{{ searchResult.published_at | date:'d MMMM yyyy' }}

Loading ...
Loading ...

Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.

No_results

That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching “”.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.

Logo_distressed

Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.

Customer reviews specialist Reevoo is lobbying for increased regulation around online reviews, despite the fact that it is a near-impossible task.

Measuring the validity of all online reviews is difficult and I can’t work out who might want to police this...

Reevoo CEO Richard Anson, who we interviewed back in January, says:

“We think it is time that regulators looked at the way that customer reviews are presented online. Are they edited? Are they legitimate? Given the influence that customer reviews have, now is the time for regulation and standards to be applied, so that customers are not misled.”

The generic problem with kitemarks and standards is that they need to be policed, otherwise they’re worthless and can waste a huge amount of time for all involved. But regulators? What regulators? And let's keep the EU out of this. Who or what might be in a position to regulate this kind of thing, on a global scale?

The other problem is that if consumers aren't aware of what the kitemark means, then they don't look for it, which makes it redundant. So you need significant buy-in from those companies that host these kinds of reviews, and I don't see that happening. You also need to raise awareness of the scheme, which costs yet more money.

So before considering ‘how’ these reviews could be policed, let’s look at a more basic conundrum: Who will pay for these reviews to be policed? The retailers? Some unidentified trade body, funded by retailers? Or the likes of Reevoo and Bazaarvoice, who are in the business of making money from customer reviews?

Outrage!
This year we’ve seen rather too much mainstream press devoted to the sledging of online reviews, such as can be found on dedicated sites like TripAdvisor, retail sites like Amazon, and the shopping comparison engines. Much of it is tantamount to scaremongering.

The Times even did a 'Special Report' on the subject last year and labelled various websites under the banner 'READER BEWARE'. One of those websites was TripAdvisor, which is - at the time of writing - amusingly promoted in the right navigation as 'Website of the Week'!

Sure, some reviews are fake, but one bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch. It seems a little odd that Reevoo would want to add fat to this particular fire. Until you look at its business model…

See, Reevoo is in the business of selling ‘real’ reviews to retailers, and it is doing a great job. 'Real' means that it only accepts reviews from verified customers (who are invited to complete a questionnaire after a purchase). While this isn’t infallible, it does virtually guarantee a higher standard of feedback, since we at least know people have actually bought the product. But does that make these reviews 100% ‘accurate’?

By comparison, you can visit Amazon, log on, and leave a review on a product that you might not have necessarily bought. As such, you could argue that there are a higher proportion of phoney reviews on Amazon compared with Reevoo. But what does this really mean? Does it mean that consumers with no purchase history should be banned from submitting reviews? Seems harsh. Maybe they just buy their products offline.

What about journalists who don’t even buy products! They (do or don’t) play with journobait despatched by happy PR bunnies before forming an ‘expert’ view, and writing an expert review. A review which then appears in a magazine or newspaper. Are these reviews any more valid than one submitted on Amazon, by a user who didn’t buy the item through Amazon?

I’d also argue that a review should ideally involve more than just an appraisal of product / service quality (or lack of). Consider what happens when things start out badly. Your sexy new gadget won’t connect to the internet. Dang! If you wrote a review at that moment it would be terrible, right? But if you waited and factored in some amazing customer service then it might be extremely positive, if you liked the product.

The point is, reviews come in all shapes and sizes, and consumers find them useful when evaluating products and services. Some are more accurate than others. And there are always going to be fakes out there.

So let us once again revert to the ‘People Have Brains’ argument. Consumers should take everything they read, see or hear with a fat pinch of salt. Especially when they’re on the verge of handing over some precious credit card numbers. The fact that a small percentage of reviews might be bogus simply means that consumers shouldn’t rely on one review, or one source of reviews, but to digest a wide range of reviews before coming to a decision.

Two final questions for you to ponder:

  • If the likes of Amazon decided to avoid this proposed regulation / policing of its reviews, then would consumers stop using Amazon, or stop reading its reviews? Could a regulator prevent Amazon from hosting reviews? (No and, presumably, No)
  • If a verifiable purchase history is required before a consumer can review a product or service, then would that hugely reduce the amount of reviews being submitted? (Yes)
Chris Lake

Published 7 November, 2007 by Chris Lake

Chris Lake is CEO at EmpiricalProof, and former Director of Content at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter, Google+ or connect via Linkedin.

582 more posts from this author

Comments (8)

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Avatar-blank-50x50

James Balmain

Great article by Conor. It's an interesting conundrum this, that we're taking a long look at, over in the webtogs camp. On one side, as etailers, we want reviews and lots of them, as there is no doubt they increase conversions. So, any kind of limit or filter could be seen as a bad thing. But, what happens if a few "rotten apples" spoil the whole basket for us.. Tripadvisor now has such negative press, even if it's only 1% of the reviews that are fake, that’s not something we would want, under any circumstances.

I can see Richard at Reevoo's point here, but I do agree that the practicalities of policing all the review content on the web are far bigger than any organisation, funded or not.

Should a customer be able to review a product they haven’t bought... well, yes, in my opinion. If they are motivated to review a product, let them. A small percentage of people will post silly reviews, but what's to stop an etailer filtering out obviously silly content.. I guess that's where the "trusted mark" of a third party comes in, as they can theoretically lend some credence to the “weeding out” process.

One thing’s for sure, however, many more people read the Times than the e-consultancy website, so when the Times comment on the lack of credible reviews on tripadvisor, it's really irrelevant how true it is, after all, it's in the times, it must be true...

over 8 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Philip Wilkinson

I'm a great believer in letting everyone publish reviews if they want to and give people the power and the tools to filter the wheat from the chaff.

over 8 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

James Balmain

Apologies Chris, got my wires crossed there. Should have said "Great article Chris"!!

over 8 years ago

Chris Lake

Chris Lake, CEO at Empirical Proof

Thanks James! I like Reevoo as a company, and the quest for quality is always a good idea, it's just that I'm not a big believer in regulation / intervention, nor schemes that would be all but impossible to police.

And as Philip says, it's all about allowing people to sort wheat from chaff - look at the way Digg's comments functionality works, allowing users to bury comments that suck. No smoke without fire, right?

TripAdvisor does attract some negative press, but as a rock star of the online reviews world it is an obvious target for mithering hacks. The bad noise might be disproportionate. And the 30m+ unique users who visit TripAdvisor every month don't seem to care, which is the important thing.

Here's what TripAdvisor's Marc Charron told us a few months ago: "I think it’s a red herring. It’s overblown. The proof is how the site works. In the end, people trust the reviews, there’s a huge amount of value and it simply wouldn’t work if there was this rampant problem. The site works too well for that to be an issue."

over 8 years ago

Richard Anson

Richard Anson, Founder at Reevoo

Great to see strong opinion and debate!

As the research shows (YouGov on behalf of reevoo), online reviews are five times more likely to have an effect on a shopper's choice of product than advertising. Given this, it seems reasonable that consumers should be protected from the misuse of customer reviews in the same way that there are standards for advertising.

Reviews on retailers' websites directly influence purchase decisions; ensuring they are genuine is in the interests of retailers and shoppers.

We all need to ensure that the benefit of reviews is not eroded.

over 8 years ago

Chris Lake

Chris Lake, CEO at Empirical Proof

Hey Richard,

It's an interesting study - it's as if customer reviewers are going mano a mano with journalists.

The old adage is that editorial is nine times more powerful than advertising (or is it six?), and I'm suggesting that journalists might be slightly overrated in terms of judging a customer experience. So customer reviews are clearly a very effective tool in shaping consumer opinion.

As to the kitemarks, I think yours is to simply state the value of your own reviews, rather than worrying about what the competition might be doing. To hell with the competition! Since you have an abundance of qualified, post-purchase reviews (clearly labelled as such), Reevoo and its partners are in a great position to use them to influence purchase behaviour. Looks good from where I'm sitting : )

TripAdvisor doesn't think there's a material problem and I'm inclined to agree with that - the bad noise in the mainstream press seems disproportionate, though I guess the issue of trust online is forever open to debate...

over 8 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

SmartFolio

yes i agree, well said, great web site

over 8 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

atv tires

Yes i agree also

over 7 years ago

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Daily_pulse_signup_wide

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Daily Pulse newsletter. Each weekday, you ll receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.