Sourcing a crowd January 28, 2007
Posted by Matt in Democracy, E-Commerce, Elections, Knowledge, Lectures, Web 2.0.trackback
I am fascinated with the phenomena of crowd sourcing. I think this is a strong feature of Web 2.0. It appears to be like a visible college of knowledge. People come together and share their knowledge, and a site like wikipedia people can constantly change, edit and correct previous entries.
An example was brought up in class about customer reviews. Personally I use them, but I don’t rely on them. If I was to buy something I would seek to get as much information about it as possible, and in some cases user opinions are useful, as it sort of cuts the official line and people can share their good and bad experiences with it. But i think i would rely more on the expert opinions – these are the people who actually know what they are talking about and have a wider comparative knowledge between that and other products.
But how much can we trust these crowdsurfers? I mean its clear that some people have vendettas against certain products, so will try to distort the image. I was shocked, but not really surprised, to find this blog (through the tagsurfer) http://pointbeing.wordpress.com/2007/01/24/another-pr-payola-scandal-for-microsoft-and-other-stories-january-24-2006 essentially Microsoft have allegedly paid someone to purposefully edit wikipedia entries in order to make IBM seem inferior. This is E-Sabotage really, but how are we to know that its going on. Can the truth be paid out to the highest bidder? It reminds me of an embarrassing case for Sony Movies where they essentially made up a critic who praised the films (which were in fact rubbish) and used his “quotes” which were all glowing, on the film posters.
Is there potential for employees to infiltrate forums and try to promote a product and subvert criticism lodged toward a product? I’m sure it already happens…
I was not surprised by this blog that mentions IBM and Microsoft and the ability to put down products and companies so easily, with little thought of the ramifications. These are huge companies with even bigger budgets to be in the position of influencing public opinion. But what happens to the ‘little guy’ who is struggling to make a living? For example, take a local restaurant, we have all had a bad experience when dining out, but if we tell ten people and then they each tell ten people the word is out. So is the restaurant; of business that is. It takes seven times the amount of money to secure a new customer. Maybe the restaurant should have worked a little harder to satisfy the initial customer, and still remained in business.
As to your example of customer reviews, the new website Ferrit, appears to be basing it’s business on customer reviews and from a recent visit there is limited amount of feedback. The option of getting the professional opinion as in Consumer Magazine or online is the safer option. Maybe we are a cautious bunch or as students not have the financial buffer to buy a ‘dud’?
The anonymity of people who write a good deal of the blogs does not instill much faith in what others are writing, or maybe I haven’t hit upon the ‘really stimulating’ learning blogs others have.
I read about the fake critic that wrote good reviews for Sonys movies and it really nailed home a good point which you brought up in your blog. How much can we trust these crowd sources?
I think that initially crowd sourcing was a tool used by average Joe’s to give truthful information about companies and their products. It seems though companies have quickly clicked on to how much influence crowd sources have on consumer choices. Like you suggested it is very like big businesses like Microsoft and Nike have got their own people infiltrating these online public forums and distorting the truth.
Word of mouth can boost or destroy a business and online crowd sources have this ability. What I have noticed is that businesses like Nike now have product review pages on their websites which allow people to voice their opinion on a product.
Who do these product reviews really help though? The end user or Nike? Nike no longer has to pay someone to review their products, they gain valuable market information from us when we log on to their web site, and Nike doesn’t hold any responsibility for reviews that aren’t accurate. Remember Nike control the website so I’m pretty sure they control what reviews we have access to.
I agree. I do not take anything as fact only as opinion from ‘unworthy’ sites. For example wikipedia, blogs, and user opinions and comments on products.
Sure take them into consideration however, keep an open mind.
Crowdsourcing is and will be huge; the only thing that would be a worry is the intellectual property of the companies. However with correct structures and systems in place I am sure this information can be kept confidential.