This was no isolated case of
an employee or business owner faking a review; it was systematic fraud that violated
truth in advertising laws and involved use of several shadowy companies that
are paid for the practice. Promising to improve one’s brand or at least
outnumber the (presumably legitimate) negative reviews, these companies employ digital
sweatshops in Eastern Europe, Bangladesh and the Philippines to churn out glowing
reviews for products the reviewers have never seen or used.
The companies are called
reputation management firms, and their stated purpose is to ensure that you or your
business are not unfairly smeared on line. But all too often, they go beyond
that into perpetrating outright fraud, presumably to counteract the negative
stuff, but also to mislead and fool customers into believing you’re good when
you’re not. As an article in the NY Times technology section points out, a phony
restaurant review will result in no more than a bad meal; however the New York
crackdown uncovered the practice being used by dentists, lawyers and other
professionals – areas where the consequences of false advertising can be much
more serious.
A Gartner study last year predicted
that 15% of all social media ratings and reviews will be bogus by 2014, and I
think that number is sure to go higher. Another study by the Harvard Business
Review proved that an increase in ratings on Yelp, for example, translated into
a significant and measureable increase in revenue. So this is not a trivial
matter for businesses; a Nielsen study
last year showed that online ratings were the second most trusted form of advertising,
after word of mouth.
The internet was supposed to
be liberating. The interactivity of Web 2.0 meant that every man could be his
own reviewer, and the people finally had a voice. Instead of the professional
reviewer, now all products and services were subject to crowd sourcing – mass customer
feedback, published for all to see. From the star ratings on Amazon, one of the
earliest forms of user ratings, to dedicated sites like Yelp and variants like
Urbanspoon, Angie's List and Citysearch, online ratings are everywhere, and influential.
How many times have you checked the reviews on a restaurant or book and made
your decision accordingly? I know I have, many times over.
Reactions to the Times
article on line were numerous and outspoken. Many felt that the problem was even worse than already reported. Some responders, however, confused
the faked reviews with freedom of speech and concluded that there was nothing
that can be done to fight the practice. Not true, as the Attorney General’s
crackdown – and an increasing number of enforcements around the country – has proved.
Advertising is NOT protected by first amendment free speech guarantees, and commercial
speech has long been regulated. The attempts to manipulate public opinion through
rating sites and social media were clearly a violation of law, and the
companies investigated by the AG all settled without going to trial. “Businesses
have a moral and legal responsibility to present things as they are,” David
Streitfeld, the author of the Times article, wrote in a follow-up. “Otherwise
we’re going to be ordering lobster on the menu and we’re going to get hamster.”
That on-line ratings are being
manipulated comes as no surprise then, and I’m sure you’re all nodding with an “I
knew it all along” expression. User ratings have become just one more thing on
the internet that we can no longer fully trust.
The story about the New York cases was well covered in BusinessWeek, which also described the efforts by Yelp and others to weed out the fakes.
The story about the New York cases was well covered in BusinessWeek, which also described the efforts by Yelp and others to weed out the fakes.
1 comment:
I'm not sure that this is much different than regular advertising. True, there are truth in advertising laws (and don't you wish that applied to politics and politicians as well?), but reviews are opinions, not claims. And there are no laws about opinions. But here's the thing that concerns me more than fake reviews:
"The companies are called reputation management firms, and their stated purpose is to ensure that you or your business are not unfairly smeared on line."
How do these "reputation management firms" differentiate unfair smearing from fair smearing? If a company's product is truly bad, shouldn't they be smeared? Somehow they are determining the difference even though they've never used or even seen the product. That tells me they are not doing any analysis and are paid commenters. If they can't be stopped legally then they certainly should be exposed in the court of public opinion (no pun intended) and the public can chastise any company found to be using these firms.
In the end I guess the old adage is still the best advice: Brush up on your Latin and "Caveat Emptor".
Post a Comment