January 27, 2012
Getting the Ratings You Pay For
Deceptive reviews on e-tail sites are not a new problem. A RetailWire story/discussion last August, for example, looked at individuals who offered to write favorable reviews for companies at a price.
Now comes a New York Times article that says a seller of cases for tablet devices, VIP Deals, offered to rebate Amazon consumers $2 a star for reviews they gave its Vipertek brand premium slim black leather case folio cover. With a five star review, consumers could get the $10 case for free.
According to the Times, the average of the 335 ratings given for the case on Amazon was 4.9.
Federal Trade Commission rules require full disclosure of any relationship beyond the standard buyer and seller arrangement when endorsements are involved.
“Advertising disguised as editorial is an old problem, but it’s now presenting itself in different ways,” said Mary K. Engle, associate director for advertising practices at the F.T.C, told the Times. “We’re very concerned.”
Amazon removed reviews associated with the VIP Deals product after seeing documentation from the paper.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Discussion Questions: Do you see any danger that reviews may soon be seen as worthless by consumers as a result of cases such as VIP Deals and others? Whose responsibility is it to step in and clean up the practice of posting bogus reviews?
Poll
They’re no longer as worthwhile as they used to be, in any case. They seem to be uniformly bad in some cases, and uniformly good in others.
When I was moving from Boston to Miami, I couldn’t find anyone with anything good to say about any mover. I finally just held my nose and picked one. And my stuff arrived without incident.
The bigger problem is the legality of the letter above. That just seems wrong. Funny that I’ve never gotten one of those.
Of course! You have authors reviewing their own work on Amazon, some Facebook pages are cluttered with managers talking about how wonderful “Company X” is and there’s dozens more obvious examples of deceptive practices and probably hundreds we don’t know about.
In the end it’s the customer’s problem, just like in the end it’s the consumers job to sort through wild advertising claims.
Should companies like Amazon do a better job of policing their sites? Of course, but in the end they still are trying to sell product.
“Caveat emptor!” is as valid in the digital age as it was in the souk.
Reviews are already pretty well worthless — both the negative and positive ones. That said, one can often ‘sense’ the legitimate reviews. Seems to me it goes well beyond what consumers write in; as this piece points out, reviews are a business on their own. Take the iconic J.D. Power ratings for example. How objective and squeaky clean are those ratings?
According to “How Stuff Works” J.D. Power “packages information and sells it to the producers of the product. Companies pay J.D. Power upward of $100,000 for this valuable data in order to better gain an edge over the competition.” It sounds like Companies pay differing amounts for a ‘license’ plus extra if you want the actual trophy and the use of the Power name. All that kind of puts it suspiciously in the gray zone for me.
Then you have Consumers Reports, the grandfather of them all, with their boast that they accept no money and not even free product from manufacturers. Companies are forbidden to refer to Consumer’s evaluations in any way. Is that a more objective review? Many think that comparing Power to Consumers is like comparing disgraced evangelist Ted Haggard to Billy Graham.
Net will always be — do your own due diligence. I don’t trust movie reviewers either.
The bigger issue is that customers are preferring reviews from people they don’t know over people they do, as Paul Schottmiller from Cisco and I discussed in this video shot at last week’s NRF.
There’s a reason these paid reviews are growing because online retailers know that they provide the illusion of honesty and critical skills — particularly the Boomers.
Having a paid spokesman talk about your product or service is not new. However, in the ads there was always a disclaimer that said, albeit in very fine print, that the person was being compensated. But that’s not true for the online reviews and that is the basic difference. The result is a lot of deceptive reviews that are worthless.
It would be great if the sites had the ability and willingness to ensure accuracy, but then who would watch the watcher?
Such a reward scheme defeats the purpose of websites such as Yelp. As with advertorials and similar marketing approaches, it’s up to the legislator to set boundaries that will prevent brands from misleading consumers.
This practice should be discontinued. It’s just another runway for consumers to distrust brands and retailers who continue to “push” information to shoppers by using shady practices like paid reviews. Consumers trust real word of mouth (as in “in real life”) more than posted comments. But this practice has potential to discredit a lot of other ethical digital marketing practices, as distrust grows faster than trust.
Paid advertising needs to be identified in print media so paid endorsements could be required to have disclosure, but who would monitor that? In the absence of notification of whether reviewers have been paid, it appears that Ryan is right — caveat emptor.
The comment per se might be subject to suspicion, but the quantity of comments also has a meaning. I bet we could test that where the same product or app or whatever with 2 reviews vs. 100 reviews is regarded quite differently, regardless of content. One of those behavioral economics phenomena….
It is the responsibility of the company posting the reviews to make sure that the reviews aren’t bogus.
There’s no danger “that reviews may soon be seen as worthless” since they already ARE worthless (at least within the context of 0-5 star ratings having any particular meaning). Fraud is a problem, but the bigger issue is that many people just don’t have anything intelligent to say…as anyone who has ever read a “review” in which it was admitted that the product hadn’t even been tried will find out.
I am considering the whole social networking thing, and at the NGA show in two weeks, I will spend most of my time deciding if I want to venture into this arena. This topic brings up what can happen in the online arena, as companies battle for high ratings supremacy. There is so much BS out there, and it makes it tough for a small business to venture into the shark infested waters of the internet media, without giving it some serious thought.
I have no fears about it, and the Twitter, Facebook, and web sites will be my focus in 2012. How I want to interface all of this will be important for my store to get it right (the first time). I realize some customers will blast us, and how we deal with it will be critical to maintain integrity, and honesty with our customers.
Does this concern me? YES, but it needs to move forward, or I’ll be left behind, and that is not an option either. It should be a fun challenge for all small businesses to develop this properly to enhance their store image! Good luck to all!
Interesting timing as just yesterday, I checked out a Amazon reviews for a new book written by a to-remain-nameless failed executive touting business advice. Review upon review gave the book five stars — each one following a similar effusive pattern and each prominently mentioning the author’s name — a dead giveaway. Sandwiched in between, and drowned out, were a few one star reviews (nothing in between) citing the author’s lack of credibility and the book’s cliche-filled content.
It was clear to me that the reviews were solicited (not necessarily “paid for” in the literal sense) and clearly, nothing can be done about it. Those who have the influence can push positive press — even without paying.
If the transgression had been put forth by an online retailer other than Amazon, I might say “no.” Since Amazon is the largest online retailer in the world and has made reviews such an important part of the stream of content for each item, the answer is a resounding “yes.”
This suspected practice needs to nipped in the bud and transparency supported in order to retain consumer confidence and trust in this aspect of online shopping.
Reviews are not worthless to the seller.
Positive reviews, even if fake, will increase sales. Negative reviews will alert the seller not to overstock that item and will protect them from loss.
The sharing of customer experiences has become a permanent part of the shopping landscape. There is so much value, and so little cost, attached to crowd-sourcing shopping information that it is hard to believe that poor implementations can reverse consumer demand for reviews and similar shared experiences.
Attempts to hijack the review process are worrisome and need to be exposed, and sites that are careless about reviews risk their own credibility and relevance. I do not believe, however, that the actions of individual sites or users can significantly damage the overall credibility and relevance of experience-sharing as an information-gathering tool for consumers.
Conversely, sites that are serious about their reputation can take steps to restrict content that would tend to be damaging and promote content that tends to be accurate, relevant and timely. For example, Yelp has several features that make it easy for users to draw reasonable inferences about a reviewer’s credibility. Zavee automatically limits reviews that would be spurious or stale by posting only reviews where the reviewer has made a purchase from the merchant being reviewed within the last 30 days. Zavee also automatically notifies merchants of every review and encourages them to respond.
Consumers want reviews and similar means for sharing shopping information and experiences because they want alternatives to “command and control” marketing, especially from big brands. It’s very unlikely that they will suddenly re-discover a fondness for mass market advertising. Nevertheless, it’s up to those of us who provide a platform for social sharing of shopping information to be vigilant protectors of our users’ interests.
Anyone who thinks reviews are worthless doesn’t have access to analytics from a high traffic e-commerce site.
It’s an open secret that there are a significant amount of non-authentic reviews on all sites, but what I find fascinating is that reviews still drive conversion.
Products with review convert better than products without review on e-commerce sites. Even though there are lots of reasons not to trust the reviews, they still help sell products. Purchasing decisions are not made entirely with our rational mind, and the presence of those reviews provides a much needed level of social proof that the shopper is making a good decision at a subconsciousness level. In the same way, consumers generally don’t trusts ads, and yet advertised products sell better.
Clearly credible reviews are more influential than suspect ones. Products with at least one negative review tend to convert better than those with non negatives (all positive reviews is now a clear indication of review fraud).
As brand has become a less reliable shorthand for product quality (Is Vizio really better than Insignia?), social proof has emerged at the top of many shoppers’ decision tree.
The trick is to figure out how to provide the social proof that shoppers want. Retailers like Best Buy are using QR Codes to deliver reviews to in-store shoppers via mobile, and e-commerce sites like Anthropologie.com are allowing shoppers to filter from reviewers similar to them (size, style, age, etc…).
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
They’re no longer as worthwhile as they used to be, in any case. They seem to be uniformly bad in some cases, and uniformly good in others.
When I was moving from Boston to Miami, I couldn’t find anyone with anything good to say about any mover. I finally just held my nose and picked one. And my stuff arrived without incident.
The bigger problem is the legality of the letter above. That just seems wrong. Funny that I’ve never gotten one of those.
Of course! You have authors reviewing their own work on Amazon, some Facebook pages are cluttered with managers talking about how wonderful “Company X” is and there’s dozens more obvious examples of deceptive practices and probably hundreds we don’t know about.
In the end it’s the customer’s problem, just like in the end it’s the consumers job to sort through wild advertising claims.
Should companies like Amazon do a better job of policing their sites? Of course, but in the end they still are trying to sell product.
“Caveat emptor!” is as valid in the digital age as it was in the souk.
Reviews are already pretty well worthless — both the negative and positive ones. That said, one can often ‘sense’ the legitimate reviews. Seems to me it goes well beyond what consumers write in; as this piece points out, reviews are a business on their own. Take the iconic J.D. Power ratings for example. How objective and squeaky clean are those ratings?
According to “How Stuff Works” J.D. Power “packages information and sells it to the producers of the product. Companies pay J.D. Power upward of $100,000 for this valuable data in order to better gain an edge over the competition.” It sounds like Companies pay differing amounts for a ‘license’ plus extra if you want the actual trophy and the use of the Power name. All that kind of puts it suspiciously in the gray zone for me.
Then you have Consumers Reports, the grandfather of them all, with their boast that they accept no money and not even free product from manufacturers. Companies are forbidden to refer to Consumer’s evaluations in any way. Is that a more objective review? Many think that comparing Power to Consumers is like comparing disgraced evangelist Ted Haggard to Billy Graham.
Net will always be — do your own due diligence. I don’t trust movie reviewers either.
The bigger issue is that customers are preferring reviews from people they don’t know over people they do, as Paul Schottmiller from Cisco and I discussed in this video shot at last week’s NRF.
There’s a reason these paid reviews are growing because online retailers know that they provide the illusion of honesty and critical skills — particularly the Boomers.
Having a paid spokesman talk about your product or service is not new. However, in the ads there was always a disclaimer that said, albeit in very fine print, that the person was being compensated. But that’s not true for the online reviews and that is the basic difference. The result is a lot of deceptive reviews that are worthless.
It would be great if the sites had the ability and willingness to ensure accuracy, but then who would watch the watcher?
Such a reward scheme defeats the purpose of websites such as Yelp. As with advertorials and similar marketing approaches, it’s up to the legislator to set boundaries that will prevent brands from misleading consumers.
This practice should be discontinued. It’s just another runway for consumers to distrust brands and retailers who continue to “push” information to shoppers by using shady practices like paid reviews. Consumers trust real word of mouth (as in “in real life”) more than posted comments. But this practice has potential to discredit a lot of other ethical digital marketing practices, as distrust grows faster than trust.
Paid advertising needs to be identified in print media so paid endorsements could be required to have disclosure, but who would monitor that? In the absence of notification of whether reviewers have been paid, it appears that Ryan is right — caveat emptor.
The comment per se might be subject to suspicion, but the quantity of comments also has a meaning. I bet we could test that where the same product or app or whatever with 2 reviews vs. 100 reviews is regarded quite differently, regardless of content. One of those behavioral economics phenomena….
It is the responsibility of the company posting the reviews to make sure that the reviews aren’t bogus.
There’s no danger “that reviews may soon be seen as worthless” since they already ARE worthless (at least within the context of 0-5 star ratings having any particular meaning). Fraud is a problem, but the bigger issue is that many people just don’t have anything intelligent to say…as anyone who has ever read a “review” in which it was admitted that the product hadn’t even been tried will find out.
I am considering the whole social networking thing, and at the NGA show in two weeks, I will spend most of my time deciding if I want to venture into this arena. This topic brings up what can happen in the online arena, as companies battle for high ratings supremacy. There is so much BS out there, and it makes it tough for a small business to venture into the shark infested waters of the internet media, without giving it some serious thought.
I have no fears about it, and the Twitter, Facebook, and web sites will be my focus in 2012. How I want to interface all of this will be important for my store to get it right (the first time). I realize some customers will blast us, and how we deal with it will be critical to maintain integrity, and honesty with our customers.
Does this concern me? YES, but it needs to move forward, or I’ll be left behind, and that is not an option either. It should be a fun challenge for all small businesses to develop this properly to enhance their store image! Good luck to all!
Interesting timing as just yesterday, I checked out a Amazon reviews for a new book written by a to-remain-nameless failed executive touting business advice. Review upon review gave the book five stars — each one following a similar effusive pattern and each prominently mentioning the author’s name — a dead giveaway. Sandwiched in between, and drowned out, were a few one star reviews (nothing in between) citing the author’s lack of credibility and the book’s cliche-filled content.
It was clear to me that the reviews were solicited (not necessarily “paid for” in the literal sense) and clearly, nothing can be done about it. Those who have the influence can push positive press — even without paying.
If the transgression had been put forth by an online retailer other than Amazon, I might say “no.” Since Amazon is the largest online retailer in the world and has made reviews such an important part of the stream of content for each item, the answer is a resounding “yes.”
This suspected practice needs to nipped in the bud and transparency supported in order to retain consumer confidence and trust in this aspect of online shopping.
Reviews are not worthless to the seller.
Positive reviews, even if fake, will increase sales. Negative reviews will alert the seller not to overstock that item and will protect them from loss.
The sharing of customer experiences has become a permanent part of the shopping landscape. There is so much value, and so little cost, attached to crowd-sourcing shopping information that it is hard to believe that poor implementations can reverse consumer demand for reviews and similar shared experiences.
Attempts to hijack the review process are worrisome and need to be exposed, and sites that are careless about reviews risk their own credibility and relevance. I do not believe, however, that the actions of individual sites or users can significantly damage the overall credibility and relevance of experience-sharing as an information-gathering tool for consumers.
Conversely, sites that are serious about their reputation can take steps to restrict content that would tend to be damaging and promote content that tends to be accurate, relevant and timely. For example, Yelp has several features that make it easy for users to draw reasonable inferences about a reviewer’s credibility. Zavee automatically limits reviews that would be spurious or stale by posting only reviews where the reviewer has made a purchase from the merchant being reviewed within the last 30 days. Zavee also automatically notifies merchants of every review and encourages them to respond.
Consumers want reviews and similar means for sharing shopping information and experiences because they want alternatives to “command and control” marketing, especially from big brands. It’s very unlikely that they will suddenly re-discover a fondness for mass market advertising. Nevertheless, it’s up to those of us who provide a platform for social sharing of shopping information to be vigilant protectors of our users’ interests.
Anyone who thinks reviews are worthless doesn’t have access to analytics from a high traffic e-commerce site.
It’s an open secret that there are a significant amount of non-authentic reviews on all sites, but what I find fascinating is that reviews still drive conversion.
Products with review convert better than products without review on e-commerce sites. Even though there are lots of reasons not to trust the reviews, they still help sell products. Purchasing decisions are not made entirely with our rational mind, and the presence of those reviews provides a much needed level of social proof that the shopper is making a good decision at a subconsciousness level. In the same way, consumers generally don’t trusts ads, and yet advertised products sell better.
Clearly credible reviews are more influential than suspect ones. Products with at least one negative review tend to convert better than those with non negatives (all positive reviews is now a clear indication of review fraud).
As brand has become a less reliable shorthand for product quality (Is Vizio really better than Insignia?), social proof has emerged at the top of many shoppers’ decision tree.
The trick is to figure out how to provide the social proof that shoppers want. Retailers like Best Buy are using QR Codes to deliver reviews to in-store shoppers via mobile, and e-commerce sites like Anthropologie.com are allowing shoppers to filter from reviewers similar to them (size, style, age, etc…).