bill Walsh said a lot of smart things, but one sticks with me because I encounter its truth so often: “There’s nothing worse in a locker room than a dumb guy who thinks he’s smart.” I’ve never heard a better characterization of online forums.
Just as you should never get your news from one source, you should never get your online reviews from one source. Researching reviews at several web sites usually enables me to recognize the bogus reviews (both good and bad) by seeing repeat language. Paying attention to the language of a review usually enables me to distinguish between a person who has had a genuine problem with a product and one who is, um… challenged. I never buy anything without reading the reviews first. In fact, I won’t set foot in certain stores after reading customer horror stories.
Trusted or not, consumer reviews certainly aren’t going away. What I suspect will happen is what happens with a bunch of the blogs and forums I read regularly–a core group comes to dominate the conversation, and their reviews will be as credible (or not) as the rest of their participation.
So another part of the transparency thing needs to be keeping the comments and review history of the participants accessible.
If RanterDude complains loudly about the lack of some arcane feature, for example, it’s nice if newcomers can see a comment from the group’s virtual mom that helps put Ranter’s protests in perspective. Also, if someone’s not on the level, the group’s going to notice and point that fact out in a hurry.
Above all, the group has to have a strong sense of purpose and a core group of leaders who stick to that purpose–caring for the product and the user over the 90-day review. It’s like a lot of things in business: take care of the customers, and they’ll take care of the shareholders.
Two months ago, I purchased Sirius Radio for my wife. Somebody commenting on Amazon that “the clarity sucks, and the FM transmission is pathetic.” I plugged it in when it arrived, and both features worked like a charm right out of the box. The lesson: online reviews are worth a grain of salt. No more.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
I would say it’s about as valuable as ‘Consumer Reports’, neither are unbiased, accurate, trustworthy or worth what you pay for them. At least the online consumer comments are free. Wait, nothing is free!
The Zagat survey books are more popular than ever, with more editions being rolled out. They’re all based on voluntary submissions, so they’re subject to the same fraud temptations as online customer reviews. The Zagat folks are careful to screen the submissions for suspicious patterns, they edit what’s reported, and they don’t own any restaurants, hotels, etc. eBay feedback reviews have policing procedures and eBay doesn’t own or produce the merchandise they sell, either. When a retailer allows customer reviews, credibility would be maximized by a public explanation of the policies on free speech, self-promotion, and censorship.
Consumer reviews will only grow in importance as more and more people shop and pre-shop on the Web. There is far less skepticism of consumer-generated content than of advertising, marketing or PR. Any serious abuse by providers will become evident. My message to retailers: Join the conversation.
To me, the larger quantity of reviews pointing in a particular direction, the more likely they are to be correct (I suppose the right words are a good sample size).
One review does not alter my opinion one way or another, but if a product has 200 good reviews and 3 negative ones, I’m likely to buy. If that means the product team has arranged for 200 people to write a good review for money, they have my congratulations (and my money).
When I was moving from Boston to Florida, I tried to do due diligence on moving companies on the web. It was hopeless. There is a web site dedicated to complaining about moving companies and there wasn’t a one that passed the grade. Those reviews became useless to me as well–after all, I HAD to move. I ended up picking a large firm and had a good experience.
Sample size rules.
I subscribe to a wide variety of RSS feeds, using key words. I get press releases, news articles, website additions, and blogs. It surprises me–and I thought I was pretty jaded–how often you find the very same verbiage in all of the above, all at about the same time. In another vein, I pay little attention to hotel recommendations now, based on how often my own experience varies dramatically from what I see online. It’s easy to rule out reviews by the nutcases, because they come across as such hostile and angry people. But it’s hard to tell when a positive review is sincere or paid. I try to stick with sources of information that I know and trust. If that’s a corporation, to their credit, so be it.
Many online shoppers are becoming quite leery of product (even restaurant) reviews because they are often so obviously manipulated by companies or their competitors as to be almost worthless. It is well known that the PR industry has people everywhere writing reviews, knocking other products, belittling the intelligence of customers who buy certain brands, writing letters to the editor, and commenting and making recommendations on blogs and social network sites. Hey, it’s a living, but I marvel at how poorly and how unprofessionally done these PR efforts often are. If your question had read “is the practice ubiquitous?” I would have answered “definitely.” But the question asked “are they influential?” On the main I would have to say “no, not so much.” eBay feedback, because the reviewers are registered and have verifiably done business with that vendor, are generally more believable. My advice to e-tailers is to offer well tested and well described products, use good customer service practices and offer a money back guarantee, as opposed to resorting to snake oil.
Online reviews are here to stay even if we know that some of them come from people with self interest. When was the last time you ask a waitress or waiter to recommend something from the menu even though you knew and he knew that his tip was 1. based on the size of the bill; 2. He knew that if you like what he suggested the odds were that he would get a good tip even it was the the most expensive item on the bill and that if you like what you had the odds were you would come back.
The best way to kill a bad product is to sell it.
I was originally going to respond that it is a sad state of affairs that a media which allowed consumers a free forum to discuss their ire, and praise for products and services has been tainted by the companies who are being talked about. What a terrible loss if there are companies who are planting people in these discussions to defend or speak clandestinely in favor of a copy that is under attack.
But then I read the comments of Forrester Research’s Lisa Bradner, and her challenge that a PR firm did the research. I wondered if the survey was part of a campaign by someone to discredit consumer blogs as a group. Is it possible that an organized effort is being made to keep people away from freely sharing their opinions and advice in these free forums?
Ironic that a PR firm is conducting this survey as PR firms are traditionally paid to influence media without making it look like it was influenced. This changes with social media which is, after all, primarily about people talking to each other, not about people going out to talk to brands. That being said, social computing turns PR on its head. The article captures it well–it’s all about transparency and disclosure which runs against the grain of how PR people are used to working. E-tailers (and everyone else) should take the advice to heart–participate, communicate but be transparent in all things.
The nice thing about online community is that it is pretty effectively self-regulating. There is a hierarchy of opinion that an experienced online citizen will learn to follow. Start with the enthusiast sites, where the community tends to be stable and the participants know each other well. There you’ll see skepticism when “news” or opinions or product reviews are posted by members with little or no prior posts. Some sites have a scoring system for their members, where the rest of the community can collectively increase or decrease the level of trust it places in the member, and can “mod down” bad posts. The ‘wisdom of mobs’ may or may not be effectively wise, but it’s in effect.
Commercial and retail sites tend to have more transient participants, but there the weight of opinion is tracked and easy enough to judge. It’s unlikely that a PR firm or paid effort can shift the weight of opinion if there are enough reviews. So like any statistical evidence, the more data, the more consumers can trust the result. Features like allowing those posting to indicate whether they own the product, whether they have owned similar products, etc. are helpful.
In short, the online consumer review is one of the most powerful forces to hit retailing in a long time. It’s not going away, and whatever the “trust” numbers really are, they are far higher than advertising. Manufacturers and retailers that learn transparency and participation will succeed.
During a recent vacation to Ireland, my wife and I sought lodging reviews on TripAdvisor. Since this was our first trip and wanted unique but up market experiences, we put a lot of weight on the reviews of other travelers like ourselves. We thought the reviews were truthful and accurate, and our experience proved that out.
Their site has several attributes that helped us feel more confident about the integrity of the review.
1. Their tab line “Get the truth and go” connects the experience with their brand. They have a lot to lose if these reviews turn out bogus.
2. Demographics are offered up so you can match your profile (i.e. couple with no kids) against the same.
3. The reviews are broken out by various features so again you can pick what is important to you.
4. Reviewers past reviews are available and connected to a social networking database that enables you to communicate with the reviewer and become part of a network with people of similar interest.
Clearly, they are committed to offering up genuine reviews and I hope their traffic and business model is being served by remaining true to their tag line.
I question the validity of the PR firm’s finding, and would be interested to know which of their clients commissioned the study. A similar study was done recently that indicated purchase frequency is higher if products are reviewed, and the reviewers are trusted. Review sites such as Yelp and Squidoo have become extremely popular, as well as trusted. Transparency of the reviewer is vital for the review to be meaningful, and that goes back to a well-run site. I don’t think it is fair to say that online reviews are no longer trusted by consumers.
Allow me to introduce still another use for online product forums. A close friend’s daughter was recently prescribed an antidepressant drug. She’s very bright and, after taking her meds for a few weeks, decided to seek online forums about her particular prescription. My input was requested when the daughter pointed her parents to a forum that appeared to influence her to discontinue her medication (I consult for a pharmaceutical firm).
A review of the online contributions revealed just two categories of comments: 1.) People asking questions about what they’d “heard” or “read” about the drug, despite the fact that all of their questions are answered on the drug company’s website, on WebMD, and on the printed material provided by pharmacists when they fill the prescriptions. 2.) People complaining about how they “felt” when they consumed the drug. In this case, the comments ranged from “they speed me up” to “they slow me down.” The forum was an enabler, supporting the idea of discontinuing use of the medication.
The late Bill Walsh said a lot of smart things, but one sticks with me because I encounter its truth so often: “There’s nothing worse in a locker room than a dumb guy who thinks he’s smart.” I’ve never heard a better characterization of online forums.
Just as you should never get your news from one source, you should never get your online reviews from one source. Researching reviews at several web sites usually enables me to recognize the bogus reviews (both good and bad) by seeing repeat language. Paying attention to the language of a review usually enables me to distinguish between a person who has had a genuine problem with a product and one who is, um… challenged. I never buy anything without reading the reviews first. In fact, I won’t set foot in certain stores after reading customer horror stories.
Trusted or not, consumer reviews certainly aren’t going away. What I suspect will happen is what happens with a bunch of the blogs and forums I read regularly–a core group comes to dominate the conversation, and their reviews will be as credible (or not) as the rest of their participation.
So another part of the transparency thing needs to be keeping the comments and review history of the participants accessible.
If RanterDude complains loudly about the lack of some arcane feature, for example, it’s nice if newcomers can see a comment from the group’s virtual mom that helps put Ranter’s protests in perspective. Also, if someone’s not on the level, the group’s going to notice and point that fact out in a hurry.
Above all, the group has to have a strong sense of purpose and a core group of leaders who stick to that purpose–caring for the product and the user over the 90-day review. It’s like a lot of things in business: take care of the customers, and they’ll take care of the shareholders.
Two months ago, I purchased Sirius Radio for my wife. Somebody commenting on Amazon that “the clarity sucks, and the FM transmission is pathetic.” I plugged it in when it arrived, and both features worked like a charm right out of the box. The lesson: online reviews are worth a grain of salt. No more.