[Manxman27]

From Isle of Man Online TECH TALK: A CAUTIONARY TALE

Is it just banter on a forum or does what gets discussed on here affect the outside world?

Recent discussions about buying TV's might be bad for a certain retailer, but another thread about mortgage brokers, might actually have a positive affect for the companies that were recommended.

[Mr. Sausages]

I can think of two retailers who have issued veiled threats on local forums when their businesses have been criticised. That's probably not good for business.

This post has been edited by Mr. Sausages: 07 March 2007 - 12:36 PM

[ans]

I don't think that posting a negative opinion about a company or service is wrong, provided someone has a genuine reason for doing so.

We don't review every comment, or read every thread as that would be quite ridiculous and also put us in a very grey area where we are approving comments and therefore assuming joint responsibility for them. However, the mods here do review every complaint and there are steps in place for members and non-members alike to complain about posts that they feel are unfair or unjustified.

These negative opinions are ones we would share with our friends and family without thinking, but it would be churlish to think that this compares with posting them on an internet forum where hundreds of people could read them.

People are responsible for the content of their posts and they do need to bear this in mind when posting stuff which could be unfairly damaging to a companies reputation. The vast majority of people on here really do have no idea of the amount of behind the scenes legal crap that we have to deal with here, some of it actually very serious, although some quite laughable. I might remove the identifying stuff out of our older comedy legal threats and post them into a thread sometime.

[simon]

Quote

MYSPACE, YouTube, Facebook. SecondLife, Flickr.

I wonder why the newspaper item mentions SecondLife (which is over hyped and a bit dull IMO). I don't see how SecondLife relates to the subject.

But a SecondLife Isle of Man might be funny. It might even make SecondLife worth visiting. Complete with a virtual House of Keys and a virtual Waltons.

EDIT: doesn't the word 'virtual' seem old fashioned already

[Mupster]

If I need to buy something...I'll go into a shop to BUY the item, regardless if the proprietor is a cnut or not. Should people be offended or feel the need to take a wide berth and PUT themselves out of the way to me just seems silly.

But if FEEDBACK is being issued by various people about a service, then the more the merrier. Its the closest thing you'll ever have to honest (one would hope) opinions of that service/company.

[When Skies Are Grey]

If you dont want bad press dont offer bad service...fairly simple equation in my book!! Its about time consumers took back some control....especially on the Island.

[ans]

Well, the danger is that a competitor or just someone with a grudge can use the Internets to spread around rubbish that tarnishes a business' reputation. I think that's the crux of the article.

[simon]

ans, on Mar 7 2007, 02:27 PM, said:

Well, the danger is that a competitor or just someone with a grudge can use the Internets to spread around rubbish that tarnishes a business' reputation. I think that's the crux of the article.

I agree that a competitor or someone with a grudge could do what you describe.

But I didn't particularly get that from the article [ - which is a semi advertorial for PR IMO but also quite interesting]. How I read the article - it was about the need for companies to think about the internet in terms of how it affects their PR.

I intend to find out more about the tools she describes:

Quote

Creston, Cymfony and Envisional all provide tools to keep an ear on what's said online

Years ago I worked for a company which monitored European TV and radio for clients, on a similar basis. It's an established business back to the day of press cutting agencies.

I wonder whether the tools do much that you couldn't achieve using the various Google tools. Perhaps they just employ people who are really good at using Google - to do your Googling for you.

[Pragmatopian]

We use something called Factiva. It's a subscription service that aggregates a lot of paid-for news services. You can set up recurring searches and get it to send a digest of them on a regular basis, or limit searches to particular publications or types of publications. It's mostly text-based stuff, although there are some transcripts of broadcast news stories. Our main uses of it are as part of client acceptance procedures and to monitor our own press coverage.

There are clever tools that can harvest speech from audio feeds and speech and text content from video feeds and make it searchable and retrievable. Still quite expensive technology, though, so really it's the preserve of the intelligence services and others with obscene amounts of cash to spend. Beyond that, you're reliant on metadata provided with multimedia content to give you the gist.

On the main point of the topic, clearly businesses can suffer unjustified reputational damage as a result of scurrilous comments in any information source that is accessible to its potential customers - forums are no exception. That is ostensibly what libel laws are designed to prevent, although there are particular difficulties in respect of online sources where:

• the poster of the comment cannot be traced
  
• the poster of the comment can be traced but is in a difficult foreign jurisdiction
  
• the extent of the publication is difficult to assess and hence the appropriate amount of damages - circulation of newspapers has more widely-accepted measures.

The real problem is that it is difficult to get the worms back in the can - even if the offending article is removed and libel damages are paid it is possible that the harm inflicted on the brand is so devestating that it cannot be repaired. I think it would have to be in an especially heavily-read and highly-regarded blog or forum for the damage to be that significant to most companies.

It is very empowering to be able to 'name and shame' companies who give bad service, but this important right has to be tempered with a sense of responsibility not to abuse the right by:

• stating as fact that which is not known to be true; or
  
• stating or propogating scurrilous opinions which, even on the most generous interpretation, cannot be supported by any of the available facts. A classic example of this is Holocaust denial, which is criminalised in several countries for other very good reasons.

If the web community does not regulate itself, I can see that national governments will step in further than they have already and erode our freedoms in response... it's a bit too late for Dubya to get in on this act, but if he did it would no doubt be known as the 'War on Web Terror'.

[ans]

Great post.

[simon]

Obviously one of the great things about buying stuff online is that you get to read the comments and reviews (positive or negative) of other people who have bought that product or used that retailer.

And we often choose, or choose to avoid, books and films based on positive or negative reviews.

Sony or Belkin or Penguin Books or Dabs or some eBay seller would make themselves look dumb if they threatened legal action every time someone gave them or one of their products the thumbs down.

In the 3 examples in the article about PR nobody was libeled AFAIK. In each case the companies harmed themselves. It wasn't about false accusations. No need for lawyers.

Product & company reviews are legitimate IMO. That's about free speech. [That's quite different from somebody accusing someone of financial or political corruption - as I think happened more than once at the old manx.net]

[Boredom]

simon, on Mar 7 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

Obviously one of the great things about buying stuff online is that you get to read the comments and reviews (positive or negative) of other people who have bought that product or used that retailer.

I find that for high street shopping in the absence of being able to post a bad review, a brick through the window can be an equally rewarding experience.

[simon]

Boredom, on Mar 7 2007, 08:09 PM, said:

I find that for high street shopping in the absence of being able to post a bad review, a brick through the window can be an equally rewarding experience.

Nor do I.

[Alias]

Boredom, on Mar 7 2007, 08:09 PM, said:

I find that for high street shopping in the absence of being able to post a bad review, a brick through the window can be an equally rewarding experience.

Guess Waterstones is shit then.

[Pragmatopian]

simon, on Mar 7 2007, 07:12 PM, said:

Obviously one of the great things about buying stuff online is that you get to read the comments and reviews (positive or negative) of other people who have bought that product or used that retailer.

And we often choose, or choose to avoid, books and films based on positive or negative reviews.

Sony or Belkin or Penguin Books or Dabs or some eBay seller would make themselves look dumb if they threatened legal action every time someone gave them or one of their products the thumbs down.

In the 3 examples in the article about PR nobody was libeled AFAIK. In each case the companies harmed themselves. It wasn't about false accusations. No need for lawyers.

Product & company reviews are legitimate IMO. That's about free speech. [That's quite different from somebody accusing someone of financial or political corruption - as I think happened more than once at the old manx.net]

I don't think anyone would say it is unfair to relate actual experiences of products and companies online. Companies are representing themselves and their products in a particular way, so it's absolutely fair that the public have the right to respond and present views that conflict with the corporate line. If a company (local or otherwise) is providing poor customer service then it is damaging itself: it is not beyond reproach. If the pressure of accurate negative customer feedback forces a company to mend its ways or go under then it is a good thing IMHO, but it also has the right to protection from unprovoked attacks.

The particular examples given in the PR article aren't cases where an unscrupulous competitor or someone malicious has been libellous, but it certainly emphasises the viral nature of the internet which makes it a particularly effective way of spreading libel should one have the inclination. For almost no cost you can distribute your views to a worldwide audience with an appetite for scandal - whether it is real or invented is of little concern to them. For example, in the course of my work I've investigated cases where someone has used the internet to spread misinformation about a company in order to manipulate the price of its stock for their own financial gain.

Also, why should people shy away from accusing individuals, governments and organisations of financial and political corruption where there is evidence to support the view? Granted, what usually happens is that someone with an axe to grind relentlessly pushes their own view on the matter with scant evidence to support it. Usually they can be easily spotted for the cranks they are, but sometimes it is a fine line.

Of course, MF does not provide a soapbox for anyone like that