Amazon reviews: why encourage non-buyer reviews?

Allowing people to write reviews for things they haven’t purchased devalues the review system, surely?

I always thought that you had to purchase a product via Amazon to be able to review it. That would make perfect sense, right? You couldn’t come up with a simpler and more straightforward way to ensure the veracity of the reviews that other buyers refer to when considering how to spend their money.

It seems such an obvious and simple way of ensuring the credibility of reviews that I’d assumed that Amazon worked to this system. The other day I discovered I was able to write a review for something I that I hadn’t bought.

Screen shot 2013-06-06 at 16.32.26I made it a nice review with 4 stars because the seller didn’t deserve to be a victim of my little experiment. Today, I checked back and it was duly published.

I was pretty shocked at the idea that Amazon could allow anyone to write any review for anything. My comment (see pic) shows my reaction. The potential for ‘gaming’ the system is obvious and there’s no doubt at all that there are people doing just that.

On closer inspection, I discovered there is a difference between reviews I make for things I’ve bought and those I haven’t. The reviews for things I have bought through Amazon are labeled “Amazon verified purchase” to attest to the review’s credibility and distinguish it from reviews for things that I haven’t bought.

I’d be more impressed if Amazon labelled reviews for things that the reviewer hasn’t bought something like “Not an Amazon Verified purchase” so that the reader can take it with a pinch of salt. 

 

 

Will we all end up using the same few images online?

Finding a familiar image leads me to a surprising discovery

This image is from a post on someone’s Audioboo feed. I recognised the ‘little girl and laptop’ motif because some time ago, when writing a blog post about some aspect of protecting kids from pornography, I found it online and considered using it myself. In fact I’m not entirely sure that I didn’t use it.

I decided to do a Google ‘reverse’ image search on it. According to Google, this image currently appears on 769 web pages online. Most of these pages contain content about protecting children from pornography. A quick glance at the results shows – surprisingly – that the BBC is the worst offender.

That’s 769 people who have gone looking for something like ‘child and laptop’ and grabbed this rather iconic picture. One wonders how many of those people obtained the correct permissions to use the image (yes, yes, myself included). One also wonders if there will come a time when the whole of the web is reduced to a relatively small number of ‘archetypes’ being lazily grabbed, downloaded and re-used.

It’s a depressing thought but it has something of a ring of inevitability to it.

 

 

How to delete my wecandobiz account?

A quick guide to save you some time in deleting your wecandobiz.com account

I’ve nothing against ‘WecandoBiz.com’. It’s an online networking platform that I joined in 2009, didn’t really get involved with much (after getting ‘sold to’ immediately by other members) and left alone. That’s my personal choice, not a reflection on the people behind ‘WecandoBiz.com’.

Today a result for my name in Google prompted me to return to the site to try to delete my account. Like most online networking platforms, WecandoBiz depends for its currency and survival on retaining its members. Again, that’s understandable. But how many times have I found it really, really difficult to find the ‘close my account’ option on such sites? More times than I care to remember, actually.

Individually, many of these site operators take umbrage when someone like me publishes ‘how to delete my account’ posts, naming their precious sites. They feel we’re picking on them unfairly; going a bit overboard…trying to damage their business even. What individual site owners never manage to look at is the cumulative effect on a punter like me of continually having to waste 10, 15, 20 minutes trying to close our accounts on site after site…or wasting our lives trying to unsubscribe from mailing lists (even those we might originally have wanted to be on). Together, it adds up to a lot of frustration and – whether the individual operator likes it or not – gets focused on their damned site.

So, to re-iterate: I’ve nothing against ‘WecandoBiz.com’ other than the fact that they could have made closing my account easier and saved me quite a bit of time. If they choose not to (for the reasons outlined above) then posts like this – designed to save other people getting frustrated – are the price they’ll have to pay for that choice.

So if you’re looking to close your account, please note this is where you’ll need to go to do it (see below). Once you’ve clicked the delete option, WecandoBiz politely lets you go.

Felix Baumgartner full space jump video

If you’re looking for a full video of Felix Baumgartner making a jump – any jump – you’ll be sorely disappointed.

** Update! Good news! CLICK HERE for a bit of it from Liveleak TV!! 

So you go looking for video of Felix Baumgartner making his current stratospheric free-fall jump – you know, the 120,000 foot one that everyone’s talking about in traditional and social media. Oh, it’s been aborted, postponed, delayed or whatever? Ok. Fair enough. Then you notice he’s supposed to have done a 70,000 foot one in March 2012? Ok let’s go watch that instead, after all one very high jump is like another visually, right?

Ah. You find this supposed jump (which, if I recall correctly was itself cancelled, aborted and postponed at the time after a huge amount of Red Bull hype and build up) but guess what? You can’t find any of the hi-def footage that you know must exist – since that was the whole point, right?

If you’re stupid – like me – you spend a full 5 minutes looking on YouTube for footage of this test jump; to see the video that everyone wants to see: the moment he leaves the capsule and, heck, why not: some footage of his view on the way down. Even with a GoPro camera strapped to him like the ones those students send up every week on their little ‘edge of space’ projects the footage would be awesome. But there’s nothing. Nothing but carefully edited promotional pieces designed to tantalise you. Lots of build up in the American TV style; a fade to black at the money-shot of Felix about to go out the porthole, then grainy shots of a parachute intercut with Felix puffing up just how dangerous this all is / was.

So can I give you some advice? Forget looking for the video of any of Felix Baumgartner’s stratospheric space jumps unless you want to be manipulated by the Red Bull marketing people into an endless search where all that happens is you never get what you’re after while they certainly get what they’re after: the chance to expose you to Red Bull brand time and time again as you jump from one YouTube video to the next.

Personally, I’ll wait 30 years for the stills of this. If I want to feel like I’m in space, I’ll watch one of those student videos instead. Far more satisfying an experience and free from cynical marketing manipulation.

Alternatively, you can wait for the BBC/ National Geographic ‘documentary due out some time in November. That show, like the recent one about crashing a Boeing 727 in the Mexican desert will no doubt also feel like it has more to do with making money than with making good science or, in the case of our Felix, even making good history.

BT customer service: the difference between on- and off-line

There’s a huge gulf between BT’s online and offline customer service experience

Recently I found myself with an unexpected bill from BT for an old internet product they had switched me from back in 2009. (The fact that I had to demand to be switched from the old substandard BT-Yahoo product to the new BT Total Broadband that everyone else was on was pretty poor customer service in its own right. To have ‘forgotten’ to switch me off the old service was poorer still.)

Anyway, on receiving the erroneous bill I wasted 30 minutes getting nowhere with BT’s customer helpline. I ended up somewhere in India (as you do with BT) speaking to someone who, despite their desperation to please, had no hope of understanding my problem. This was both a language and a complexity problem. The poor guy couldn’t grasp the nuances of the problem I was describing and ended up by chucking me back into the call queue after 30 minutes.

So I did what smart people everywhere are doing (except the really smart ones are doing it first, without wasting time in the call queues). I Tweeted @BTCare and made the problem public.

Within minutes my Tweet was picked up by (I’m guessing) a UK-based social media customer service guy who took up my issue, continued the conversation on email and resolved the issue for me. “If only all BT customer service people had the ability and the power to intervene they give to their Twitter monitors” I Tweeted, a view I expressed to the BTCare person who called me (yes, you read it right called me) about the issue a couple of weeks later.

You can guess what he said, can’t you? Exactly. “Don’t bother with the telephone helpline in future. Just come straight through on Twitter”.

You betcha, BTCare. I don’t care if that means your social media customer service people will be swamped by Tweets as the world and his brother wake up to the fact that this is the only way to get good customer service out of BT. That’s the way it should be.

Looking for great customer service from BT and immediate action on your problems?

Tweet @BTCare, the only place to get customer service from BT. 

Clumsy approach to online reputation management – ‘Theophostic Counselling’

Theophostic Counselling tries just a bit too hard to counter its critics in my opinion

A chance look at a profile in LinkedIn brought my attention to something called ‘Theophostic Counselling’. I’d never heard of this before so took a little detour to find out. Before long I was at the website of Dr. Ed Smith, the man behind www.theophostic.com.

I am proudly, clearly and happily atheist: this means that I don’t believe in the existence of a god or, for that matter, any gods. It’s my experience that while beliefs and belief ‘systems’ are commonplace and quite natural, the greater the identification one has with one, the greater the blindness and intolerance that follows. I don’t care for that blindness or intolerance.

So Theophostic Counselling isn’t for me since I don’t share the beliefs that are at its core – for starters. But that’s not why I’m posting this.

My interest in it was piqued by the lengths to which its’ founder goes to prepare his prospects (yes, it is a business) for the negative criticism they are likely to find online about his Theophostic Counselling. He devotes an entire – long – page titled ‘Redemptive Criticism‘ to trying to minimise the impact of negative online criticism that he knows is out there and which he fears will impact on the success of his business.

In describing ‘redemptive criticism’ as that which “comes to us with a spirit of Christian concern and a desire to restore and bring clarity”, Dr. Smith is defining for them the only kind of criticism they should accept, telling them to question the veracity, validity and motivation of everything else. To demonstrate what he means by redemptive criticism, Dr. Smith quotes from a ‘positive yet critical’ review by the Christian Research Institute.

To deal with non-redemptive criticism - i.e. all other online criticism, Smith advises the following:

Basic Steps to Arrive at a More Accurate Perspective. 

1. Read through this page of information. This section will give you foundational material for understanding this ministry.

2. This site provides a vast amount of free information to help you to come to an accurate conclusions concerning what TPM is about. Begin with downloading the free sample chapters from the introductory book “Healing Life’s Hurts” which will give you a good introduction to this ministry.

3. Consider the positive testimonies and the thousands of positive experience-based web pages when coming to your final conclusions. Unfortunantly, a single negative opinion is sometimes given more weight than a thousand positive expereinces.

4. Watch the fruit of this ministry to determine whether God is involved. You will know a tree by its fruit.

5. Hold up the TPM Guidelines that give a succinct description of what a TPM session should look like when evaluating people’s negative experiences. Not everything that is called Theophostic is indeed Theophostic.

6. Be diligent to come to your own conclusions and not just the opinions of others.

7. Take the list of questions supplied below to evaluate the accuracy of criticism.
Consider these questions in your Internet research.
1. What is the spirit of the criticism? Does it appear to be redemptive or jugemetal and divisive?

2. Is the criticism based upon the critics personal expereince or opinion?

3. What do I know about the critic who has posted the information? Is it someone that I know and trust his or her opinions.

4. What is the critics statement of faith, religious affiliation or ministry position?

5. Is the critic an established authority in this area of ministry that he or she is criticising?

6. Is this critic criticizing other ministries I respect? If so, who and why?

7. Is the critic making a fair assessment of the primary sources provided by TPM or merely “parroting” secondhand opinions from what others have stated?

8. Is the criticism accurate in its understanding of TPM? Read “Healing Life’s Hurts” and a copy of the Theophostic Ministry Session Guidelines. Also see “Summary of what a Theophostic Prayer Ministry session should look like”.

9. Are negative ministry examples sited true TPM sessions or just “bad thereapy?”

Whew! With defences like that, how could any real criticism get through?

Individually, many of these questions are reasonable ones for evaluating online criticism but it’s the sheer force of the guidance which feels too much; too controlling – and too guilty. Far from assuring me of his trustworthiness, this approach just leaves me wanting to know exactly what it is he’s so keen to hide from his prospects.

I bring it to your attention because it’s another great example of how easy it is to over-control and end up drawing attention to the criticism you’re most uncomfortable with.

Why spam and social media don’t mix


If you’re spamming people and you don’t make it easy for them to get off your lists…

…you’re heading for a potential reputation problem.

There’s nothing more frustrating than receiving spam. Oh, yes – actually there is. It’s receiving spam that you can’t STOP.

You know the kind; no unsubscribe link and no way of contacting the spammer to get them to take you off their infernal lists. Yes, that list you never asked to be on in the first place. Most people just give up and resign themselves to wading through the spam whenever it comes in. Some, like me, take to social media to force the spammer’s hand.

The fellow in the example (see screengrab, right) left me no way to contact him – and that was what really pissed me off. And remember this, when you piss off a member of the public (or for that matter a customer), they aren’t going to be reasonable about it and the longer it goes on, the less reasonable they’re going to be. And if they can’t get hold of you they’ll resort to social media. Because boy, does it work.

Less than two weeks after I blogged about this spammer, the gentleman in question AND the company he works for picked up my less-than-flattering reference to their practices and  got on the phone to me. Good. Now I’ve got your attention. Pity I had to work so hard to get it.

In both cases, I had the opportunity to let them know just how unwelcome their spam was and deliciously, there was nothing in my post they could object to: no libel and no defamation because it was all just fact.

As it happens, both individuals, to their credit, were fairly decent about it when they heard my objection. The spamming gent apologised fairly quickly – and hence I took down the post. So all’s well that ends well – except it will take some months for Google to flush the unflattering entry out of its indexes.

So it’s an important lesson to you folks out there using the internet to market your wares: for your own sakes, don’t spam people. And as a minimum, put an effective and instant ‘unsubscribe’ link on your mails. That way, even if you spam someone by ‘mistake’, you give them the chance to get off your list quickly.

If you don’t…well, you know what can happen. It’s surely not worth it.

Making the bus monitor cry is very, very bad for your reputation

Making the bus monitor cry is going to haunt those kids for a long time

The latest viral story sweeping the web accompanies a video showing school kids cruelly taunting their elderly bus monitor to the point she cries. It’s shot by one of the kids and features the heartless and spiteful voices of four or five others who, emboldened by being together in a pack while the old lady is clearly alone, verbally abuse and physically prod her until she is in tears. It is almost unbearable to watch; certainly you don’t need to watch more than 4 or 5 minutes of it.

The reaction to this video has been both heartening (some $400,000 has been raised to send this lady on holiday or even pay for her early retirement in a matter of a few days) and shocking (how so many of the young people express their disgust in more violent terms than the original act – see the YouTube comments). Some are bizarre and ironic – like this one where a level-headed sounding young man condemns the bullies while casually blowing people away in his on-line sniper game.

If you follow the story through, you’ll see that disgusted classmates have posted the names and phone numbers of the offending bullies online. You can find reactions from the parents, from school officials and – reassuringly – from Greece, NY bus monitor Mrs. Karen Klein herself who was clearly hurt by the experience. My son signed a petition to demand that she doesn’t have to pay tax on her unexpected financial windfall and in doing so, brought it to my attention. I felt moved to send her a Facebook message just saying I felt for her and hoped she could put it behind her.  With luck, she will enjoy her money and the kids responsible will learn a hard, fast lesson.

All of which leaves me marvelling at the sheer speed at which both the kids’ and Mrs. Klein’s lives changed; not just because of an act of bullying (because that goes on all the time, all over the world without anyone seeing it) but because it was filmed on a phone for fun, found its way to the internet and then – from the point of view of the gang of bullies – went spectacularly wrong, spectacularly quickly.

The problem for these kids is that this foolish and cruel behaviour towards their bus monitor (someone who’s job it is to protect them!) is going to haunt them for as long as they live and have a significant impact on their future opportunities. However, a more immediate problem for them may be that there are people out there angry enough to wanted to shorten how long they actually do live. Enraging hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people who know your name, your phone number, your school and can easily find you is NOT a smart move in terms of your personal safety alone. In terms of their online reputations, this issue has become international news and featured on so many sites that these kids have no chance of ousting the bad news stories attached to their names and little or no chance of even balancing that information with positive stories (assuming they survive this notoriety and go on to do anything good with their lives).

The morale of this tale isn’t just that bad deeds are always rewarded by bad karma, it’s how quickly one cruel and thoughtless act can damage your reputation beyond any hope of repair and in a way that will haunt you for as long as Google does what Google does.

So you want to bury that bad news about you?

Don’t. You’ll be wasting your time AND throwing money into a bottomless hole

If you do a search for ‘online reputation management’ you will find thousands of people offering services to help you avoid getting into trouble and to get out of trouble when your online reputation is in tatters. This sector didn’t even exist, of course, until Google came along so it’s very young and filled with young, social-media aware people offering a wide range of technological solutions to your woes.

You will also notice that ALL of these people offer the same two services. First, they offer you a reputation-monitoring service (often trying to sell you one kind of software or another). Second, they offer to use SEO (‘Search Engine Optimisation’) techniques to bury the bad news about you so it won’t appear when people search Google for your name, company or products.

These approaches are both fundamentally flawed and here’s why.

Firstly, the ‘reputation monitoring’ solutions are usually build by young, technically-minded, social-media-obsessed people. They are difficult to understand, configure or interpret for most business people above the age of 40. And even when they do make sense, all they do is bring reputation issues to the attention of more people. What’s wrong with that you might ask? I’ll tell you.

In my experience, almost every reputation problem has at its core a failure of communication skills on the part of the business concerned. Yes, that’s right: no matter how unfair your customers’ reactions might seem, most problems stem from a lack of listening skills, accountability, empathy, assertiveness or simply politeness on your part. Nothing about the reputation monitoring software sold to you will equip you with the skills the lack of which got you into this problem in the first place. Quite the opposite, in fact. Such reputation management tools don’t teach people how to interact with people better, they simply lead them towards technological solutions.

And that’s the second part of my objection to the dominant approach to ‘online reputation management’. If you do that search, you’ll see that everyone offers to bury the bad news for you. Not to help you understand what went wrong and put it right. No, to bury the bad news. Like a dog covering it’s poop. The same people who sold you the reputation monitoring tool will now offer to push the negative references to you off the first few pages and replace it with positive stuff.

What they don’t admit to themselves (far less tell YOU) is that this promise is a) impossible to deliver and b) completely undesirable for a number of reasons.

This promise is impossible because you cannot ‘spam’ Google indefinitely. No matter how many people in India you have creating bogus blog content online and seeding it with links to good stuff about you, Google’s algorithm is constantly changing to ensure a genuine ‘relevance’ value that will ensure the health of the advertising environment it offers its clients. Online reputation management spammers do not feature in this picture very highly. In simple terms, an online reputation management expert who promises to push off high-profile news reports on, say, the Telegraph’s website is misleading you.

And beyond that it is undesirable for the following simple reasons: firstly because the practice creates a highly-visible ‘whitewash’ effect – a pile of innocuous-looking and meaningless blog-junk floating suspiciously at the top of Google for your name / brand / products. Read individually, the casual reader might pass over these articles but anyone doing due diligence will recognise immediately that you’re covering something up; that you’re trying to bury bad news. And that smell of rotten fish will do more harm than the original problem. Remember, everyone can forgive you screwing up once in a while. But what will turn them away permanently is discovering that when things go wrong, you get dishonest.

And finally – and this is the bit that doesn’t even get a look-in from any online reputation manager that I’ve ever seen – this kind of behaviour is undesirable because in taking the ‘try-to-cover-up’ approach, you miss the biggest opportunity of all: the chance to learn how to do your business differently; how to demonstrate your ability to listen, learn and put things right. This passes up an opportunity to turn critics into advocates and enhance your reputation in the only way that matters: as positive word-of-mouth opinion from people who you have surprised and delighted. And nothing delights people more than a difficult situation turning into a positive experience that leaves them happy.

There are those who might say that if the average businessman with a stinging reputation problem wants nothing more than a quick ‘fix’ then it’s no surprise that the industry jumps to offer him what he wants. I beg to differ: first of all, I don’t think that good business people really do want a quick ‘fix’ when you get under the surface and second, it ain’t no ‘fix’ at all when you examine it more closely.

 

 

No No Reviews – hairy stories from Google

Someone is gaming the system when it comes to reviews for No No Hair Removal

In a break in ‘The Wright Stuff’ today on Channel 5 I was struck by an ad for the ‘No! No!’ Hair removal system / gadget. I loved the claim that the product removes hair better than other methods (shaving, waxing, electrolysis) and with ‘virtually’ no pain. “If this actually worked, it would be a runaway success” I thought to myself. “Let’s see”

So I went to Google to find out.

Look at the pattern of review score in Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com sites:

It’s clearly overwhelming negative. I don’t know about you, but I tend to trust Amazon reviews marginally more than I trust everything else online for two reasons: 1) Amazon has a vested interest in making sure their system is trustworthy and 2) As a result the reviews are written by people who have bought and used the product. By comparison, everything else online is likely to be ‘gamed’ by the company in question. More and more these days, this activity consists of employing armies of young ‘social media-savvy’ people to blog, Tweet, ‘review’ the product favourably to flood Google with positive reviews.

Remember, there are millions of pounds and dollars at stake here – so paying people to fake a positive online reputation can, for some companies represent a better investment than actually making sure the product is any good in the first place.

And take a look at the sponsored ads. There appears to be one for No No at Amazon.co.uk that shows an average review rating of 4.6 stars. What?!? We already know that in really it scores an average 2* in real Amazon reviews. So what IS this ‘sponsored Amazon ad’ referring to? On closer inspection it turns out that other No No products (costing a fraction of the nearly £200 of the No No Hair removal system) score higher marks. It appears the sponsored result at the top of Google then is referring to an aggregate of all of those products.

A wider review of Google results suggests that No No has done quite a bit of work to get their own glowing reviews out there into Google to offset the Amazon review trends.

But I’m left with the same basic question: how can it be that when it comes to the right to make claims on daytime TV, your own propaganda and a fistful of cash are all you require to be allowed to say what you like? If you’re angry at the claims made by this company – a view shared by the vast majority of Amazon reviewers of this product – then please feel free to express your views here.

Do I have a vested interest? No. I’m for truth and accountability. If your product is sh*t and the consumer is telling you so, then you don’t have the right to continue making claims you cannot back up in reality.