tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/online-review-9526/articlesOnline review – The Conversation2018-08-30T18:53:51Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1023382018-08-30T18:53:51Z2018-08-30T18:53:51ZVital Signs: online retailing is changing our lives, whether we use it or not<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234210/original/file-20180830-195301-1k0pqu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Online prices drive offline prices.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Vital Signs is a regular economic wrap from UNSW economics professor Richard Holden (@profholden). Vital Signs aims to contextualise weekly economic events and cut through the noise of the data affecting global economies.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Last week, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City held its much anticipated annual central banking conference in Jackson Hole. This year’s topic “<a href="https://www.kansascityfed.org/publications/research/escp/symposiums/escp-2018">Changing Market Structures and Implications for Monetary Policy</a>” garnered even more attention than usual.</p>
<p>This was in no small part because it highlighted that macroeconomists and central bankers now care a lot about what used to be the province of other fields of economics – what firms are doing. As a result, part of the mystery of why advanced economies have had a decade of low inflation and low wage growth is being unlocked.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.kansascityfed.org/%7E/media/files/publicat/sympos/2018/papersandhandouts/825180810cavallopaper.pdf?la=en">One of the most interesting papers</a> went right to this issue. Alberto Cavallo of Harvard Business School examined how online retailing – involving easily discoverable prices that are often determined by algorithms – can change the pricing behaviour of more traditional retailers and, it turn, impact inflation overall.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-jobs-may-be-increasing-but-the-real-test-is-whether-we-get-a-pay-rise-this-year-90110">Vital Signs: jobs may be increasing but the real test is whether we get a pay rise this year</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Could it be that the new economy has fundamentally changed how prices are set across the economy, thereby changing inflation dynamics and what our Reserve Bank is prepared to permit? If so it could have a significant effect on the so-called “real economy”.</p>
<p>The short answer is – quite possibly. But the details are both fascinating and important.</p>
<p>Cavallo makes use of data from the <a href="http://www.thebillionpricesproject.com">Billion Prices Project</a>, which he co-founded with Roberto Rigobon, which scrapes price data from the internet. It contains more than 15 million daily prices, from 1000 retailers, across 60 countries, since 2008 (disclosure: Rigobon and I were colleagues at MIT). Cavallo adds country of origin data from Walmart products and product descriptions from Amazon to construct a proxy for online competition of each good. His data go down to the zip-code level so he can look at how prices vary within the US.</p>
<p>Cavallo shows that price changes have been happening more frequently. Multi-channel retailers – who sell both online and in “bricks-and-mortar” stores – have gone from changing prices once every 6.7 months in 2008–2010 to every 3.7 months in 2014–2017. Often these changes are cuts. This “rapid change effect” is strongest in categories like electronics and household goods, where online retailers have high market share.</p>
<p>The clear conclusion is that online competition is intense due to the easy availability of information about competitors’ pricing, and the ability to change prices cheaply, quickly, and often even algorithmically. Added to this is that charging different prices in different locations seems, from the data, to be harder than before because consumers can find out.</p>
<p>As one might expect, this also facilitates the rapid passthrough of shocks to prices that come from movements in exchange rates or fuel prices. </p>
<p>All of this means that there is more of a lid on prices than in the past – so lower average inflation – this is the “Amazon effect”. This would help explain why the US has 3.9% unemployment but no sign yet of runaway inflation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-its-time-to-discuss-a-new-framework-for-central-banking-101978">Vital Signs: it's time to discuss a new framework for central banking</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The other implication is that retail prices are less insulated from macroeconomic shocks than in the past. This makes it harder to central banks to glean how the economy is travelling. In essence, prices contain more noise and less signal.</p>
<p>For Australia and the Reserve Bank the implications are similar, if a little more muted than in the US. Online retailing is not yet as widespread. But in many ways it doesn’t need to be widespread to discipline prices. The mere possibility that goods can be purchased online is enough to discipline traditional retailers. </p>
<p>As game theorists like to say, “out-of-equilibrium threats matter”. This could be a leading explanation for why inflation is low in Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-its-time-to-discuss-a-new-framework-for-central-banking-101978">despite low interest rates and relatively low unemployment</a>. </p>
<p>Because the Australian dollar is fairly volatile and we do import goods worth about 20% of GDP the “noise-to-signal” effect could be particularly strong in Australia – making things harder for the Reserve Bank.</p>
<p>The new economy has changed the overall economy in a host of ways from casualisation and the gig-economy to lower prices and new products. It will probably lead to a new era of monetary policy, but we don’t know what. As Reserve governor Phil Lowe is fond of saying: “time will tell”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102338/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Holden does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The mere possibility of online competition is restraining prices offline.Richard Holden, Professor of Economics and PLuS Alliance Fellow, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/822032017-11-02T02:52:41Z2017-11-02T02:52:41ZStop doing companies’ digital busywork for free<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192300/original/file-20171027-2402-p3er9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How much time and energy do people spend rating, reviewing and answering surveys?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/reputation-management-concept-feedback-rating-677453737">Ditty_about_summer/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the past year, I stopped responding to customer surveys, providing user feedback or, mostly, contributing product reviews. Sometimes I feel obligated – even eager – to provide this information. Who doesn’t like being asked their opinion? But, in researching media technologies as an anthropologist, I see these requests as part of a broader trend making home life bureaucratic. </p>
<p>Consumer technologies – whether user reviews and recommendations, social media or health care portals – involve logistical effort that means more administrative work at home. As economic anthropologist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber">David Graeber</a> <a href="https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit">observes</a>, “All the software designed to save us from administrative responsibilities [has] turned us into part- or full-time administrators.” Companies may benefit when customers create content, provide feedback and do busywork once done by paid employees, but what about the customers themselves – all of us?</p>
<p>Many researchers recognize professional <a href="https://hbr.org/1983/09/moral-mazes-bureaucracy-and-managerial-work">workplaces are becoming more bureaucratic</a>, managing workers through documentation and quantification. But fewer acknowledge the expansion of this logic into private life. It might not feel like a burden to update your Facebook profile, review a business or log in to a web portal to message your doctor. But when you lose time answering customer surveys, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/325807937506242/">setting privacy rules</a>, resetting a password, wading through licensing agreements or updating firmware, it becomes clear how digital technologies increase managerial work at home. In my forthcoming book, I explore this phenomenon, which I call logistical labor.</p>
<h2>Digitizing daily life</h2>
<p>Here’s a typical example of how this happens at home. I recently received an email from my auto insurance requesting I call. Fair enough; I might not answer if the company called me. But instead of reaching a person familiar with the query, my call fed into an automated system where a synthesized voice asked what I was calling about.</p>
<p>“You told me to call!” I replied.</p>
<p>The automated system was confused: “Sorry, what was that again? You can say auto ‘policy,’ ‘claims’ or ‘tell me my options.’” </p>
<p>Eventually I reached a human, who didn’t know why I’d been asked to call either. “I don’t know,” I told her, “That’s what I’m calling about…” Finally, we figured out what was going on and resolved the issue. Then she asked whether I would stay on the line for a customer service survey. I refused. </p>
<p>Rather than calling or emailing me with specific details, the company made me work through all that automated confusion. Requiring that I call in effectively gave me work previously done by paid employees. And then the insurance company asked for yet more of my time to reflect on how well – or not – my work solved the problem the company had. At what point should I expect to be paid for my work?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are these call center workers happy because other people are doing their jobs?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/call-center-worker-accompanied-by-his-707850307">Redpixel.pl/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Managing work</h2>
<p>Bureaucracy – a term coined in the 18th century to mean “<a href="https://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/social-worlds/all-articles/management/desk">rule by writing desk</a>” – refers to the organization of modern government, desk-bound and hierarchical. Max Weber, a <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weber/">founding theorist of social science</a>, viewed bureaucratic organization as fundamental to modern society. He decried its rigidity as an <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/understanding-max-webers-iron-cage-3026373">“iron cage” of rationalization</a> in which social life is managed quantitatively. Since at least the 1970s, bureaucratic management has become common in corporate workplaces. </p>
<p>Sociologist Robert Jackall termed this shift the “<a href="https://hbr.org/1983/09/moral-mazes-bureaucracy-and-managerial-work">bureaucratization of the economy</a>,” in which rigid hierarchy and constant documentation takes over business places, including “administrative hierarchies, standardized work procedures, regularized timetables, uniform policies, and centralized control.” More bureaucracy means relentlessly tracking metrics and performances in the name of productivity – and internalizing the idea that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95235-9_5">a person’s value can be quantified</a>.</p>
<p>Graeber, the anthropologist of bureaucracy, suggests bureaucratization is becoming more common <a href="https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit">as Western economies export manufacturing work to developing countries</a>. The work that remains <a href="https://monthlyreview.org/2010/10/01/the-financialization-of-accumulation/">increasingly depends</a> on the <a href="https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/fire_finance_insurance_real_estate_ice_intellectual_cultural_educational/">finance, insurance and real estate sectors</a>, businesses that make their money from service fees and employ people to do pointless <a href="http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/">“bullshit” jobs</a>. Graeber contends that – unlike teaching, manual work, health care or the arts – jobs in management, consulting, PR or other “knowledge” fields could vanish with little effect on society.</p>
<p>In the academic world, <a href="https://www.socanth.cam.ac.uk/directory/professor-marilyn-strathern-cbe-fba">anthropologists like Marilyn Strathern</a> have described the push to quantify and document university work as “<a href="https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/4432135">audit culture</a>.” More broadly, this expansion of administrative work, aided by digital technologies, is transforming how American companies operate. For many companies, shifting administrative labor to consumers and “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-we-ensure-the-next-generation-of-workers-isnt-worse-off-than-the-last-52110">gig-economy</a>” contractors offers a newly “disruptive” business model. As tech companies <a href="https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/354458/whatever-happened-to-customer-support">replace live customer service</a> with online support “topics,” for example, users must spend additional time wading through these articles, or face endless phone trees when they do find a phone number. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When is bureaucracy too much?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/busy-businessman-under-stress-due-excessive-551850775">Elnur/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Laboring for social media companies</h2>
<p>New technologies can generate more pointless work, and not just in professional settings. The <a href="https://www.epicpeople.org/how-theory-matters/">logic of tracking and monitoring</a>, for example, threatens to take over American home life as well, from fitness and wearable tech to smart homes that assess <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDlQu1ow_0s">when you need toilet paper</a> or milk.</p>
<p>But spending time on new tech platforms doesn’t always seem like work. <a href="http://www.jordankraemer.com/writings/">Young Europeans I have studied</a>, for example, enjoy spending time on social networking sites and describe them warmly. But Facebook, Yelp, Instagram and the rest profit from the posts, photos, reviews and links people create, because they incite the “engagement” that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUFN.2016.7536934">drives ad revenue</a>. As with consumer surveys or user feedback, these firms <a href="http://fuchs.uti.at/books/culture-and-economy-in-the-age-of-social-media/">are harnessing user-generated content</a> to convert people’s leisure time into corporate profit. </p>
<p>As new social network sites are created and become popular, each person spends more time keeping profiles up to date, checking on connections’ activities or chasing down forgotten passwords. Managing these accounts isn’t just time-consuming; it can be mentally taxing. Inspired by Chandra Mukerji’s <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8911.html">research on the logistical power of water in civil engineering projects</a>, I consider this cognitive effort “logistical labor.” Logistical labor is in this sense the work consumers do to manage tech platforms, often as companies outsource content creation and streamline their operations. </p>
<h2>A new digital divide</h2>
<p>The scope of this uncompensated digital busywork – from which companies profit – goes well beyond social media maintenance and taking consumer surveys. Even setting up a home printer requires exploring settings and configurations and troubleshooting, which can be daunting without the right tech know-how. People who are unwilling or unable to do that miss out on some of technology’s benefits.</p>
<p>In my research, for example, one young person in Berlin balked at purchasing a new mobile phone, overwhelmed by the task of sorting through service plans. Another shared wireless internet service with a friend across the street, resigning herself to spotty connections and limited online activity rather than wrestle with choosing, ordering and configuring her own service. Others were concerned about data privacy but were stymied by Facebook’s privacy options.</p>
<p>The scale of these problems is not only about quality of life – but about life itself. </p>
<h2>Handling health care</h2>
<p>Expecting consumers to be deeply involved expert users is especially concerning when it comes to managing health care. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-us-health-economy-is-big-but-is-it-better-80593">dysfunctional U.S. health care system</a> is already a Byzantine system of preauthorizations, insurance codes and impersonal treatment. Digitization alone isn’t to blame, but tech platforms like <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2196%2Fjmir.7099">online portals</a> increase administrative work for patients.</p>
<p>Patients, for example, often encounter multiple online portals in the process of paying bills or obtaining prescriptions. Although these systems save time in some ways, they require patients do more legwork like setting up user accounts. This problem is made worse as doctors <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/salaried-doctors-may-not-lead-to-cheaper-health-care.html">leave private practice</a> for hospital groups, which often use unwieldy online platforms and automated phone systems that make it difficult to reach a doctor directly. </p>
<p>Although the health care industry touts such portals <a href="https://www.healthcare-informatics.com/article/business-case-increasing-patient-portal-adoption">as better for business</a> – and in theory, <a href="https://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2014/06/30/how-patient-portals-are-changing-health-care">for coordinating care</a> – little attention has been paid to the additional work they create for patients, or the barriers to accessing their doctors.</p>
<h2>Inequality at home</h2>
<p>In all these examples, managing information on computer systems – for health care, insurance coverage or social media interaction – requires a new level of logistical effort, even with access to computers and the internet. This logistical labor adds to the <a href="https://www.psychologistworld.com/memory/cognitive-load-theory">mental work of managing a household</a>.</p>
<p>In most homes, this additional effort, sometimes called “cognitive load,” <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2017-09-14/the-mental-load-and-what-to-do-about-it/8942032">falls disproportionately to women</a>, who keep track of their families’ needs. For working women, the “second shift” isn’t just about housework or child care, but <a href="http://time.com/money/4561314/women-work-home-gender-gap/">the cumulative fatigue of planning, delegating and worrying</a>. It’s not a coincidence that many “smart home” technologies effectively replace the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDlQu1ow_0s">care work of mothers</a>. This invisible labor typically goes unpaid, further devaluing responsibilities traditionally associated with women. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NDlQu1ow_0s?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Do smart technologies tend to focus on gender-biased tasks?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, the logistical labor of managing new technologies entails a cognitive load that can overtake daily life. Of course, I still follow social media, read consumer reviews and sign up for paperless billing. But I’m more aware of how easily my time and labor become new sources of profit, through an unseen exploitation that places the onus on individuals to manage complex systems in the guise of optimizing user “experience.” This broader trend, however, makes individuals complicit in their own exploitation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82203/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jordan Kraemer received funding previously from Intel Labs.</span></em></p>Companies may benefit when customers create content, provide feedback and do busywork once done by paid employees, but what about the customers themselves – all of us?Jordan Kraemer, Visiting Scholar in Anthropology, New York UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/640832016-09-05T15:49:51Z2016-09-05T15:49:51ZCompanies wrestle with new era of negative online reviews and spiky consumers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136555/original/image-20160905-15470-hys8w2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C0%2C2038%2C1152&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Something's not right.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/archier/22659096231/in/photolist-AwiMSX-4cxN1C-5fwNJM-8yRxQW-dWDEMu-9pAQhe-53oV6B-tdTdy-4JKnaZ-56Tw8-4U1xcW-wu2j5-59AuUs-8kzq1-8fUzyb-71pvUr-4ssdF1-9Dmcsy-uEBPsi-aKXVkF-4FpqWF-7HABYS-5sYdbm-2B12Gd-zWrZBf-zWxVvB-AD3CU8-ppRoHJ-4joKbp-kZ4Ry-6s4Hc-8nwVT3-32qhUs-4k8j3b-7ep39d-6reJzZ-p3tB1q-by8KM2-bF8S1r-fvyNw-7bzwrz-7tMsZa-o9NXAC-8671q6-qBRrmg-8hDCms-aaakoT-55mo5k-4YUpuW-rc5J5">Archie/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Reviews, recommendations and opinions are reassuring when you navigate the internet looking for a product, a place to eat or a holiday. The rapid growth of web 2.0 applications empowered user interaction and influenced how consumers create and exchange information. We now have a huge amount of user generated content that shares product and service experiences online through a host of sites. These views can be the crucial impetus to click on “buy” or moving on, but these decisions are increasingly based on shaky ground.</p>
<p>Several academic studies have established the importance of user generated content in positively influencing consumer product knowledge and purchase decisions. Online reviews and ratings do reduce uncertainty for prospective consumers. And people believe them. <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2015/digital-formats-are-among-the-most-trusted-advertising-sources-despite-slow-growth.html">Marketing researcher Nielsen found</a> that online opinions were trusted by two thirds of consumers.</p>
<p>It is no surprise then that that retailers, marketers, reputation management companies and commercial review providers are aggressively involved in exploiting the economic benefits of this – for example, <a href="http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/chrpubs/5/">research</a> suggested that a one star hotel rating increase on Travelocity generated an 11% increase in room rates. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136565/original/image-20160905-15470-gnk624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136565/original/image-20160905-15470-gnk624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136565/original/image-20160905-15470-gnk624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136565/original/image-20160905-15470-gnk624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136565/original/image-20160905-15470-gnk624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136565/original/image-20160905-15470-gnk624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136565/original/image-20160905-15470-gnk624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136565/original/image-20160905-15470-gnk624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some hotels need a boost.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/maurizio-sorvillo/8865474881/in/photolist-evpSPc-mMgMLT-q9dftG-6GPtB9-8vqNNB-6gpnwC-e9d5Ed-bFxBra-nt7pQu-nx5G1u-djBvJc-hZmsor-8ufns1-6pC7Vg-pueUUv-9ey3MS-9ey3tY-e2ydrv-9ey41N-fUkmTs-9ey3q5-2Lunw-aa4LQ2-9eya9w-aa4Koc-62p3vt-66L1z9-5U1F66-nHtrh9-wsdR3-5BJUHZ-6w4nsh-frAMv9-dLGp2o-8FGEhB-5dyPJe-54mxz-oocBVE-7Dw3MS-9ey3GE-fwNBEY-gp9Lxh-aa4Luk-6u1Xvw-9LCHkZ-5YUF7f-DtfKHV-7RWwXG-7FNks8-8C3uLN">Maurizio/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Astroturfing</h2>
<p>As a result, some businesses are turning to fake reviews to promote their reputation or even to attack competitors. In fact, <a href="http://www.eater.com/2016/3/8/11179312/uk-fake-restaurant-reviews-crackdown">evidence suggests</a> that fake reviews – those which do not reflect <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364914001824">the author’s genuine opinon</a> – are on the rise. A common form of this is “astroturfing” – using paid reviewers to provide fake support for a product. </p>
<p>Fake online reviews don’t only mislead consumers. They also breach consumer laws and undermine market efficiency. Existing consumer protection laws, guidelines and industry codes seek to regulate deceptive reviews as a form of consumer misinformation. The Competition and Markets Authority <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-reviews-and-endorsements">opened an investigation in 2015</a> which looked into fake posts on review sites, unpublished negative reviews and endorsements paid for by businesses without an appropriate disclosure and expressed “concerns that some practices may be unlawful”. More recently it found that clothing retailer Wool Overs <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37048528">was cherry picking</a> favourable reviews for its website. The company has since told the regulator that it would publish “all genuine, relevant and lawful customer reviews on its website” in future and not “suppress unfavourable reviews”.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136570/original/image-20160905-15470-w0nk11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136570/original/image-20160905-15470-w0nk11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136570/original/image-20160905-15470-w0nk11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136570/original/image-20160905-15470-w0nk11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136570/original/image-20160905-15470-w0nk11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136570/original/image-20160905-15470-w0nk11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136570/original/image-20160905-15470-w0nk11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136570/original/image-20160905-15470-w0nk11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some reviews are more playful.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Box-Canvas-Print-Paul-Ross/dp/B001N6W8U0/ref=cm_rdp_product_img">Composite image/Amazon.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Advertising Standards Authority’s <a href="https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2011/New-online-remit-enhances-consumer-protection.aspx#.V7xqHmNiclY">remit was also extended</a> to encompass marketing communications on company websites and other non-paid online spaces. It now regulates so called “testimonials” or user reviews requiring marketers to hold proof of authenticity. The US Federal Trade Commission is also active in enforcing its 2009 regulation, recently filing its first complaint against a company (<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/142-3255/roca-labs-inc">Roca Labs in 2015</a>) for seeking to dissuade its customers from sharing negative feedback online. Perhaps motivated by a changing regulatory landscape, Amazon started legal action in autumn 2015 accusing 1,114 people of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34565631">providing “fake, misleading and inauthentic” reviews</a> that were claimed to be tarnishing its brand reputation. And <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/04/26/amazon-more-fake-review-lawsuits/">it moved to do the same again in 2016</a>. </p>
<h2>Gripes of wrath</h2>
<p>But how can firms respond when people emboldened by social media take their gripe too far? Emerging strategies are now being used by firms who want to take affirmative action to control their customers’ damaging comments. Recently <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/12/charlton-athletic-fan-can-only-get-season-ticket-if-he-signs-beh/">Charlton Football Club</a> sought to enforce a behaviour contract on one of its season ticket holders following “certain comments that have not been particularly constructive” – diplomatic legalise for bad mouthing the club on Twitter. Of course, inappropriate comments can be removed from company Facebook pages, but you can’t do this on Twitter.</p>
<p>Breakthrough technologist <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/02/03/banned-by-tesla-elon-musk-cancels-customers-order-because-of-blo/">Elon Musk cancelled a customer’s pre-order</a> for for the Tesla Model X after an open letter that criticised the company’s launch event. Musk was reportedly “not comfortable” that this particularly disgruntled yet aspiring customer should be allowed to own a luxury Tesla. </p>
<p>From cutting-edge electric super cars, to cups of lemon water. One customer who left a tetchy review online after being charged £2 for a modest hot drink received a humbling <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12099760/TripAdvisor-York-Bennetts-cafe-owner-leaves-brilliant-response-to-one-star-review.html">response from the owner of a York cafe</a> who detailed the overheads involved in running his business.</p>
<p>There are other approaches, of course. Light-hearted <a href="http://blog.westjet.com/westjet-flights-to-london/">Canadian airline WestJet</a> claims to welcome feedback and constructive criticism and receives a constant barrage of complaints including abuse and expletives. An early adopter of <a href="http://www.travelweek.ca/news/westjet-goes-round-clock-247-social-media-support/">24/7 social media support</a>, the low-cost airline allows customers to rant a little.</p>
<p>It is not always the disaffected customer who is at fault however, sometimes company representatives can take things too far. <a href="http://boston.eater.com/2012/11/28/6516211/pigalle-to-customer-you-must-enjoy-vomit">Enraged managers at Boston restaurant Pigalle</a> perhaps overreacted with a foul mouthed rant to a customer’s Facebook complaint about a “vomit” tasting pumpkin pie desert.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136572/original/image-20160905-15470-12v2tmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136572/original/image-20160905-15470-12v2tmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136572/original/image-20160905-15470-12v2tmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136572/original/image-20160905-15470-12v2tmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136572/original/image-20160905-15470-12v2tmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136572/original/image-20160905-15470-12v2tmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136572/original/image-20160905-15470-12v2tmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136572/original/image-20160905-15470-12v2tmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What has this pumpkin pie ever done to you?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/preppybyday/5076305261/in/photolist-8JzoGv-7kiJm3-tkdMa-5Fe7Qs-aCsR3U-hVEDv2-pApZUz-ayYqFR-8WSi7h-8RwLMz-8YXzC1-5D3MXX-6TJay-cQ2hhQ-cQ2hcq-7e8Uef-5B62U-8NRxA8-8JzoKt-aMxfpt-aSzjr8-7dUS2a-6VaiB-7px6nu-aKn5Qe-t18dL-aAdqwb-rEm7X-hRmu6c-34kYdv-7jgSf-3M2pv6-gDzsfb-3nKMro-5yFZfZ-48KME2-pAgNJg-4aAKCz-5EMoiA-aASPfN-8zxZPC-7gL3TY-5Gu5EB-sGdNi-bbnhVk-dJ9XNh-8vV8RZ-cQ2hob-i9Xq1X-5FknsX">TheCulinaryGeek/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Social media platforms like <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-permanently-bans-controversial-blogger-milo-yiannopoulos-1469025620">Twitter</a> are increasingly in the spotlight for <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/bob-mankoff/nipplegate">regulating their communities</a>. They have become more adept at managing their membership, although outright bans are a rarity. </p>
<p>With the rise in automated <a href="https://www.brandwatch.com/2015/01/understanding-sentiment-analysis/">sentiment analysis</a> of social media output and increasing corporate focus on online reputation management, it does seem that more firms are confidently taking punitive action on customers who take things too far. The Charlton Athletic example may offer a glimpse of the future. Don’t be surprised if social media behaviour requirements start appearing in your contracted terms and conditions. Will next year’s loyalty reward points be tied to a binding customer behaviour contract?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64083/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Social media feedback has made businesses think twice about what makes a good customer.Professor Justin O'Brien, Senior Lecturer Marketing & Strategy, Royal Holloway University of LondonSameer Hosany, Reader in Marketing, Royal Holloway University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/484912015-10-02T08:36:27Z2015-10-02T08:36:27ZThe problem with rating people on the new app Peeple<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97013/original/image-20151002-23098-u6x1vo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How many stars will you be rated?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-119467327/stock-photo-christmas-decorations-background-with-gold-stars.html">Stars image via www.shutter.stock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As I write this, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Peeple&src=typd">#Peeple</a> is the top trending topic in my Twitter sidebar. The web is bemused and irate about an app that will let people rate other people as if they were baubles purchased on Amazon.</p>
<p>Its cofounders, Nicole McCullough and Julia Cordray, plan to launch the app in November. They trace its origins to a conversation about McCullough’s frustrations with finding a reliable babysitter. Although inspired by a prosaic concern, their intentions are grander. Their motto is “character is destiny,” and, in interviews, <a href="http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2015/09/21/calgary-peeple-app-lets-you-rate-others.html">Cordray says</a> that she wants “character to be our new form of currency.”</p>
<p><a href="http://m.snopes.com/2015/10/01/peeple/">If legitimate</a>, it sounds as if their app is to serve as the digital equivalent of the ancient Fates. Whereas <a href="http://www.greekmythology.com/Other_Gods/The_Fates/the_fates.html">the three Fates controlled destinies</a> by way of the threads of life, Peeple aims to shape destinies by way of professional, personal and romantic ratings. Supposedly, employers and romantic interests will be able to search for people of good “character,” and the company plans to charge for searches beyond a single daily freebie.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"649663834949570560"}"></div></p>
<p>Much of the response to the app is negative and ill-informed. The negativity arises because this is a platform through which we might be negatively evaluated (at best) or harassed (at worst) without any say other than to buy into their system. The confusion arises because it’s not yet released and their website was inaccessible much of Wednesday – an indication of popularity or the consequence of a denial of service attack.</p>
<h2>Following in other rating sites’ footsteps</h2>
<p>I study online communications, especially <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-social-graph-wont-save-us-from-whats-wrong-with-online-reviews-40743">commenting and rating platforms</a>. In reading a cached version of their <a href="http://forthepeeple.com/">website</a>, press interviews and in watching their 10-episode <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9d5_f6Hhm8">YouTube mini-series</a>, I’m struck by two things about Peeple.</p>
<p>First, McCullough and Cordray claim the idea is novel. Peeple’s FAQ (frequently asked questions) section declares that letting people see how they are viewed by others is “a concept that has never been done before in a digital space.”</p>
<p>This is not true. In my book <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/reading-comments">Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web</a>, I discuss people’s penchant for rating and ranking everything, including other people. Now-defunct services like PersonRatings, Unvarnished and KarmaFile permitted others to rate coworkers. Apps like <a href="https://onlulu.com/">Lulu</a> allow women to rate their dates. Services like <a href="https://klout.com/home">Klout</a>, <a href="http://home.kred/">Kred</a>, <a href="https://www.brandwatch.com/peerindex-and-brandwatch/">PeerIndex</a> and <a href="http://www.exacttarget.com/products/social-media-marketing/radian6">Radian6</a> use information already on the web to rate people’s online influence. The apps Stamped, Oink and <a href="http://www.jotly.co/">Jotly</a> could be used to rate anything, be it a coworker, side of bacon or ice cube. Peeple’s permutation of features and policy may be unique, but the idea is not new.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97016/original/image-20151002-12098-xu580a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97016/original/image-20151002-12098-xu580a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97016/original/image-20151002-12098-xu580a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=199&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97016/original/image-20151002-12098-xu580a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=199&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97016/original/image-20151002-12098-xu580a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=199&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97016/original/image-20151002-12098-xu580a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97016/original/image-20151002-12098-xu580a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97016/original/image-20151002-12098-xu580a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How influential are you online? Check your Klout score!</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rolexpv/6396640691">Raul Pacheco-Vega</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The second point of interest, and a genuine novelty, is the positivity expressed by the founders. Unlike the critical attitude expressed by earlier efforts (such as Unvarnished and Honest), McCullough and Cordray speak of personal ratings as a positive – even virtuous – undertaking. They say Peeple is a “positivity app for positive people.” In “An Ode to Courage,” a defensive note posted on <a href="http://forthepeeple.com/">Peeple’s website</a>, the cofounders declared:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We know you are amazing, special, and unique individuals and most likely would never shout that from the rooftops. The people who know you will though…. As innovators we want to make your life better and have the opportunity to prove how great it feels to be loved by so many in a public space. We are a positivity app launching in November 2015. Whether you love us or our concept or not; we still welcome everyone to explore this online village of love and abundance for all.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Positivity is a rarity in online rating</h2>
<p>To consider the importance of positivity, consider the last service described as a “Yelp about people”: PersonRatings, which launched in 2008. Much like Peeple, PersonRatings permitted anyone to opine about others. Unlike Peeple, others could leave comments without even having to register. The site was widely criticized and ridiculed; it went under within the year.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97015/original/image-20151002-23065-1ks3d1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97015/original/image-20151002-23065-1ks3d1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97015/original/image-20151002-23065-1ks3d1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97015/original/image-20151002-23065-1ks3d1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97015/original/image-20151002-23065-1ks3d1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97015/original/image-20151002-23065-1ks3d1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97015/original/image-20151002-23065-1ks3d1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97015/original/image-20151002-23065-1ks3d1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unvarnished relied on registration to keep anonymous reviews on the up and up.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/banky177/4529794901">m anima</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2010 Unvarnished launched to similar criticism because it allowed members to anonymously rate others’ professional performance. Media published dozens of stories about the site; most were <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/business/21567985-how-help-employees-spill-beans-and-make-money-it-honestly-unvarnished">incredulous</a> of the concept and its success.</p>
<p>Unvarnished did want to encourage its anonymous reviews to be constructive, so it required people to use Facebook to log in. Additionally, one could join only by being invited by a member and reviewing that person, which would likely be positive and snowball into a constructive culture. The site relaunched as Honestly in the same year, <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/unvarnished-honestly-kazanjy-funding/">claiming</a> it had succeeded in creating a positive community: 65% of ratings were five-star, with only 2% being a single star. Yet, in 2012 the organization changed again: both the name of the project and its philosophy of crowd-sourced reviews were dropped. </p>
<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20130927185107/http://karmafile.com/how-it-works">KarmaFile</a>, launched in 2013, was fairly savvy. People could rate the expertise, motivation and professionalism of their peers. An aggregate score was then created with an associated confidence level – a “score strength.” Those reviewed had the ability to see their raters and aggregate scores, but could not link a specific rating to a particular rater. Furthermore, those reviewed could ask the site to reject inappropriate reviews, though the applicant’s rationale for the rejection would be part of the profile; they could also choose to hide their profile altogether. By the end of 2013, this site too seemed to have gone dead.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97019/original/image-20151002-23067-1vb0hm1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97019/original/image-20151002-23067-1vb0hm1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97019/original/image-20151002-23067-1vb0hm1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97019/original/image-20151002-23067-1vb0hm1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97019/original/image-20151002-23067-1vb0hm1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97019/original/image-20151002-23067-1vb0hm1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97019/original/image-20151002-23067-1vb0hm1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97019/original/image-20151002-23067-1vb0hm1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">You’re the best! No you’re the best!</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=158277083&src=lb-29877982">Men image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Peeple’s positivity plan</h2>
<p>Like KarmaFile, Peeple is starting out with an intention of keeping the service from devolving into a morass of negativity and bullying, a frequent outcome of services that allow people to talk about others, especially if they can do so anonymously. To avoid this, Peeple will require a Facebook account and authenticated phone number from raters.</p>
<p>Raters will also have a <em>positivity</em> score based on the ratio of positive (three or more stars) to negative ratings they give to others. And although positive ratings will post immediately, negative ratings (two stars or less) will be held for 48 hours so that people can “work it out.” I expect Peeple would then serve as an endorsement service: someone listed with a 4+ rating is presumed reputable, anyone else is damned by their absence or faint praise.</p>
<p>Although Peeple <em>may</em> have found a formula for keeping the service positive, as it stands, it looks to follow in the mistaken footsteps of PersonRatings and Klout. PersonRatings initially allowed anonymous ratings to create a profile for anyone and there was no ability to opt out. When Klout launched, The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/technology/klouts-automatically-created-profiles-included-minors.html">reported</a> on how the service had “dragged the unwitting across the web” by creating profiles and scores for users’ Facebook friends, including their children. Can people remove themselves from Peeple? <a href="http://forthepeeple.com/">Their site</a> currently answers: “No. Not at this time. We may consider this feature in the future.” If Peeple is to survive its launch, I believe this will have to change.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97018/original/image-20151002-23101-yhic3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97018/original/image-20151002-23101-yhic3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97018/original/image-20151002-23101-yhic3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97018/original/image-20151002-23101-yhic3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97018/original/image-20151002-23101-yhic3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97018/original/image-20151002-23101-yhic3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97018/original/image-20151002-23101-yhic3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97018/original/image-20151002-23101-yhic3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How dare they write that about me?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-272144726/stock-photo-shocked-brunette-looking-her-laptop-at-home-in-the-living-room.html">Woman via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But even if they do let people opt out, the app may not be a success. People are both <em>ratingphilic</em> and <em>ratingphobic</em>. The app takes advantage of the fact that people love to rate and peruse the ratings of others. But people are uneasy when the tables turn and the ratings are about them. Even if Peeple survives the maelstrom of its launch, it is hard for such a service to succeed. Yelp is already “the Yelp” of businesses, Lulu is already the Yelp of dudes. In today’s crowded marketplace, a service typically has to succeed with a niche before hoping to expand: Peeple is taking on all personal ratings at the start.</p>
<p>Finally, if the site succeeds in its positive mission and manages to create an “online village of love and abundance for all,” would people bother? In <a href="http://reagle.org/joseph/2013/photo/photo-net.html">my study of ratings at a amateur photography site</a>, I found that it’s easy for ratings to slip into bland positivity (where everyone is above average, like the children of Lake Woebegone) or bullying negativity (a frequent outcome of comment platforms), with much manipulation in between. Will people collude to positively rate their friends? Will folks give five stars (to maintain their own positivity) while slighting someone in the prose comment? Or, perhaps haters will give 5-star ratings to folks they don’t even know just so they can give their enemies a single star while maintaining their positivity ratio. </p>
<p>Peeple faces significant challenges. I hope it fails because I, like many, wish to be spared from a public (and likely manipulatable) ratings system to which I did not opt in. Even so, I am pleased to see an attempt that seems to begin with positive intentions and some degree of user accountability.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48491/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joseph Reagle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Peeple is getting called the Yelp of rating people. The cofounders say it will be a positive place that turns character into currency. But does it make sense to rate people as we rate restaurants?Joseph Reagle, Assistant Professor of Digital Communications, Northeastern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/246762014-03-24T06:03:29Z2014-03-24T06:03:29ZDon’t believe all you read, health reviews can be misleading too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44484/original/qq3r6tkn-1395593063.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We cannot afford fake reviews of our health care system</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CPR_training-05.jpg">Rama</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26229041">BBC report</a> has uncovered that nearly half of the reviews for a single NHS trust on <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx">NHS Choices</a> were submitted from the trust’s own computers. The reviews had been provided by <a href="https://www.patientopinion.org.uk/">Patient Opinion</a>, which gathers online comments and stories about providers of both health and social care and also publishes them on its own website.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.patientopinion.org.uk/blogposts/250/its-not-about-making-a-comment-its-about-maki">Patient Opinion has since defended the publication</a> of the stories, explaining that the intention of the website is not to provide TripAdvisor type reviews, but to assist the NHS in improving quality and responsiveness. </p>
<p>However, with the expansion of personal budgets in social care and the introduction of personal health budgets this year, patients and service users, and their families and carers, will increasingly be involved in making decisions about care providers. How do we make sure that any reviews they find online are genuine?</p>
<h2>The trouble with fake reviews</h2>
<p>The phenomenon of “fake” online reviews has its own term, “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing">astroturfing</a>”, where information is artificially presented as if it comes from grassroots consumers. A <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/23/new-york-fake-online-reviews-yoghurt">recent example</a> is where 19 companies managed to secure reviews for a yogurt shop in New York. Unbeknown to them, the shop was entirely fictitious and was part of a sting operation by the Attorney General. </p>
<p>In Australia, <a href="https://theconversation.com/spot-the-fake-shoppers-get-help-with-online-reviews-21161">the government has recognised the risks of fake reviews and has issued guidelines for providers</a>. And <a href="http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/About_us/News_and_events/Media_releases/2014_media_releases/20140130_national_crackdown_fake_testimonials.page">it is already taking action</a>, writing to 40 businesses last month to address suspicious review activity. </p>
<p>In the UK and elsewhere, to improve the trustworthiness and credibility of reviews, organisations (including the <a href="http://www.reevoo.com/which-looks-to-reevoo-to-provide-owner-reviews-2/">Consumers’ Association</a>) are turning to specialist review sites like <a href="http://www.feefo.com/en/en/">Feefo</a> and <a href="http://www.reevoo.com/">Reevoo</a> to help with collecting feedback from reviewers who can be verified as being genuine customers. </p>
<p>Regardless of what information on performance might tell them, people are likely to pay more attention to personal reviews and testimonials, so it is important that they are trustworthy and genuine. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11206948?dopt=Citation">Participants in one study</a> were asked whether, in the event of having angina, they would choose to have balloon angioplasty or cardiac bypass surgery. All of them were given the percentages for a favourable outcome from each procedure and some were also given patient testimonials. Even where the number of good testimonials matched the clinical outcomes information, participants who received testimonials were less likely to choose the more effective option. </p>
<p>People also prefer to know what other users and carers think. When asked what information they might prefer when choosing a care home, older people and their carers in <a href="http://www.ecabeurope.eu/PDF/Using%20information%20to%20choose%20a%20care%20home.pdf">a recent study</a> were most interested in information from residents and their relatives, more so than the views of the regulator or measures of clinical care or the financial health of the provider. </p>
<h2>Caring about health and social care reviews</h2>
<p>It is important to remember that searching for information on care providers hasn’t caught on to the same extent as for other types of reviews. Even in the highly marketised health care system in the US, <a href="http://c773731.r31.cf2.rackcdn.com/70/e6/eecf6e0a47c1ac637c487f1344e3/Healthgrades%20Consumer%20Research%20Report_October2012.pdf">people spend about the same amount of time researching the purchase of a new fridge as a doctor or hospital</a>. And while the use of online reviews in general is increasing, <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/peer-to-peer-health-care/">the number of people consulting reviews for health care is much lower and seems to be unchanging</a>. </p>
<p>For people who do seek information online, these are worrying signs that they might be looking in the wrong places. <a href="http://www.softwareadvice.com/medical/industryview/how-patients-use-online-reviews/">One survey</a> in the US found that 44% of participants said that the website Yelp was the most trustworthy source of online reviews of doctors. Yet <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24299742">Yelp filters about 25% of the reviews</a> it receives as they look suspicious, and admits that its system is not foolproof. </p>
<h2>How to fix it?</h2>
<p>It would be helpful to learn from the experiences of other sectors and to introduce better processes to verify the sources of feedback. It is also important to recognise the incentives which may exist for gaming the system. For example, for private care providers this might mean posting positive reviews in order to attract business (or posting negative reviews about other providers). Or it might involve generating positive reviews where provider payments are linked to patient experience indicators. </p>
<p>It would be cynical to suggest that all care providers and care review websites will encourage or condone the posting of misleading reviews. However, the experience from other sectors tells us that the practice is becoming widespread. When we are asking people to make important and far-reaching decisions regarding their health and quality of life, then we have a duty of care to make sure that the information we provide is reliable and accurate. After all, it cannot be acceptable that a review about a steam iron or a laptop computer is more trustworthy than a review about the experience of major surgery or about a care home where a frail parent will live for the rest of their lives.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24676/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Trigg is funded by a Doctoral Research Fellowship awarded by the National Institute for Health Research. This article represents her personal opinion, and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health or NHS.</span></em></p>A BBC report has uncovered that nearly half of the reviews for a single NHS trust on NHS Choices were submitted from the trust’s own computers. The reviews had been provided by Patient Opinion, which gathers…Lisa Trigg, Research Fellow , London School of Economics and Political ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.