Common cause collective action summary

Common cause, collective action The extent and nature of co-operation using new web technologies Summary Liz Coll

About Consumer Focus

Consumer Focus is the statutory consumer champion for England, Wales, Scotland and (for postal consumers) Northern Ireland.

We operate across the whole of the economy, persuading businesses, public services and policy-makers to put consumers at the heart of what they do.

Consumer Focus tackles the issues that matter to consumers, and aims to give people a stronger voice. We don’t just draw attention to problems – we work with consumers and with a range of organisations to champion creative solutions that make a difference to consumers’ lives.

Following the Government’s consumer advocacy reforms, we will continue to act in the consumer interest across a wide range of sectors until our general advocacy role passes to the Citizens Advice service in April 2013.

As part of the reforms, Consumer Focus will establish a new unit to identify and represent consumers’ interests in complex, regulated sectors, including energy and postal issues and, in Scotland, water.

Our Annual Plan for 2012/13 is available online, consumerfocus.org.uk

The common cause, collective action project was lead by Jill Pitt

For regular updates from Consumer Focus, sign up to our monthly e-newsletter by emailing enews@consumerfocus.org.uk or follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/consumerfocus

Consumer Focus

Contents

Common cause,collective action

Introduction

There has been an ongoing intellectual revolution in terms of our understanding of co-operation as an innate human quality. Parallel to this change has been a technological revolution – by slashing communication and transaction costs, it has been argued that the internet is making it easier for our inherent co-operative, collective and collaborative behaviours to flourish.

This report summarises two pieces of research commissioned by Consumer Focus in order to provide an accessible way in which to understand the theories on co-operation and active examples on the web right now. The report considers what this might mean for consumer empowerment. It will be useful for consumer bodies in the broadest sense; regulators, policy-makers, intermediary services, advocates and researchers.

It provides a theoretical underpinning for the research programme of Consumer Focus’s empowerment team who, in the context of a rapidly shifting economic and technological landscape, are looking at the future of consumer empowerment in the 21st century.

The first research piece by Professor Johnston Birchall of Stirling University gives a theoretical overview of the literature and emerging theses on co-operation from a range of disciplines.

The second was an investigation into examples of co-operation and collaboration on the web from empowerment experts Ctrl-Shift.

The original research reports are available alongside this summary on the Consumer Focus website. In this summary, we analyse the examples using key principles from the theory in order to: ●● see all the different ways in which people are co-operating online ●● think about what is motivating them ●● develop a new understanding of what these collaborative behaviours might mean for consumer empowerment Beginning with a review of the evidence about co-operation provided by behavioural scientists generally, this report looks at whether we have an inbuilt propensity to co-operate. It looks at how altruistic or selfish we are, the ways in which people participate and their motivations for doing so.

With this background established, section 2 considers what the revolution in digital technology potentially enables us as consumers to do, with examples of consumer power in action. It also considers how far consumers can actually protect their interests without access to the internet, or if a certain industries maintain a dominant position.

Section 3 presents an analysis of the research results from Ctrl-Shift, and a discussion of how the principles established in section 1 play out in reality.

The report concludes by assessing what the implications are of this new understanding for different sorts of consumer bodies such as regulators, advocates, policy-makers and intermediaries.

Consumer Focus

4

1 Understanding co-operation in the 21st century

Exploring co-operation has traditionally been somewhat limited by experts’ preoccupation with explaining why people do not co-operate, and explaining away instances of co-operation as anomalies. Political scientists, psychologists and evolutionary biologists all began from the limited set of premises: that humans are rational, self-interested individuals looking to maximize their own utility, who calculate in every situation whether it is worth co-operating or participating.

However, over the past 20 years an almost revolutionary change has taken place in terms of our understanding of human capacity to co-operate. People working from just about every disciplinary angle – evolutionary biology, economics, anthropology, psychology and even neuro-physiology – have begun to develop a much deeper, and more optimistic, understanding of the human propensity to co-operate.1 These emerging alternative explanations suggest that humans are naturally social, co-operative beings; that they have evolved as social animals with evolved mental and emotional tools for co-operation.

Game theory A further major contribution to our understanding of how people compete, collude, co-operate or defect in certain situations has been made by game theory. Game theory is based on several assumptions: that the players are in conflict, that they must take action, that the results of the actions will determine which player wins according to definite rules, and that all players are expected to act to maximise their own gain regardless of the consequence to others.

Mansbridge, J (ed, 1990) Beyond self-interest, Chicago: University of Chicago Press

1

One such game – the Prisoner’s Dilemma has shed light on why two people might not cooperate even if it is in both their best interests to do so.2 However, the results take on interesting new properties when the game is repeated over and over (iterated). When there is the possibility of players meeting again, it makes co-operation possible and provides a tool for understanding human social dynamics. The first of our commissioned research reports by Johnston Birchall gives a full and excellent explanation of the Prisoner’s Dilemma and its iteration, a summary is provided here: Robert Axelrod3 was interested in co-operation and the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. He designed a tournament to test many different strategies from game theorists to test against the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. The winner was a very simple strategy submitted by Anatol Rapoport called ‘tit for tat’ that involved cooperation on the first move and thereafter doing what the other player did on the previous move.

When the players have a negligible chance of meeting again (each interaction is effectively a single-shot Prisoner’s Dilemma game) one might as well defect in all cases because even if one co-operates there is no way to keep the other player from exploiting that. However, when there is a pattern that benefits both players and some probability of future interaction people will co-operate. Often the initial mutual co-operation is not even intentional, but having discovered a beneficial pattern both parties respond to it by continuing the conditions that maintain it.

Two people are charged with a crime and held separately by police so cannot communicate. Each is told that: 1. If one confesses and the other does not, the former will be released and the latter imprisoned. 2. If both confess, each will go to prison. At the same time each has a good reason to believe that: 3. If neither confesses, they will be freed 3 Axelrod, Robert (1984), The evolution of co-operation, Basic Books 2

Common cause,collective action

5

This theory has huge importance for understanding the sorts of collaborative behaviours among consumers which may achieve social benefits.

The internet enables people to get together more easily, by breaking down barriers and costs of interaction. Interactions and activities which had previously not been possible because of their prohibitive organising costs are now happening.

And although it may not be facilitating face-to-face meetings, the internet provides the online space for people to get involved with one another and cross paths in the future, making it more likely, according to the tit for tat rule, that people will co-operate.

We are growing increasingly comfortable with online ways of judging trustworthiness and integrity through online reputation systems, which take the anonymity out of certain online interactions and transactions. These systems enable people to assess and share feedback on users' (sellers') behaviour, on personal preferences and to find out about past actions of strangers. eBay is a good example of this, where a positive rating becomes like a firsthand reference from someone we’ve actually met, helping us to make better decisions about who to exchange with.

Studies have shown that sellers on eBay receive negative feedback only 1 per cent of the time, and buyers 2 per cent.4

At first glance, this would suggest that 99 per cent of the used goods traded on eBay are at the minimum, satisfactory. However, let’s not forget the bilateral relationship of eBay feedback which may make it less likely for the buyer or seller to want to tip the boat, perhaps making this figure somewhat optimistic.

This implies that people behave so well because they recognise that their behaviour today will affect their ability to transact in the future, an example of Rapoport’s tit for tat game in action. As Ostrom and Walker5 point out, when many people use reciprocity systems, there is an incentive to get a reputation for keeping promises and performing actions with short-term costs but long-term gain.

When people trust those with a reliable reputation and avoid those with untrustworthy reputations, they can engage in mutually beneficial exchanges without the need for a middleman. Therefore, having a reputation for being trustworthy becomes a very valuable asset. eBay users will therefore go to great lengths to protect their reputation. Free riders, vandals and abusers are easily weeded out, just as openness, trust and reciprocity are encouraged and rewarded because everyone can see when you do something wrong or when you have done something well.6

Ostrom, E & Walker, J (eds). Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons for experimental research. 2005.

Russell Sage Foundation 6 Botsman, R & Rogers, R. (2010) What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is changing the way we live.

Collins 5

Resnik et al. The value of reputation on ebay: A controlled experiment cited in Botsman, R & Rogers, R. (2010) What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is changing the way we live. Collins

4

Consumer Focus

6

Are we naturally co-operative?

Evidence from other disciplines The evidence from game theory is compelling, and there is more evidence on the evolution of the human species that reinforces this optimistic view of our capacity to co-operate, such as people’s inbuilt tendency to want to join groups.

Primatologist Frans de Waal has studied primate behaviour and argues that ‘there never was a point at which we became social’,7 we have been group living for ever. We started out interdependent, bonded and unequal, coming from a long line of hierarchical animals for which life in groups is a survival strategy. He points out that group-oriented individuals leave more offspring, and that (second to the death penalty) solitary confinement is the worst punishment humans can face. De Waal identifies a powerful driver of our ‘groupiness’ in our ability to feel empathy, which probably evolved through parental care.

Michael Tomasello’s insights into child development show humans have a set of ‘species-unique skills and motivations for co-operation’.8 We have the ability to create with others joint intentions and joint commitments in co-operative endeavours which is underpinned by the co-operative motive to help and share with others. We teach each other things, and imitate others in the group simply in order to be like them.

De Waal, F (2009) Primates and philosophers, Princeton: Princeton University Press, p4 8 Tomasello, M (2009) Why we co-operate, Boston Review, p. xiii

This implies we have evolved a special kind of cultural intelligence. Tomasello finds evidence that children from as young as a year old are already co-operative and helpful in many situations. They do not learn this from adults – it comes naturally.

Later, at around three years of age, they begin to make judgments based on reciprocity and internalised norms.

Tomasello’s work helps to explain why we have taken so readily to the internet, and formed innumerable groups for every conceivable purpose. Because we are so sociable and want to conform to the group, we soon develop a sense of fairness and obligation. Compelling evidence of this comes from research using the Ultimatum Game. This is a one-shot anonymous game in which one subject is allocated a sum of money and has to decide how much to give to another, who has to agree to the gift or both lose. Within the ‘rational actor’ model of human nature, we would expect the recipient to accept any amount at all because this makes him or her better off.

The results show that the average offer is 50 per cent, and responders frequently reject offers below 25 per cent. They would rather get nothing than accept something they feel is unfair.

Matt Ridley has argued that our emotional response to fairness or unfairness and its close links to our idea of morality, can explain the energy and commitment we are willing to make to participating in and policing activities online.9

7

Ridley, M (1997) The origins of virtue, London: Penguin

9

Common cause,collective action

7

Back to basics: why do people participate in the first place?

These theories of co-operation help explain our propensity to co-operate, but not why we choose to take part in activities with others in the first place. This section takes a brief step back to look at an explanation as to what drives people to participate in many different forms of group or institutional participation.

There are obvious overlaps with the ideas of co-operation and collaboration outlined above, and at times the two concepts are mutually supportive.

The Participation Chain below provides a general explanation:

Resources: time, money, skills and confidence available to potential group members, and also the state of their health.10 In principle, the more individuals have these resources, the more likely they are to participate.

Mobilisation of participants: issues are important catalysts of participation. The more people are concerned about issues that they feel can be tackled by collective action, the more likely they are to participate. Within this, opportunities to participate are also important, the more variety and number available, the more people are likely to take part.

Social networks are important here.11 While a few people may seek out involvement opportunities, most people have to be asked and are more likely to respond positively if the person asking is a trusted contact.

Figure 1 The participation chain Level 1:

Level 2:

Level 3:

Resources

Mobilisation

Motivations

Verba S, Schlozman KL, Brady HE (1995) Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in american politics, Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 11 Klandermans, B. & Oegema, D. (1994) Why social movement sympathizers don’t participate: Erosion and nonconversion of support, American Sociological Review, 59, pp. 703–722; Jordan, G. & Maloney, W. (1996) How bumble bees fly: Accounting for public interest participation, Political Studies, 44, pp. 668–685 10

Consumer Focus

8

Motivation: the Mutual Incentives Theory (MIT) of motivations to participate12 informs this understanding of motivation. MIT draws on two social-psychological theories of motivation that we call ‘individualistic’ and ‘collectivistic’ which seek to explain what motivates us to get involved.

The individualistic approach is developed from social exchange theory.13 It assumes that people are motivated by individual rewards and punishments, and that the more benefits people get from participation, and the higher the value they put on these benefits, the more likely they are to participate. The higher the costs, the more likely they are not to take part. The benefits have to outweigh the costs. If the value of what they obtain through participation goes down – through satiation – they will eventually stop. But even if rational calculation tells them they should stop, they may keep going for a while out of habit.

The collectivistic approach is drawn from theories of altruism and co-operation14 and interprets human behaviour very differently, assuming that participation can be motivated by three variables: 1 Shared goals: people express mutual needs that translate into common goals 2 Shared values: people feel a sense of duty to participate as an expression of common values

This approach generalises that the more each of these three variables is present, the more likely people will be to participate: ●● The stronger the sense of community, the higher the level of participation ●● The more that people share common values, the higher the level of participation ●● The more people have shared goals that the group can pursue, the higher the level of participation Further, each of these variables positively affects the other variables as well as affecting the level of participation. So for example, the stronger the sense of community, the more people are likely to develop shared goals such as making the area they live in safe from crime, or using the internet to co-ordinate car sharing. The pursuit of shared goals tends to make people care more about each other, so that a group of people who set out with a desire to ‘get things done’ tend to develop social bonds as well.

We will be revisiting some of these core ideas later in the report when we analyse some examples of co-operative behaviour on the web. In the next section we look at the impact of the web on consumer and producer behaviour.

3 Sense of community: people identify with and care about other people who either live in the same area or are like them in some respect

See Birchall and Simmons (2005) Homans G (1974) Social behaviour, its elementary forms (2nd ed), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 14 Axelrod, R (1984) The evolution of co-operation, New York, Basic Books 12 13

Common cause,collective action

9

2 Lives online: what has changed for consumers?

This section will sketch out how the web has brought about a fundamental shift in relationships and communication, and how this impacts on consumer behaviour. We also look at the potential to redraw relationships between consumers and producers.

A revolution in digital technology ‘We are living in the middle of the largest increase in expressive capability in the history of the human race. More people can communicate more things to more people than has ever been possible in the past, and the size and speed of this increase, from under one million participants to over one billion in a generation, makes the change unprecedented.’15 The current communication revolution doesn’t just enable us to do things better, it enables us to do things differently. The internet is the latest significant advance in communications technology, but it will be much more transformative than its predecessors.

This is because it enables many-to-many communication at a mass scale for the first time in human history.16 Previous technologies did not enable conversations from many to many – mass media, such as television, creates a message and sends it out, one-to-many, and one way only. Consumers were passive recipients.

Shirky, C (2008). Here comes everybody. Penguin Ibid

What’s more, while the printing press and recorded and broadcast media created huge audiences, control of that media (and hence the message) was concentrated in the hands of a small group of professionals: newspaper proprieters, broadcasting corporations, film studios and record labels etc.

The internet erases these asymmetries and turns the established order on its head. As mobile phones and the internet both spread and merge, we now have a platform that creates both expressive power and audience size. Mass media is giving way to a media of the masses. And that’s a real game changer, which also brings into question what it means to be a consumer. Every user is now a potential creator and consumer.

As a result consumers are now producing and sharing all sorts of content with each other; and with the world. Or, as Clay Shirky puts it: ‘The moment we’re living through, the moment our historical generation is living through is the largest increase in expressive capability in human history.’17 In terms of a starting point for participation, all of these changes make it likely that participation among consumers will increase dramatically. As well as providing a platform for a limitless amount of group structures, groups will be more likely to contain different types of participant, making for an efficient division of labour and a lively combination of such types as ‘campaigners’, ‘scrutineers’ and ‘footsoldiers’.

15 16

Ibid

17

Consumer Focus

10

There may, however, be a constant throughput of marginal participants who try out a group but decide to do something else. The lower the costs of joining the more people will join, but the lower the cost of leaving the more people will move on.

The challenge for the orchestrators of consumer participation will be not just to recruit members but also to build up their commitment. The table below shows factors affecting participation and the impact of the internet:

Individuals have the means to produce and distribute written, audio and video content globally using free Web 2.0 technologies where they can interact with website like blogs, wikis, podcasts and social media. Intermediaries such as Technorati, Wikipedia, YouTube and iTunes provide globally accessible spaces in which people collaboratively create, edit, rate and package knowledge on every subject. Therefore, individuals can create collective voices that can rival the reach of commercial and government organisations, which have been accustomed to controlling information about their reputations, offerings and performances. The monopoly that large organisations – businesses or governments – previously enjoyed has changed forever.

Figure 2 Factors affecting participation and the impact of the internet Factors affecting participation

Variables between groups

Resources

Time, money, Very important, large scale confidence, skills, health group activity limited to well resourced

Much less important, but new time pressures?

Mobilisation

Issues, opportunities, recruitment

Hard to match issues and opportunities, costly recruitment

Easier to match people with issues, provide opportunities and ask people

Individualistic motivations

Costs, benefits, opportunity costs

High costs of attending Very low costs, easy joining meetings, uncertain benefits and exit to match benefits

Collectivistic motivations

Sense of community, shared goals, shared values

If costs overcome, and action is successful, motivations are strengthened

Sense of community online not yet fully understood as this is new way of connecting

Levels of commitment

Highly committed to marginal commitment

Hard to motivate marginal people

Large numbers, so marginals can dip in and out

Significance before mass web technology

Common cause,collective action

Significance now

11

Automatic consumer power for the people?

All this doesn’t automatically empower consumers, but the internet means that when people have something to say, and have the tools that amplify their voice and share their experience with each other, things start to get really interesting in the consumer context.

A number of brands are realising that the vast majority of content about them on the internet has been generated by consumers. Some of it is flattering but some is less so. Examples such as Boycott Petroleum18 and Vodafail19 show how the internet has brought us to an age of radical transparency, meaning companies are no longer allowed to ignore or cover up poor performance.

Dissatisfied and/or concerned consumers and campaigning organisations now have the tools to generate and distribute content to give millions of consumers information about a brand’s shortcomings. Just as the reduction in transaction costs has made organisations easier to form, the ‘hassle bar’ – ie the time and effort previously involved in making a complaint or making a fuss that you couldn’t be sure would go anywhere – has been much diminished by digital technology.

This does not mean that all existing consumer problems are solved, or that all consumers can access these new tools. Many consumers lack the ability to get the best from particular markets, because of their circumstances or skills or the nature of the market. Over five million adults in the UK lack functional literacy.20 Families on low incomes are still paying more for their basic goods and services than better-off families in the UK; this annual ‘poverty premium’ for a typical low-income family can be over £1,280.21 Internet take-up among working class households, casual workers and those on benefits is just 56 per cent, compared to 87 per cent of middle-class and upper-middle-class households.

People aged 18–24 are four times as likely to access public services online as those aged over 65.22 Of the 8.7 million adults in the UK who have never used the internet, four million are among the most disadvantaged: 39 per cent are over 65, 38 per cent are unemployed, 19 per cent are families with children.23 On the other side, many producers remain powerful and well-resourced and able to apply their intrinsic understanding of consumer behaviour to gain more influence over consumers.

The findings of behavioural economics highlight many ways in which people routinely make poor decisions and behave in ways that are not in their best interests. Even with freely available information and more transparent relationships between consumer and producer, there arguably remains a power imbalance.

Leitch review of skills (2006): Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills 21 Save the Children UK (2010). The UK poverty rip-off: The poverty premium 22 Ofcom communications tracking survey 23 http://bit.ly/Ld0gXa 20

http://bit.ly/NgmxlW http://bit.ly/KPW6QT

18 19

Consumer Focus

12

Examples of where consumers lack effective power are in things like public services, rail transport, electricity and gas, the food processing industry and the pharmaceutical industry. And there are many areas of industrial and scientific production in which the expertise of producers so outweighs that of consumers that while producers may not have a monopoly on shaping the future, they will continue to wield considerable power.

Then there are industries where the contracts between the consumer and producer or provider are by nature open ended and long term, in which the requirement for a high level of trust is unavoidable such as social care, banking, pensions and life insurance. The need for regulation of such industries above the grassroots consumer level will remain important.

Common cause,collective action

13

3 Testing the theories: evidence of co-operation in action on the web

Ctrl-Shift research results and our analysis For all the discussion of advances in technology, it’s not social media or Web 2.0 technologies that are changing the world, it’s the behaviours and endeavours that these technologies support. And it’s people taking advantage of the voice and the ease of organisation that wasn’t really available to them before. This section looks for evidence of whether the behaviours enabled by the shift in technology equate to a new richer canvas of participation and co-operation as suggested by the ideas set out in sections 1 and 2.

Consumer Focus commissioned Ctrl-Shift to look for evidence of reciprocity, norms and cooperative instincts at work in consumer contexts on the internet. Ctrl-Shift looked for evidence of a range of different activities:

While not a scientific result (there was not a search for counter-examples or statistical analysis to calibrate the relative importance or incidence of different styles of co-operative behaviour), there were many readily available examples, further substantiating the findings of leaders in this field such as Rachel Botsman.24 The table on the following pages, takes 12 examples and analyses them according to key principles from theories of consumer behaviour, co-operation and participation explored in section 1. We assess what sort of co-operation is taking place, what conditions are in place, and what is motivating people to co-operate. For balance, some examples of purely ‘offline’ cooperation are included in the review, as well as initiatives that began offline but have flourished online too.

1 Trading of tangible assets like money, goods or property, including new forms of exchange such as bartering, swapping and auctioning 2 Sharing, including the sharing of things, assets, ideas and knowledge, or emotions 3 Giving goods or money, or intangible assets such as emotions, advice or time 4 Influencing/campaigning by organisations, individuals and collectives 5 Creating or producing products, community assets and services 6 Negotiating/bargaining, including collective purchasing 7 Representing eg online petitions

Botsman, R & Rogers, R. (2010) What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is changing the way we live.

Collins

24

Consumer Focus

14

Figure 3a A framework for understanding co-operation among consumers Type of activity Trading

Sharing

Giving

Example

Zopa, Crashpadder

Ushahidi, Horsesmouth

Pledgebank, PatientsLikeMe

Is it sharing, collaborative consumption or collective action of money, goods or property?

Zopa: Collaborative consumption

Ushahidi: Sharing information through crowdsourcing

Pledgebank: Collective action of skills, money and/ or materials

Crashpadder: Collaborative consumption using a for-profit online business model

Horsesmouth: Sharing knowledge/ experience through mentoring

PatientsLikeMe: Collaborative consumption

Type of motivation:

Zopa: MIT

Ushahidi: Participation

Pledgebank: Co-operation and sometimes MIT

Co-operation

Crashpadder: MIT

Horsesmouth: Participation

PatientsLikeMe: MIT

Zopa: Online

Ushahidi: Online only

Crashpadder: Online to facilitate face-to face transaction

Horsesmouth: Online only

Pledgebank: A mixture of online and face-toface meetings

Participation Mutual incentives theory (MIT) Collectivistic Individualistic What is the mode of interaction?

Online Face-to-face Mixture of both

Common cause,collective action

PatientsLikeMe: Online only

15

Type of activity Trading

Sharing

Giving

Example

Zopa, Crashpadder

Ushahidi, Horsesmouth

Pledgebank, PatientsLikeMe

Do people trust one another?

Zopa: There are two issues 1 Trust between borrower and lender;25

Ushahidi: As a shared online space, new users must build up trust within the community27

2 Trusting Zopa with money transfers in the absence of FSA regulation26

Horsesmouth: Mentors are required to complete an online form to register as a mentor, but there is no formal checking of skills.

Mentors can be given feedback in terms of usefulness, friendliness and timeliness

Pledgebank: There is no guarantee that people will carry out the pledge they have committed to It is based on a psychological ‘bet’. If a person has the desire to do something, connects with likeminded people, then they are more likely to want to do the same thing

Crashpadder: Users can view member profiles, along with any feedback they have received from other members online before faceto-face meeting.

Money has to be paid in advance to Crashpadder (protecting the host).

Payment to the host is delayed until guests have finished their stay (protecting the guest)

PatientsLikeMe: Trust is of paramount importance when using such a site.28 Users are revealing very sensitive information about themselves online, and this is being sold onto businesses. Users have to trust PatientsLikeMe to anonymise their personal data before it is sold

Only UK residents who are registered on the electoral roll with a UK current account and three years of UK credit history (for borrowers) can join. People with County Court Judgements, high levels of unsecured debt or poor histories of credit repayment are prevented from borrowing. A collections agency chases any missed payments on the lender’s behalf.

26 Any money that is transferred to Zopa is held in a segregated bank account to which neither Zopa nor its creditors have any claim Zopa’s business model of lending and borrowing is quite new and does not fall under any of the existing regulatory categories, and as a result the Financial Services Authority (FSA) would need an act of parliament to create a new one http://bit.ly/LkjUQY 27 Ushahidi’s automated tools can add context to the content by tracking whether a user has contributed data in the past and whether it was accurate. If so, that user may be more of a trusted source than a user who has never contributed data before.

28 http://bit.ly/NZVGqP 25

Consumer Focus

16

Type of activity Trading

Sharing

Giving

Example

Zopa, Crashpadder

Ushahidi, Horsesmouth

Pledgebank, PatientsLikeMe

Are they able to punish defectors or free-riders?

Zopa: Zopa merely acts as a middleman, putting lenders and borrowers in touch with each other29

Ushahidi: There is a risk that users will post careless or misleading information.30 As a shared online space, community policing is necessary to identify any potential trouble

Pledgebank: N/A

Ushahidi: The desire to participate and have access to digital technology

Pledgebank: Time and energy to commit to their particular pledge and access to digital technology

Horsesmouth: A professional skill to share with others and access to digital technology

PatientsLikeMe: The need to share health information with others (strangers)

Ushahidi: Group of creators and developers originally but now open-sourced for all to use

Pledgebank: N/A

PatientsLikeMe: Unable to punish offenders, can only reveal through information posted on users’ forums

Crashpadder: N/A as payment is delayed until guests Horsesmouth: have completed their Moderated by a team stay of people who check all postings before approving them to go live. They ensure that no personal information is exchanged or that users do not post comments they may later regret31 What resources do people need to cooperate?

Zopa: Money to lend

Is there a leader or instigator of the issue

Zopa: N/A

Crashpadder: A spare room

Crashpadder: N/A

PatientsLikeMe: N/A

Horsesmouth: N/A

http://bit.ly/NefY17 If a borrower defaults on repayment the only way to get the money back is by using a bailiff – there is not the same level of protection as if using a bank. Lender comments on the Zopa forums: http://bit.ly/NgrknC 31 http://bit.ly/xWdroF 29 30

Common cause,collective action

17

Type of activity Trading

Sharing

Giving

Example

Zopa, Crashpadder

Ushahidi, Horsesmouth

Pledgebank, PatientsLikeMe

Reach-

Zopa: National Zopa is only operating in the UK

Ushahidi: International Approx. 90 deployments worldwide32

Pledgebank: International

Local National International

Crashpadder: Horsesmouth: International National Rooms in 800 places UK-based only in 52 countries, 60% are in the UK

Is the group aiming to inform /be informed, to be consulted

Zopa: N/A

What is the level of commitment needed to take part?

Zopa: Lenders are principally motivated by the potentially higher returns than those offered by banks

Crashpadder: N/A

Crashpadder: A high degree of motivation is needed to let a room/rent a room to/from a stranger

PatientsLikeMe: International 122,000 people registered as users

Ushahidi: Aims to inform by posting real time information using mapping technology

Pledgebank: N/A

Ushahidi: Sporadically intensive depending on the issue to be reported. High when the issue is ‘live’ and low when the issue passes

Pledgebank: A high level of commitment is needed and a proactive approach using a lot of effort to push a particular pledge to encourage people to sign up to it

Horsesmouth: A high degree of commitment is needed to take part. Mentors and those seeking advice invest time, mental energy and emotion

PatientsLikeMe: Varied level of commitment ranging from occasional to ongoing and high

PatientsLikeMe: Aiming to inform. Users can Horsesmouth: search for patients with similar conditions, disease longevity, Aims to inform and be consulted for professional treatments etc. Members can also ask questions, share tips and offer knowledge support

http://bit.ly/NgrmvJ

32

Consumer Focus

18

Type of activity Example

Trading

Sharing

Giving

Zopa, Crashpadder

Ushahidi, Horsesmouth

Pledgebank, PatientsLikeMe

Ushahidi: Potential to read misleading information.

Users could feel uncomfortable entering their name and contact details33

Pledgebank: Lack of commitment from the person pledging and lack of support for particular pledges

Are there any Zopa: unintended Acts as a consequences middleman, putting lenders and borrowers in touch with each other. If a borrower defaults on a repayment the only way to recoup the money is by using a bailiff Crashpadder: None identified

Horsesmouth: There is a risk that unqualified mentors may give poor information or cause more harm than good by not fully understanding what a mentor’s role is

PatientsLikeMe: Open to abuse. Neilsen, the media research company found to be ‘scraping’ information from some of the private forums in order to get consumer opinions on products. Some forum users could have been identified by information posted on the forums34

A web map such as Ushahidi could make some consumers more vulnerable in two key ways: 1. This kind of website poses data protection and security concerns. There is always the potential risk of hackers accessing the admin account and exposing users’ contact details; 2. By showing where changes are taking place, a map could provide opportunists with the information necessary to base scams and bogus calls on.

33

http://on.wsj.com/PMgr0w

34

Common cause,collective action

19

Figure 3b A framework for understanding co-operation among consumers Type of activity Influencing/ campaigning

Creative/active producers

Negotiating/bargaining

Example

38 Degrees, Smartmobs – UK Uncut

WhoMadeYourPants?, Leeds community peerto-peer health support service

Greenwich Community Food Co-op, Wootton & Glympton Community Oil Buying Group (WGCOBG)

Is it sharing, collaborative consumption or collective action of money, goods or property?

38 Degrees: Collective action by a ‘community of UK citizens’

WhoMadeYourPants?: Sharing – a workers cooperative

Greenwich Community Food Co-op: Collaborative consumption

Community health service: Sharing – Community led co-operative of members of the public acting as lay health support workers

WGCOBG: Collaborative consumption

Type of motivation:

38 Degrees: Mixed

Co-operation

Some campaigners only get involved with campaigns which directly affect them – individualistic, while others are altruistic campaigners

WhoMadeYourPants?: Co-operation and collectivistic

Greenwich Community Food Co-op: Collectivistic

Community health service: Co-operation and collectivistic but also MIT – for some it is a career pathway and for others it is altruistic

WGCOBG: Collectivistic

WhoMadeYourPants?: Online

Greenwich Community Food Co-op: Face-to-face

Participation Mutual incentives theory (MIT) Collectivistic

UK Uncut: Loose collective action of campaigners

Individualistic

UK Uncut: Collectivist

What is the mode of interaction?

38 Degrees:

Online Face-to-face Mixture of both

Mixture of online petitions, emailing & phoning MPs as well as face-to-face meetings

Community health service: Face-to-face

UK Uncut: Mixture of online and viral messaging which leads to organised public demonstrations

Consumer Focus

WGCOBG: Principally face-to-face. Also uses text messaging as away of communicating with members

20

Type of activity Influencing/ campaigning

Creative/active producers

Negotiating/bargaining

Example

38 Degrees, Smartmobs – UK Uncut

WhoMadeYourPants?, Leeds community peerto-peer health support service

Greenwich Community Food Co-op, Wootton & Glympton Community Oil Buying Group (WGCOBG)

Are they able to punish defectors or free-riders?

38 Degrees: N/A

WhoMadeYourPants?: As there is a high level of trust, it is unlikely there will be free-riders

Greenwich Community Food Co-op: As there is a high level of trust, it is unlikely there will be freeriders

UK Uncut: N/A

Community health service: There is a high level of trust and commitment to the community and very unlikely that people will take advantage and act as free-riders What resources do people need to cooperate?

38 Degrees: Time and energy and the desire to campign on particular issues and access to digital technology UK Uncut: Time and energy and the desire to take part in demonstrations

Is there a leader or instigator of the issue

38 Degrees: It has as small staff team of six but the campaigns are chosen by its members UK Uncut: No leader as such but a loose collection of individuals who come together to protest on social justice issues

WhoMadeYourPants?: Willingness to work for the co-operative Community health service: Willingness to help the community

WGCOBG: There are strict terms and conditions applied to members when ordering the oil supplies to ensure that members do not back out once the order is placed Greenwich Community Food Co-op: Time and energy and a willingness to help others in the local community WGCOBG: Access to oil supplies that are regularly organised deliveries

WhoMadeYourPants?: No, it is a workers co-operative and democratically owned and managed by its worker owners

Greenwich Community Food Co-op: There is a small voluntary management group who are company directors and help manage over 20 volunteers

Community health service: No, it initially operated as community-led co-operative and later became a social enterprise which employs members of the local community

WGCOBG: There is a founder member who is the principal organiser in motivating people and ensuring that the oil deliveries are organised in a timely way

Common cause,collective action

21

Type of activity Influencing/ campaigning

Creative/active producers

Negotiating/bargaining

Example

38 Degrees, Smartmobs – UK Uncut

WhoMadeYourPants?, Leeds community peerto-peer health support service

Greenwich Community Food Co-op, Wootton & Glympton Community Oil Buying Group (WGCOBG)

Reach-

38 Degrees: National UK-based with up to 1,000,000 individuals taking part in its campaigns

WhoMadeYourPants?: Local Based in Southampton but aims to empower women refugees from Afghanistan, Somalia and the Sudan living in the UK. Potentially has an international reach from internet sales

Greenwich Community Food Co-op: Local

Local National International

UK Uncut: Nationally UK-based

WGCOBG: Local/national – the organiser runs this method for groups across the UK

Community health service: Local In this case Leeds Is the group aiming to inform /be informed, to be consulted

38 Degrees: Campaigns and aims to create ‘an avalanche for change’ by the actions of the citizens taking part in the campaigns UK Uncut: Informs protestors where demonstrations are being held via their website and encourages them to take part

What is the level of commitment needed to take part?

38 Degrees: Varied but generally at a high level Members can maintain their involvement via web, email, Twitter, Facebook as well as face-to-face UK Uncut: Very high to want to commit to taking part in a ‘smart mob’

WhoMadeYourPants?: N/A Community health service: Aiming to inform by giving out information about health issues and supporting members of the community in their understanding of how to improve their health

Greenwich Community Food Co-op: N/A

WhoMadeYourPants?: Very high The women’s livelihoods depend on ensuring they manufacture a goodquality product

Greenwich Community Food Co-op: Very high as there is a large demand on people’s time.

For the volunteers an altruistic need to do unpaid work for the community

Community health service: Very high Lay health workers are seen as having a strong commitment to their communities and are altruistically motivated

Consumer Focus

WGCOBG: N/A

WGCOBG: The interest appears to wane once the need for oil supply has been met. The WGOBG organiser promotes other cooperative ideas such as buying nappies in bulk to maintain interest and enthusiasm of the community

22

Type of activity

Example

Influencing/ campaigning

Creative/active producers

Negotiating/bargaining

38 Degrees, Smartmobs – UK Uncut

WhoMadeYourPants?, Leeds community peerto-peer health support service

Greenwich Community Food Co-op, Wootton & Glympton Community Oil Buying Group (WGCOBG)

WhoMadeYourPants?: None identified

Greenwich Community Food Co-op: Some critics say that only focusing on buying locally produced goods can harm food producers in developing countries who rely on western markets to sell their produce35

Are there any 38 Degrees: unintended They have been consequences criticised in the past for being hijacked by safe ‘not in my backyard’ campaigns (NIMBY)

Community health service: Potential volunteers are put off by the increasing UK Uncut: amount of paperwork and the risk of being There is a risk in taking part in a public sued. Trade unions have demonstration resulting voiced concerns about the activities of volunteers in civil disturbance posing a threat to staff in which could lead to paid roles being arrested and a criminal record

WGCOBG: The initial motivation for individuals was to save money and have regularly organised deliveries of oil There is a shift to people seeing environmental benefits (fewer lorries on the roads) and social benefits (bringing poorer members of the community out of fuel poverty). This model of collective purchasing has the potential to change the way people buy goods and services particularly in remote and rural areas

http://bit.ly/LU3tI0

35

Common cause,collective action

23

A new digital dawn for co-operation?

The following section returns to some of the key principles from the theoretical overview in part 1 and draws on them to reflect on the wealth of web-based co-operation set out in the preceding tables.

Matching and connecting The examples here confirm the theory that reduced transaction costs make co-operation easier. A key part of this is reducing the costs of matching (resource to need) and connecting (those with resources to those with needs).

Whether it’s matching the skills and insights of older, more experienced people to the needs of the younger or less experienced (Horsesmouth), helping patients with similar conditions share notes (PatientsLikeMe), or new ways of organising charitable giving (Donorschoose, Pledgebank) reduced transaction costs is a major feature of the new types of co-operative behaviour that is emerging.

Mixed motives The theoretical overview also suggested that there are a wide range of individualistic and collectivistic reasons for participating in co-operative behaviour.

In the review of examples, there were instances of all the predicted types of behaviour: ●● Actions focused on narrow self-interest pursued in innovative ways – eg Zopa ●● Actions focused on mutual interest including different forms of co-operative – eg WhoMadeYourPants ●● Actions focused on bigger causes eg 38 Degrees

The key point here is that they all offer different means of contributing, and by appealing to the full range of different motivations and styles of co-operation, there is more potential to create action and change. The findings also suggest that within certain contexts, individualistic motives can deliver collective benefits, for example the primary motivation for using Streetcar may be to save money, but it delivers a more social benefit – less congestion, greater sustainability etc.

Trust: norms and reciprocity Large-scale co-operation is not possible without trust. The emerging theories of reciprocity and ‘fair shares’ highlighted in Part 1 suggest that given the right context and signals, trusting the other party to be reciprocal is a natural desire on both parts.

In many examples of co-operative activity – especially in the context of sharing and giving – there were few formal trust-building mechanisms such as reputation or policing systems. For example, Pledgebank has no mechanisms of enforcement to make sure people keep their promises. In a similar way, users of Freecycle are not rated so it’s impossible to tell if someone abides by the guidelines.

What these examples have in common seems to be shared norms created or acted out within a common, understood context. People join these groups knowing and understanding ‘the rules of the game’ and simply expect other people to behave accordingly, and in most cases it seems they do. The ease of group formation on the web means like-minded people with shared values find it easy to connect and work together.

This suggests that understanding the power of norms, and articulating and clarifying what these norms are, is a potentially important ‘secret’ of successful co-operative initiatives.

Consumer Focus

24

Trust: feedback and transparency

Trust and free-riders

There are occasions when the power of norms and expectations are not enough and formal systems are used to regulate behaviour. In the examples from Ctrl-Shift’s research, initiatives tend to rely on reputation and reputation management.

None of the examples major on policing and most have no formal policing mechanisms at all.

‘Free-riding’ – where people take the benefits of co-operative action while failing to contribute to the creation of these benefits – looms as a significant problem. Perhaps surprisingly, in the examples there is little evidence of free-riding as a problem. This seems to be for two reasons.

First, for many forms of co-operative behaviour there are no benefits to free-riders (because, for example, they are entirely voluntary). Second, where there is a threat of free-riding, those involved have ‘designed it out’ from the very beginning. For example, in the case of GEN, a local solar energy enterprise, the directors ensured that those who were interested in the scheme paid their £250 minimum investment before commissioning any work. This prevented people from expressing interest then pulling out once money was needed.

Reputation has always been central to our social life. What the web has been able to innovate are ways to replicate online the reputation systems that happen naturally in local, physical communities and display them for a bigger audience. eBay’s simple system of user feedback remains the most common – and apparently effective – means of ensuring trust within the group.

This doesn’t mean it’s perfect however. Reputation systems can be gamed and where gaming is possible at least some people will try their luck.

A highly publicised example is Tripadvisor where some of its feedback has been shown to be false, or consumers have pressurised hoteliers into giving freebies or discounts in exchange for a good review. Malicious reviews and paid-for reviews are also threatening the integrity of the reputation system. This suggests that feedback and reputation systems may evolve further. For example, Ushahidi has developed an automatic and objective reputation-building mechanism: a tool which tracks whether a user has contributed in the past and whether that contribution was subsequently found to be accurate.

This is not to say that free-riding is not an issue, but it does suggest that it is not a universal issue, or at least does not occur at a scale that negates the positive benefits of shared endeavours. In none of the examples studied here was it a major drawback or obstacle.

Common cause,collective action

25

Levels of participation and means of mobilisation In theory, there is a big gulf between high commitment, face-to-face social interactions and low commitment online ‘communities’ where individuals can dip in and out at will.

How much does the ease of joining a campaign make involvement meaningless as it requires so little commitment and follow through?

In our examples, we found the full spectrum of different levels of participation from marginal participants to highly committed campaigners.

In fact, it could be argued that one of the strengths of the online environment is its ability to capture the full range of varying levels of commitment, from high level commitments of money via crowdfunding sites to marginal membership of organisations like Freecycle.

Active intermediaries such as 38 Degrees also create a way in which a huge amount of people can form a critical mass with the power to change things, but within which individuals may be relatively passive.

In reality, it’s not either/or – online versus offline – it’s the right mix of both. There are examples of highly successful ventures that operate purely online. Ushahidi, the crowdsourced news and monitoring site, works only because it can gather information online from a large number of people who are widely dispersed geographically and do not know each other. It creates a ‘community’ from isolated individuals. Horsesmouth, the voluntary mentoring service, operates on a purely virtual basis. Others, such as Intervac and Liftshare started life offline and used online to expand their reach. Yet others, such as Southwark Circle, UK Uncut and 38 Degrees use online platforms to encourage offline and face-to-face activities, while many operations like Crashpadder, Liftshare and Freecycle use or depend on the internet to create offline exchanges.

Consumer Focus

26

Conclusion

A richer canvas?

The Ctrl-Shift research shows that new approaches to online collaboration and co-operation are creating a wide range of opportunities for consumers to become empowered in powerful new ways.

The map below sums this up. The vertical axis spans the range of motivations from purely self-interested to altruistic. It covers producing, trading, sharing and giving. The horizontal axis shows the nature and style of the behaviour and/ or organisation. It shows whether the behaviour is focused on individuals, on groups with mutual interest, or on a more collective approach where the interests and identity of the individual become more aligned to, or subsumed into, that of the collective. This includes campaigning which, arguably, can be a purely individual activity though most campaigns only really take off once they become collective endeavours.

This simple map highlights a profoundly important point. If we take the evidence from Birchall’s first report and put it together with the new opportunities opened up by the internet, we can see a vastly expanded ‘possibility space’ for creating wealth and empowering forms of behaviour and organisation. There are many more ways to bring people together and organise them and a wider range of purposes that can be effectively pursued. The collapse of transaction costs makes a major contribution here, as people with similar interests or purposes can connect more easily.

Figure 4 A richer canvas Other forms of exchange eg bartering, auctions etc Selfish Producing Trading

WhoMadeYourPants Gen

Traditional focus of economics Barterquest

Zopa

Crashpadder Berkeley Liftshare Electronic Press

Sharing

Giving Altruistic

WGOBG

Horsesmouth Breast feeding support Freecycle

GCFC Lodsworth Larder

PatientsLikeMe

Ushahidi

Southwark Circle

Vegetarian Society

38 Degrees

UK Uncut Donorschoose Pledgebank Occupy

Campaigning Individual

Mutual Common cause,collective action

Collectivistic

27

Alternative approaches to consumer interactions We think we are starting to see the beginning of the end of business as usual, where traditional economic theories relying on rational behaviour and individual choice occupy only one small part of this richer, broader canvas. Established approaches to consumer protection such as creating, promoting and upholding rights on behalf of individual consumers may retain a valuable role in some areas. However, they will need to adapt in order to capitalise on the vast potential for new forms of action from consumers. New services will build businesses around aggregating and leveraging consumer demand in ways that benefit participating individuals (see Consumer Focus’s Get it, together report on collective switching on page 28).

At the heart of the new context is not just a wider operating space for consumers and providers, but a fundamental shift in terms of how providers and external agencies relate to consumers. Consumers can now act together (be it consciously or subconsciously) in collaborative and collective ways to influence markets.

This shift has significant implications for a range of consumer players, not to mention consumers themselves. Policy-makers, regulators and advocacy bodies must recognise the shift in influence and power, the potential and new opportunities this offers, and think about how to respond. This may involve revising frameworks where models built around individual transactions impede collaborative and collective endeavours, or getting out of the way altogether. Or they may respond by thinking about how they can harness this potential in pursuit of their objectives and duties.

New roles will open up such as ‘active intermediaries’ or ‘fourth party’ services who provide a low-cost way to work on behalf of a large group to push for change in conditions, prices, quality or to resolve complaints.36 Providers and policy-makers need to think how to engage with these intermediaries. Providers and intermediaries who embrace collective power instead of fighting its challenge to the status quo could build trust and strong relationships with consumers. Consumers stand to gain if they recognise and capitalise on their new status by tapping into new forms of collective action – in any of the myriad of ways shown in this report.

It is our intention that the theoretical foundation and scrutinised examples in this report will provide not just food for thought, but a sound evidence base on which to consider new ways of operating.

Supporting this are a series of other Consumer Focus publications which look in detail at specific aspects of the new consumer empowerment context, including: collective switching from one utility provider to another; how trust and reputation really work in online environments; the potential for making a collective complaint; tools and applications for online collaboration; and finally, a pause for thought on some of the negative and unknown implications of a life online.

See Shirky, C (2008), Here comes everybody – The power of organizing without organizations, London: Allen Lane – p.54

36

Consumer Focus

28

These are summarised below: ●● Digital Engagement Cookbook (April 2012) Consumer Focus recently launched a new site, www.digitalengagement.org, to help local authorities, charities, retailers, service providers and campaign groups to explore new opportunities for engaging and empowering citizens and consumers. It aims to help users decipher which technology-based methods are best-suited to consumer empowerment activities such as campaigning, consulting and collective action. It is one of the most comprehensive, categorised collections of digital engagement methods on the web and includes over 140 links to examples of them in action. The website will help public engagement professionals to explore the full range of ways to engage consumers effectively, and think wider than social media or web-only methods.

The Digital Engagement Cookbook examines methods from webinars and online forums, to serious games and crowdsourcing, and everything in-between. It also has a purpose-built search engine which helps you find the digital engagement methods most relevant to your needs. It works just by answering a few simple questions. New methods will be added to the website on a regular basis. In order to remain current, users will eventually be able to submit their own methods, case studies and examples via the site for inclusion in the database.

●● Get it, together: the case for collective switching in the age of connected consumers (May 2012) This report makes the case for a collective approach to changing supplier or provider in energy, financial services and telecoms markets. The approach provides an alternative to orthodox individual switching and offers consumers better outcomes for less effort in the markets to which it is applied. Collective switching would see an intermediary platform work on behalf of consumers and offer a service that: -- provides a focal point around which consumers who want better value, but reject the conventional ‘go it alone’ route to market, can cluster as a group -- converts mass inertia into a competitive impetus by grouping participating consumers’ aggregate demand into a winnable block of market share.

Aggregation in this way makes for a markedly more powerful expression of demand than participating consumers would themselves be able to achieve if seeking to switch in an isolated, uncoordinated way -- leverages that aggregate demand to secure a better deal through a reverse auction mechanism -- manages the mass switch of participating consumers to the provider who makes the best offer to the group

Common cause,collective action

29

iChoosr and the Dutch consumer body, Consumentenbond, have successfully applied this approach in energy markets on the European mainland; and we are starting to see attempts to make it work here, including the Which? Big Switch initiative. Unsurprisingly, the consumer response to these initiatives indicates significant demand for being able to engage in these markets in a hassle-free way. We believe collective switching will grow from these early initiatives into a major force that gives participating consumers the power to get a better deal from the markets listed here.

er Get it, togeth g in the age of connected consumers The case for collective switchin Richard Bates

●● All that’s digital isn’t gold: The challenges and risks of the digital age (June 2012) While widespread access to the internet and the tools and applications that have been built on it has been undoubtedly positive for people, as a consumer advocate, we are not complacent about the potential downsides of the widespread transformations in technology. This report is an attempt to distil and comment on these future issues such as impenetrable terms and conditions; data security concerns; lack of clarity on future use of your data and biased search engine results. This area is such a quickly developing field with many opportunities for downsides to overlap. It is sometimes difficult to get a firm grip on what this means for consumers now and in the future, the extent to which issues might cause detriment and what action should be taken to protect the interests of consumers.

The aim of highlighting these detriments is to prompt debate and persuade those who are in a position to pre-empt and prevent these to begin to think about, understand and respond to these consumer detriment issues now. They also need to start to consider how best they can respond to the challenges these detriments will present to our traditional regulatory frameworks.

Consumer Focus

30

●● Trust and reputation (Forthcoming, 2012) As consumers undertake an increasing proportion of their interactions and transactions online, there is growing evidence that they are turning to peer review sites as a trusted source of information.

But there is a lack of qualitative insight and understanding around how people feel about and use consumer generated feedback. Some of this feedback is highly qualitative, and to some extent subjective. Do people understand the strengths and weaknesses of this kind of data?

Relatively little is known about sentiments toward trust and information sharing, attitudes to ‘fair’ marketing and ‘unfair’ libel. For example do consumers know about the business model for these sites, who owns them, the commercial incentives and implications for the way user feedback is provided? How aware are people of the potential pitfalls, risks and liabilities attached to feedback. Where should liability for negative feedback lie?

Peer-to-peer feedback is established in a limited range of markets, primarily goods and services like travel and financial services. It could spread to other areas such as public services where choice is less of a driver but where it would be useful for service users to share their experiences as is already happening in services like NHS Choices and Patient Opinion. The Government is generally supportive of such initiatives and has publicly encouraged the idea of a 'tripadvisor-style’ service for social care.

We wanted to explore some of these questions so we commissioned research into how far consumers are aware of, and concerned about, these issues in general; and to look at their attitudes using to peer to peer feedback in other – and potentially sensitive – areas such as public services and social care in particular. ●● Collective complaints (Forthcoming, 2012) Another strand of our work is exploring the potential for a web tool to help consumers resolve their complaints, and gain redress when things go wrong, more effectively by being able to act collectively.

This tool will do the heavy lifting involved in making a complaint while at the same time collecting the data necessary to convert individual complaints in to 'class action inspired’ collective complaints.

The intention is for the weight of numbers to compel companies to honour their obligations and empower consumers to get their problems dealt with quickly and effectively. And if that fails, to support a much more effective course of legal redress.

Common cause,collective action

31

Consumer Focus Fleetbank House Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JX

t: 020 7799 7900 f: 020 7799 7901 e: contact@consumerfocus.org.uk www.consumerfocus.org.uk Media team: 020 7799 8004/8006

Published: July 2012 If you have any questions or would like further information about our research, please contact Liz Coll, by telephone on 020 7799 7900 or via email liz.coll@consumerfocus.org.uk For regular updates from Consumer Focus, sign up to our monthly e-newsletter by emailing enews@consumerfocus.org.uk or follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/consumerfocus

If you require this publication in Braille, large print or on audio CD please contact us.

Deaf, hard of hearing or speech-impaired consumers can contact Consumer Focus via Text Relay: From a textphone, call 18001 020 7799 7900 From a telephone, call 18002 020 7799 7900