In my honest opinion Consumers and the power of online feedback
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. We tackle the issues that matter to consumers, and 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 recent consumer and competition reforms, the Government has asked Consumer Focus to establish a new Regulated Industries Unit by April 2013 to represent consumers' interests in complex, regulated markets sectors. The Citizens Advice service will take on our role in other markets from April 2013. Our Annual Plan for 2012/13 is available online, 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
The research Community Research conducted this research for us. They used three extended focus groups with people who regularly use online reviews and feedback. These looked into consumer attitudes toward user feedback in general and how they use it. All consumers in the research were – to varying degrees – active users of feedback sites. Each group had a slightly different make-up: ●● heavy users: those who frequently read and/or post reviews and rank them as an a important decision-making influence ●● light users: those who sometimes read and/or post reviews but do not rank them an important decision-making influence
●● older profile – over the age of 55 and use/post reviews The over 55 group discussed the idea of online review and feedback in social care as well as their general online activity. A fourth group discussion was conducted online specifically with people who had recent experience of looking for care to explore in more depth their response to the proposition of online review and feedback in social care. The groups were held in Manchester, Birmingham and London between March and April 2012.
Consumer Focus
Contents
Introduction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A growing trend.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Consumers and user-generated feedback .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The evolving landscape of review sites and platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A basic typology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Consumer use of different platforms .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Empowering people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Expanding horizons.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Transparency and accountability .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Downsides.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Dealing with unreliability .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Rogue reviews: TripAdvisor .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Dealing with rogue reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Attitudes to peer feedback about health and social care services .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Consumers want to use peer feedback in social care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Feedback is part of the mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Fears and concerns.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Special challenges.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Customised service model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Building on the foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
In my honest opinion
Introduction
'A powerful global conversation has begun. Through the Internet, people are discovering and inventing new ways to share relevant knowledge with blinding speed. As a direct result, markets are getting smarter—and getting smarter faster than most companies'1 As consumers undertake an increasing proportion of their interactions and transactions online they are turning to peer review as a trusted source of information. Evidence is emerging to indicate how indispensable review and feedback services are to consumers, and the importance they attach to peer review over and above traditional sources of information.2 The growth in feedback and review services and the numbers of people using them is one of the most empowering developments for consumers of the past decade. Until now consumers have been far less powerful than the companies and services they depend on. User generated feedback has the potential to dramatically change that imbalance to the wider benefit of all consumers as companies and providers compete to respond – especially in e-commerce. Companies need to improve products and services, deliver better value for money, excellent customer service and more effective internet fulfilment to maintain their reputation. Otherwise they risk their customers going elsewhere and telling their peers to follow in their footsteps. In the past consumers told the relatively small circle of people in their immediate friends and family. Now they can tell everyone who checks online, as the case studies shows.
Introduction to Cluetrain Manifesto, Levine et al, 1999 See page 7
1 2
Many areas of consumer experience – primarily where a lack of information about the range and quality of options makes it difficult to make informed choices – would benefit from being more open to user generated review. It is notoriously difficult to find information about the quality and reliability of services like health and social care where choice is beginning to emerge in the public sector. Nor is it easy to find out about many private sector services, such as solicitors, where professional bodies object to their members being rated and reviewed by the people who use them. Information about people's experiences of private landlords, motor vehicle and home repair services and estate agents is also hard to come by, though some local directories are starting to host feedback. Consumer Focus believes that user generated feedback will go a long way to address the information and power imbalance in these sectors. To gain more insight into, and understanding of, consumer experiences of online feedback we commissioned research3 into: ●● consumer attitudes toward user feedback (including services that facilitate it as well as direct sharing) ●● how much people use and rely on online feedback ●● people's awareness of the potential downsides and their concerns about using these services
The full Community Research report for Consumer Focus is available at http://bit.ly/RgxZiZ
3
Consumer Focus
4
Unlocking the Kryptonite lock: empowerment and the speed of online transmission
We also looked into consumer views on the prospect of introducing access to peer to peer feedback in areas where it is not currently available. Against a background of calls for improved transparency and Government interest in the potential for developing user feedback services for social care, a section of our research focused on that sector in particular.4
In September 2004 a consumer posted on an internet forum that U-shaped Kryptonite locks could be easily opened with a ballpoint pen. Within days the item penetrated numerous blogs, forums and traditional media. The online word-of-mouth frenzy forced the manufacturer to announce a free exchange programme for the affected locks, 10 days later:
This paper presents a snap-shot of consumer use of peer generated information. It will be useful to all those who provide or develop user review services by giving a better understanding of consumer attitudes to, and aspirations for, user generated feedback. It will also help those who have an interest in consumer empowerment, transparency and consumer engagement. A practical application of these insights will help ensure that consumer interests are taken into account and these services evolve and improve more effectively.
'We are accelerating the delivery of the new disc cylinder locks and we will communicate directly with our distributors, dealers and consumers within the coming days. The world just got tougher and so did our locks.'5 In 1992, journalist John Stuart Clark teamed up with a bike thief to show how easy it was to break in to the majority of bicycle locks then on the market. One of the methods he revealed was the ballpoint pen method. His article in New Cyclist magazine led to follow-ups in bigger circulation bicycle magazines such as MBUK, and a BBC consumer rights programme also carried a feature on the ballpoint pen method. The pen method has therefore been known about for some time (begging the question why it was never foiled by lock manufacturers) but it soon disappeared from public view, until it went online in September 2004.6
Do online reviews matter? An empirical investigation of panel data, Decision support systems journal, 45 (2008) 1007-1016 6 Debunking the myth of Kryptonite locks and the blogosphere, www.intuitive.com 5
Also see Today I... told my story, the report of our user based design concept for gathering user generated feedback in social care. http://bit.ly/Sw7ztd
4
In my honest opinion
5
A growing trend
The web and social technologies are playing an increasing part in our lives, a role that is set to increase as new, mobile equipment such as smart phones, tablets and other devices provide access to the internet whenever and wherever we require it. Consumers are embracing the opportunities these developments offer to document and give feedback on their experiences; to review services and products. Many products and, increasingly, services can be reviewed, rated, ranked and evaluated on the web today, including books, music, dishwashers, lawyers, teachers, health services and holidays. Online services such as TripAdvisor have emerged as focal points for reviews of certain products and services, or for all they sell, in the case of Amazon, and have attracted critical mass to become the 'go to' places for consumers who are seeking information on a prospective purchase. Transparency of information has always been important for consumers. They need accurate, timely and reliable details about prices, standards, quality, and redress. Until recently, providers have largely been in control of the message, creating a one-way information flow. In the last decade consumers have increasingly enjoyed access to the tools that allow them to share information directly with their peers. They are empowered to tell others of their experiences and to seek information on goods, services and providers within and across peer-to-peer platforms. This provides people with the means to go from passive recipients to active participants in markets, creating an age of 'radical transparency' that is eroding the old monopoly. It can be a powerful and positive development for consumers – as Vodafone learnt the hard way.
Vodafail7 In December 2010 Vodafone customer Adam Brimo grew so tired of poor service that he set up a website called Vodafail to give vent to his frustrations. It quickly became the focus for widespread discontent with Vodafone and its parent company VHA and soon thousands had chronicled their negative experiences on the forum. An apology from the Chief Executive appeared on the company website later that month but there was no sign of any action. Brimo subsequently published an extensive report summarising the accounts of 12,000 Vodafone customers about poor network coverage, poor customer service and poor complaint handling. He submitted it to the Australian communication and consumer watchdogs: the Competition and Consumer Commission (ACC) and Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN), who supported his case. In addition, a law firm threatened to take a class action against the company. By February 2011 the Chief Executive had to apologise again. This time he also acknowledged the infrastructure and customer service problems and explained what the company was doing to rectify them. He conceded, 'When problems came, we responded too slowly'.
www.itwire.com 28 December 2010; http://bit.ly/Vlz20z; www.vodafail.com
7
Consumer Focus
6
Brimo closed the site to new complaints in March 2012, stating that he had achieved his goal of raising awareness of the problems and prompting the company to act. As he said, 'Customers took the opportunity to voice their concerns, fears and troubles from every corner of Australia and beyond to stand up for their rights and make their voice heard. Vodafail remains online 'as an example of what is possible when we share our experiences'.
●● Research from the USA by Nielsen10 found that 68 per cent of social media users go to social networking sites to read consumer feedback on products and services, with over half using these sites to provide product feedback, both positive and negative. Nielsen research also found that, 'recommendations from personal acquaintances or opinions posted by consumers online are the most trusted forms of advertising'
As Vodafail and the Kryptonite cases demonstrate, a company's existing customers are telling it like it is. Word of mouth has always been important but now the internet has brought an unprecedented speed and scale of transmission so that consumers can communicate instantly and with anyone.
A 2012 survey of internet users in Britain by reevoo11 found that 88 per cent of consumers consult reviews when making a purchase, and 60 per cent said they were more likely to purchase from a site that has customer reviews. reevoo's research shows that shoppers trust independently collected reviews more than twice as much as reviews collected by the business being reviewed.
Consumers need access to advice from trusted sources, and customer feedback based on opinion or experience is now established as one of these. The research showing that consumers are putting more trust in their peers than on more traditional sources is compelling: ●● A recent survey for Consumer Focus found that more than 62 per cent of consumers trust what other consumers tell them more than what companies say8 ●● Research by BT and Avaya found that 51 per cent trust the advice on review sites more than an organisation's official website9
We also know that more consumers contribute positive than negative feedback, suggesting that companies and service providers should not see user generated feedback as a threat. Research for Consumer Focus in 201012 found that among regular online users 50 per cent had left positive feedback and 35 per cent left negative feedback. We discuss the typical distribution curve of user feedback further in the section on the different models. Our focus group research provides an insight into the story behind these numbers, looking at what attracts consumers to review sites and how far they rely on them in practice. http://bit.ly/TPFbkv reevoo surveyed 1,000 nationally representative UK consumers on shopping habits. The data was collected by GMI Research, 2012. http://bit.ly/QQWzVo 12 Fresh thinking; unleashing the new consumer power, study for Consumer Focus by Research Now/Andrew Smith, 2010 10 11
Customers in Britain, Andrew Smith, 2012, unpublished The autonomous consumer, BT global and Avaya, 2011
8 9
In my honest opinion
7
Consumers and usergenerated feedback Our findings make it clear that consumers' prepurchase research and decision-making has changed since they started using the internet. The evolution of online shopping and consumer feedback has had a significant impact. Online research into potential purchases, including consideration of peer reviews, now forms an essential part of their decision-making. 'I think in the modern society, no matter what you're interested in, you're going to go on the internet and look at it, you're going to research a bit, be it a holiday, be it a car.' (Light user group)13 'Now the internet's there I rely heavily on that.' (Over 55 group) People say they trust and value peer feedback because it is based on experience rather than claims, which makes it much more relevant, especially when it reflects the views of 'people like me'. This is despite the potential downsides, see page 17. Consumers in our research expected user generated feedback to offer accuracy and reliability because it is based on the first-hand experience of their peers. They saw user reviews as more honest than company and corporate information because individuals have no vested interest in selling products or services. The reviews also offer greater insight into how products work or how clothing fits, helping consumers to decide which suit their specific requirements.
'It enables you to get an opinion from a consumer rather than a seller of the product, hopefully an unbiased one.' (Light user group) 'Provide more useful information on products rather than just statistics or specification.' (Heavy user group) 'Lets you know about possible problems in advance – especially with clothes and how they fit.' (Heavy user group) Consumers said they value the range of viewpoints offered in feedback services and use them in a discerning way. They look for indicators about the person posting comments, such as a personal profile, whether they review regularly and the kind of review they post to help them decide how much credibility to give comments. They use a similar process to help spot rogue reviews (see page 17). 'So I think it's quite useful that you know a little bit about who's reviewing it so you've got an idea of, "if it suits someone that's retired it might not suit a teenager" and vice versa.' (Light user group) 'And nationalities as well to a degree, because you could get somebody from America or Canada who's put a review on and their standards in some cases are totally different to a British person.' (Heavy user group)
Light users were defined as those who quite often/rarely read consumer online reviews and did not rank online feedback sites most influential in terms of influence on a major purchasing decision. Heavy users were defined as those who very often read reviews and/or very or quite often post reviews and ranked them 1 or 2 in terms of influence over major purchasing decisions
13
Consumer Focus
8
The research shows that user generated feedback is important for pre-purchase research and consumers do not want to be without it. Consumers are, however, aware of some of its weaknesses and don't rely on it entirely. They talk about 'reading between the lines' and apply feedback as 'part of the mix', using it as one of several factors (including friends and family, expert guides and price comparison sites) to help them make decisions. 'They provide a flavour. Inevitably there will be half-truths, spin etc. but with sites like Amazon there are so many reviews you can sort the wheat from the chaff.' (Care decisions group, online) 'I think you have to take it with a pinch of salt because if there's loads of glowing reviews and loads of bad reviews there's a big group of people that are going to be somewhere in the middle.' (Heavy user group)
Of those who took part in the focus groups, most of those who use reviews also post comments – some more regularly than others. This is often prompted by a particularly positive or negative experience or alternatively in response to a followup email request. 'If you've been really dissatisfied it's your way of venting your anger, so I think sometimes it can be a bit biased in that way.' (Light user group) 'But having said that, some of the sites, like booking.com, if you book through them and they'll say 'you went to this hotel, would you like to rate it' and then that might prompt me to think I might do a quick rating.' (Light user group) The use of reviews also drives altruism with some consumers saying they give feedback as part of an ongoing reciprocal service for others. 'I value the reviews of others and feel like it is only fair to contribute to these.' (Heavy user group) 'Opinions count, good to be able to contribute and help another make a decision – right or wrong.' (Light user group)
In my honest opinion
9
The evolving landscape of review sites and platforms
'There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.'14 Alongside, and in response to, the increasing numbers and inclination of consumers to interact with services and providers, the range of online review and feedback services is rapidly expanding and evolving. Opportunities for feedback have mushroomed over the past decade with new platforms and more sophisticated services emerging as providers respond to consumer interest and consumers increasingly take to Facebook, Twitter or the blogosphere to share their views and experiences. Feedback services can also support interactions and transactions offline such as choosing a restaurant on the basis of other diners' feedback. They can also connect to other developments such as apps for mobile phones that scan barcodes and link to information such as reviews, price comparisons or environmental data.
A basic typology As the landscape of review sites and platforms evolves, the emerging service types can be distinguished by their primary purpose – although there is some overlap between them. ●● Sites with a primary purpose to sell, but that include a review feature. This group includes online stores such as Amazon, John Lewis and Tesco. They make online feedback part of their core offering, presenting individual product reviews and scores and aggregating them into a quick-reference rating chart ●● Others within this group provide links to or embed third party review platforms into their own website. Expedia, for example, embeds TripAdvisor reviews into its accommodation listings ●● Sites where feedback is the core purpose, such as TripAdvisor, a sector specific platform where users post reviews and opinions on travel-related experiences. This type of service is not transactional; they do not sell the products or services that people post comments on15 ●● Platforms with a prime purpose to provide information and advice on consumer issues but also include feedback and discussion forums. Money Saving Expert, for example, finds 'best deals' on a range of finance products and helps consumers to 'beat the system'. The site also hosts a blog and open forum where consumers can post queries, discuss solutions and share experiences
TripAdvisor was until recently owned by, and retains close links with Expedia, which is transactional
15
Thesis 12, Cluetrain Manifesto, Levine et al, 1999
14
Consumer Focus
10
●● Bilateral sites where people buy and sell to one another. This model is based on peopleto-people review where the individual's reputation comes into play because the vendor and the buyer comment on one another. Trust in both the vendor and the consumer matters because it affects how the wider online community views them and their future participation. Trust and reputation become a kind of currency in this model; for example eBay, the online auction website in which people and businesses buy and sell to one another, and airbnb 'a trusted community marketplace for people to list, discover, and book unique accommodations around the world'16 ●● 'Second generation' third party services where the business model is based on the commercial and reputational value of user generated reviews, providing mutual benefits for consumers and for businesses. These services, such as reevoo and feefo (see box here and on page 14), collect reviews about products sold by subscriber retailers. The sites are not transactional but use reviews as valuable business intelligence. They promote the concept of an online dialogue as being good for business, using reviews to deliver better customer insight, encourage customer loyalty and drive sales. The consumer offer is based on a guarantee of authenticity as only consumers who have made a purchase can post a review, which is one way to tackle some of the quality assurance issues arising in the earlier established feedback models
www.airbnb.co.uk
16
feefo and the consumer17 We are an independent feedback service used by companies that care about honesty, integrity and doing the best that they can for their customers. Most of all, they are companies that are prepared to listen to what you, their customers, have to say.
About us feefo is a cost effective, automated customer feedback system for businesses with an online presence. Members use it to grow their businesses and consumers use it to gain confidence and trust when they shop online. What makes feefo special is that only genuine customers are invited to leave feedback, thus guaranteeing the responses are honest. ●● Social technologies and platforms, blogs, Facebook and Twitter form a distinct group because they are not primarily for review or feedback for consumers in general, although they can evolve into consumer campaigns, as happened with Vodafail. They provide opportunities for people to network and share information about themselves, however, and there is an overlap with blogs or discussion boards such as those on Money Saving Expert or Which? Conversation that are designed to engage with and support consumers
From www.feefo.com
17
In my honest opinion
11
Consumer use of different platforms
eBay Despite the lack of physical presence, trust has emerged due to the reputation system. Millions of items are listed for sale in any given day in thousands of categories. eBay offers no warranty for its auctions; it merely puts buyers and sellers together, gives them a place to display pictures of their wares, automatically manages auctions, provides a reputation management system and takes a small listing fee.
Established models with review at the core Our research shows that consumers are very familiar with the first four, by now wellestablished, types of online review sites. Those frequently used by the consumers in our research to access peer feedback include TripAdvisor, Expedia, Amazon, Argos and Money Saving Expert. Consumers also felt confident about using these sites, having built up sufficient experience to assess online comments.
All feedback comments have to be connected to a transaction; only the seller and winning bidder can leave feedback. Buyers searching for items can see the feedback scores of the sellers. Over time, consistently honest sellers build up substantial reputation scores, which are costly to discard, guarding against the temptation to cheat buyers and adopt a new reputation.19
Bilateral model Bilateral feedback mechanisms such as the one used by eBay operate on the principle of incentives to get a reputation for keeping promises and performing actions. This can be either as a seller delivering goods on time, as described, and with good after sales service, or as a buyer paying promptly and not making frivolous or vexatious complaints. A reputation for being trustworthy becomes a valuable asset because people are drawn to use those with a good reputation and avoid those with poor reputations. The expectation of dealing with others in future interactions influences the way people behave in the present and regulates their behaviour. Therefore eBay users go to some lengths to protect their reputation18
Consumers in the focus groups were also familiar with eBay though not all of them had participated in online auctions. The findings show that regular users of eBay display a degree of scepticism toward bilateral rating systems. They know they have to 'read between the lines' because the system can encourage a 'tit for tat' approach to reviews where the buyer gives a good review in exchange for a good review by the seller.20 Some had also experienced being offered 'deals' to change their feedback to protect a seller's reputation but this did not deter them from using the site. From Smart Mobs, Howard Rheingold, 2002 In gaming theory tit for tat involves co-operation on the first move and then doing what the other player did on the previous move. See Botsman and Rheingold for more detail on gaming strategies
19 20
See What's mine is yours, Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers, 2010; and Smart Mobs, Howard Rheingold, 2002 for discussion on the bilateral model
18
Consumer Focus
12
'And quite often I've bought stuff and it's obviously been a fake so I've sent it back and what the seller has said to me is‌ I'm prepared to give you a full refund as long as you don't leave me negative feedback.' (Heavy user group)
Second generation model We used the example of reevoo in our research to test views of this type of 'third party' operation that collects reviews about products sold by retailers and providers that subscribe to the service as reevoo customers. reevoo describes its services as social commerce: 'Commerce has always been social, in the form of individuals making recommendations to their friends and family. Now these exchanges are happening across multiple channels and touch points, and even between trusted strangers'.
The offer to consumers is about establishing trust and reliability in the user generated content collected by reevoo. The manifesto (see box; The reevoo manifesto) guarantees its user reviews are from authenticated buyers and offers transparency about their source, clearly stating when a comment is from a brand or a retailer. The manifesto also promises that reevoo never edit, or delete, negative reviews. These issues also emerged in our research as important to consumers for establishing the credibility of feedback.
The reevoo manifesto23 At reevoo we're committed to helping buyers make the best choices. They trust our independent reviews because we, together with our customers that have signed up to this manifesto, will always strive to ensure that: 1 All of our reviews are from genuine, verified purchasers.
The company claims that customers experience an average sales uplift of 18 per cent after implementing their 'review solutions and consumer conversation tools' where consumers can ask follow up questions to those who have posted a review.21
2 No fake reviews ever make it in. 3 We show the good with the bad. We do not tolerate anyone editing or removing negative reviews or showing only the reviews they like.
One of the benefits to businesses is that this method of contacting purchasers to elicit reviews encourages all purchasers to voice their opinion. This leads to a more representative sample of reviews, providing a more accurate reflection of people's experiences and views on quality. Usually the distribution of reviews is bi-modal which does not reflect true quality, with most ratings at the positive or negative extremes creating a U-shaped curve.22
http://bit.ly/TvjM5H Do online reviews matter? Decision support systems journal, 45 (2008) 1007-1
4 Our reviews cannot be manipulated. 5 We are always transparent. Where a response is from a brand or retailer, this will be crystal clear. 6 Our reviews remain impartial and independent. Whenever you see the reevoo brand you know that you're looking at a genuine, independent review that you can trust.
21 22
http://bit.ly/K7coHx
23
In my honest opinion
13
Although few consumers in our research knew about reevoo or other third party services that authenticate feedback they find the concept attractive to counter the possibility of rogue reviews. However, some may have unknowingly used a site that subscribes to reevoo without noticing (Robertdyas.co.uk for example). Some consumers also mentioned providers such as Amazon and booking.com that prompt for feedback too. 'I think for products it [authentication] might be the best idea, everybody should be genuine. So buy the products and then you do a review, that's how it should be, being fair.' (Light user group)
Social technologies We did not cover social technologies in detail in our research which focused on review sites but people in the groups did use and get value from informal sources such as the online forums on Money Saving Expert and discussion boards. Consumers used these sources to help them with specific queries, solve problems, double check on manufacturer claims about performance, or to endorse customer ratings.
'If anything ever goes wrong with my car I just stick in 'what do you do when your window wipers don't work properly' or whatever and you get a whole load of anoraks come back with [...] a million suggestions on what to do and some of them are great.' (Heavy user group) These sources allow consumers to draw on the knowledge of the crowd, where they can get advice from 'experts by experience' to help them make better purchasing decisions. 'There seems to be a forum for just about anything and everything so if you're a bit savvy you use that or you use Google to look at complaints about an item, you go to forums to see what people are saying about it.' (Heavy user group)
Consumer Focus
14
Empowering people
'This social might is now moving toward your company. We have entered the age of empowered individuals, who use potent new technologies and harness social media to organize themselves.'24 As described in the introduction, the development of the web has brought about a shift in relationships between consumers on one hand and producers or suppliers on the other, as people become more active participants in the marketplace. The spread of consumer-created, curated and rated information spells the end of the 'monopoly on the message' for producers and providers. They are no longer in control of information or how it is communicated as one-toone messages give way to a more dynamic form of exchange. Producers and providers are having to adjust to this challenge to their monopoly hold on the 'official line' about their reputation, offerings and performance. The spread of consumer-created and rated information demonstrates consumers' willingness to share and exchange their views and experiences – good and bad – not just with their friends and family but with people beyond their immediate circle. This has a potentially empowering impact for consumers, giving them access to insights from their peers that can help them to make better informed decisions. Consumers can influence changes in markets through their actions, choices and participation – as individuals and collectively – in ways that have not been possible before, leading to a rebalancing of power and information asymmetries in consumers' favour.
Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody – The Power of Organizing without Organizations, 2008
24
According to our research, consumers are convinced of the benefit of online feedback. They recognised and welcomed a power shift between sellers and buyers – with consumers more in control, able to make their own decisions when they are ready to do so, and without feeling under pressure, for example from persuasive or unscrupulous sales techniques. 'It puts more power to the consumer, I would say the general public are a lot more informed about everything and a lot less likely to listen to a man who will try and flog you anything.' (Heavy user group)
Expanding horizons Consumers told us that online feedback also enables them to find out about a wider range of products and suppliers, making them less reliant on well-known brands or adverts. Online reviews and comments often make it easier to identify the best value product or provider. 'If you think before you never would have bought anything from China or Hong Kong or anywhere like that whereas now on the websites when you see good reviews of these products from companies you've never heard of, you tend to trust them whereas before you never would have known they existed.' (Heavy user group) 'I did a price comparison checker and it came up with various companies, some of which I'd never heard of and one of which was a lot cheaper than any of the others, so I then Google'd that and asked people specifically about that company and had a little stalk basically, saw what they were up to, what they were doing, couldn't find that much bad about them, it suited my needs so I went ahead and bought it and saved myself about £90.' (Heavy user group)
In my honest opinion
15
Consumers feel they are making better purchasing decisions and can find evidence to challenge or barter with vendors. 'It's a good starting point as well because if you read reviews and then went to the shop armed with some information, you can challenge the customer service person.' (Over 55 group) 'Because the sales person will always want you to get something else and sometimes it's a nice feeling to say 'I've already looked at that and you've not mentioned it has this fault with it'. (Heavy user group) Reviews also help steer consumers through the factors to consider before making a final decision so they make the most appropriate choice. 'Sometimes, as well, reviewers make you think about something you haven't thought of before. [...] I was reading various reviews and somebody said 'if you're like me and you're the sort of person that's going to steam clean their floors once a year, why pay a fortune for a steam cleaner, just get something that's cheaper' and they recommended a couple. I went on, had a look at those and I got one for ÂŁ60 [instead of spending ÂŁ250].' (Heavy user group) Academic research25 supports the awareness effect of online reviews, reporting that reviews alert others that a product or service exists and therefore puts it into the consumer's choice set. The researchers go on to argue that businesses should do more to facilitate online feedback because this online word of mouth has a positive effect on sales. Do online reviews matter? Duan, Gu, Whinston, Decision support systems 45 (2008), Elsevier
25
Transparency and accountability As the Vodafail and Kryptonite cases show, the internet supports a grass roots form of transparency, meaning companies and service providers are finding it harder to ignore or cover up poor performance, products and services. Our research found that consumers are aware of, and enthusiastic about, this trend toward openness and public accountability. They feel it has the potential to improve transparency and services because poor performers cannot hide and will be forced to respond to consumers. 'I think these things are giving us that kind of control. There's potential to have that much more control. And to ensure that standards are right [‌] To raise the standards and to have some accountability if they're not.' (Over 55 group) '[These sites are] bad for the bad guys, good for the good guys.' (Care decisions group, online) Some consumers told us they want to contribute to this transparency by posting feedback for other consumers to read. 'In order to broaden a perspective to other potential buyers. Contribute to an ever growing transparent online community.' (Heavy user group) There is also evidence of a strong motivation among consumers to 'correct' an existing review or rating that they disagree with.26 Researchers at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in Switzerland found that rating partly reflects the difference between the quality as experienced and the expectation inferred from earlier reviews. See Understanding user behavior in online feedback reporting, Talwar, Jurca, Faltings, Electronic Commerce June, 2007, ACM
26
Consumer Focus
16
Downsides
Qype's clean-up
Increased access to user generated feedback is not without a downside. Our research indicates that consumers are aware that online feedback has pros and cons. Having built up some experience they are also generally confident in their ability to make an informed judgement about how to use information from reviews and feedback comments.
Qype specialises in user-generated local reviews. The site originated in Hamburg in 2006 when an internet entrepreneur was trying to find a nursery for his son and realised the value of personal recommendations. So Qype was founded for people to share their experiences and give feedback on the consumer decisions they make every day, growing into a community of two million Qypers by 2011.27
They told us that sometimes the sheer amount of feedback can exacerbate instead of reduce information problems. The opposite can also apply when there is not enough feedback to inform decisions. And peoples' views and experiences may be contradictory, which can be frustrating.
At the start of 2012 the company audited over 13 million reviews, using an automatic integrity tool based on checking semantics, linguistic and keyword patterns. Suspect content was flagged and over 2,000 misleading or malicious posts were either auto deleted or checked by the in-house team before being deleted if necessary.
'But sometimes you get too much information and then you can't choose […] you think: I can't cope with this because it's too much. So that's a sort of double-edged sword.' (Light user group)
Qype wanted to show it was taking a tough stance on companies posting positive reviews about themselves or negative reviews on their competitors but they were also looking out for examples of other poor business practice such as:
Consumers told us they usually find a way round this by using filters or consulting other sources as described on page 9.
Dealing with unreliability
●● Social reputation management companies posting fake reviews on behalf of clients
It is difficult to establish with certainty the accuracy and legitimacy of user feedback because it is not universally verified, as the TripAdvisor case study on page 19 illustrates. The biggest problem raised by consumers in our research was the potential for misleading or fake postings by individual consumers, providers or their competitors. Site owners are also aware of the potential for 'sharp practice', as the Qype example shows.
●● Spammers putting links within reviews or comments to draw users to their own pages ●● Businesses claiming to be in a phantom location to benefit from Google local searches28
www.qype.co.uk/impressum http://bit.ly/QR80MB; http://bit.ly/RZL9ms
27 28
In my honest opinion
17
Consumers are alert to the potential for rogue reviews. Their general attitude is 'you shouldn't believe the first thing you read', and they have built up a feel for what is more – and less – reliable. To help them assess the authenticity of feedback consumers use a number of indicators that instinctively warn them to be on their guard.
Consumer tips on what to look for to avoid rogue reviews ●● Information about the reviewer to indicate, for example, their age or where they live, whether they are a service user, provider or competitor ●● Enough reviews to make comparisons and aggregate scores meaningful and helpful ●● Up to date comments and responses ●● Clarity about who moderates the site and their independence from providers
Some sites moderate comments and reviews to make sure they are not offensive or too difficult to read, or use automated systems that identify potential false reports which can then be investigated. A 'right of reply' for providers also provides an opportunity for putting the other side of an argument or experience. As mentioned earlier, second generation services such as reevoo and feefo are evolving to provide greater levels of authentication and to promote trust in the quality of feedback. Even so, research conducted by reevoo found that 67 per cent of consumers have concerns about the trustworthiness of reviews, and that more people than ever suspect positive reviews might be paid for and bad reviews hidden.29 Our research also found that people were suspicious about the potential for dishonesty and had seen reports of false reviews in the media.
●● Whether comments are extreme and how natural the language is Providers of feedback services also employ a range of techniques to encourage self-policing and mitigate the potential for abuse. For example many sites automatically send a follow-up e-mail to people after their purchase inviting them to post a review, to increase the likelihood that consumers who post reviews have at least recently bought the product concerned. Standard formats for review and feedback are designed to increase its relevance and reliability. For example listing the range of attributes for comment and restricting the space available to leave comments aims to encourage consumers to be concise and stay 'on message'.
reevoo, ibid 2012
29
Consumer Focus
18
Rogue reviews: TripAdvisor The case of TripAdvisor illustrates well some of the best and worst facets of how usergenerated review systems work. TripAdvisor is widely known and used. In summer 2012 the company claimed to host 75 million reviews, with 50 new contributions posted every minute, and over 32 million members worldwide. As the case study shows, the site has been the focus of some controversy, with hoteliers fighting back, complaining about fake reviews and a lack of accountability, threats of legal action, and an industry complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) which was upheld in 2012. The ruling had implications for other web sites which make claims about the reliability of their usercreated content, and Qype had a clear out too. The consumers in our research had used TripAdvisor and were aware of its strengths and weaknesses, partly because of high profile media coverage in recent years. Despite the controversy, the site remains very popular and consumers felt confident they can read between the lines. 'TripAdvisor, I never go anywhere without checking.' (Heavy user group)
TripAdvisor case study The TripAdvisor website enables users to share a range of travel information, with individual reviews at the core of its business model. It was an early adopter of usergenerated content, opening up the field of hotel reviewing to the public. Started in 2000 after one of the co-founders had a bad experience and set up a site for people to say what they really thought about their holidays, it grew rapidly. By summer 2012 it was host to over 75 million reviews and opinions. The company remains loyal to its original philosophy of trusting the power of the crowd. It says it provides a platform to consumers to voice their opinions and experiences and a level playing field for hoteliers big and small. This model has proved a strength as TripAdvisor has become the 'go to' place for travel information for many consumers worldwide. At the same time this openness has led to controversy. TripAdvisor users do not have to prove they have used the services they comment on, which has been a long standing criticism of the site's system. Complaints from business owners who receive poor reviews and feel they are not in control of their online reputation include: ●● the length of time bad reviews remain on the site is unfair and damaging ●● allowing unsubstantiated anonymous reviews is unfair and damaging ●● suspected rogue or malicious reviews can get through the quality filters ●● it is hard to get in touch with TripAdvisor and to obtain redress
Care in the online community
19
In addition, high profile adverse media coverage has exposed weaknesses in the quality of some reviews on the site. For example, in 2011 a Channel 4 documentary30 looking into the impact negative reviews can have on businesses exposed the petty and unfair nature of some comments. Press reports of alleged bribes and other underhand or dishonest practices have also appeared. These include a Cornwall hotel that bribed guests to leave positive reviews of the hotel,31 a couple who threatened to write a bad review unless their cancellation fee was withdrawn, and guests using the threat of a bad review to get discounts or upgrades, or asking what they would get in return for a positive review.32 TripAdvisor does not deny there are problems and argues that it is impossible for such an enormous and dynamic site to be 100 per cent accurate. It remains committed to the power of its community of users to help regulate abuses.
Suspect reviews are 'red-flagged' so that site users are aware of a potential problem but bad reviews are not automatically taken down. The company has also improved its customer service for business members, including a dedicated helpline. These measures have not, however, been enough to calm disquiet within the sector leading to a number of grievances and fight back campaigns.
Fight back campaigns One aggrieved UK hotel owner mounted a fight back by launching two websites:33 I hate TripAdvisor and Hotels against TripAdvisor (HATA) for like minded businesses to rally round. The mission statement for HATA states its aims: ●● to get changes in legislation to stop the posting of anonymous reviews on sites like Tripadvisor. They are often fake and malicious ●● we want responsibility and transparency
TripAdvisor operates a number of systems to protect the integrity of reviews: ●● users are asked to abide by a set of guidelines about acceptable content ●● reviews are screened with automated tools to spot repeat IP and email addresses, suspicious patterns, obscene or abusive language
The Guestscan34 website was created to safeguard hotels, B&Bs, holiday lets, holiday parks, booking agents and tour operators from 'nightmare' guests who indulge in trashing a room, leaving without paying, outright theft or downright fraud, including malicious internet reporting.
●● a specialist team investigates suspicious reviews, including those reported by users, and can take down fraudulent content ●● the relevant owner or manager is alerted whenever a negative review is posted about them, and owners have a right of reply
http://bit.ly/V4CCkc http://bit.ly/RqMp1o 32 http://bit.ly/Sa3CJF; http://bit.ly/XSDmsk 30 31
See I hate TripAdvisor and Hotels against TripAdvisor, now on facebook 34 www.guestscan.co.uk/ 33
Consumer Focus
20
Formal action In late 2011 KwikChex Ltd, an online reputation management company and two hotels35 took an industry complaint to the ASA. They challenged whether the claims 'reviews you can trust', 'trusted advice from real travellers' and 'more than 50 million honest travel reviews and opinions from real travellers around the world' were misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood that TripAdvisor did not verify the reviews on their website and therefore could not prove that the reviews were genuine or from real travellers.36 The ASA investigated and upheld the complaint. Its adjudication in February 2012 recognised that TripAdvisor took steps to monitor and deal with suspicious activity and hotels had a right of response. However, because reviews could be placed on the site without any form of verification '... we did not consider that consumers would necessarily be able to detect and separate nongenuine reviews from genuine content, particularly where a hotel or other establishment had not received many reviews, and nor did we consider that a hotelier's response in itself would go far enough to alert consumers to, and moderate, non-genuine content.'
TripAdvisor has changed the wording in its hotel review section to: ●● reviews from our community ●● our travel community has written millions of reviews describing their best and worst holiday ●● read reviews from millions of travellers Writing after the judgement TripAdvisor cofounder Steve Kaufer said, 'There is a broader question here about the integrity of user-created content and we feel that this is something we must absolutely, and passionately, defend. Sites like ours have grown because we've filled a gap that was previously occupied only by glossy brochures or the odd critic's review. Now, people can actually tap into the wisdom of the masses to get a more accurate picture of what a place is really like. Instead of reading one review, you can read hundreds. You can see photos taken by real visitors, you can read responses provided by the hotel, and you can take a look at the profiles of reviewers. Our visitors use their own common sense to make informed decisions about whether a property is right for them.'37
The ASA told TripAdvisor that the advertising must not appear again in its current form, and not to claim or imply that all the reviews that appeared on the website were from real travellers, or were honest, real or trusted.
Acting on behalf of over 1,000 other hotels http://bit.ly/JC4hnG
35 36
http://bit.ly/Ri4Fbv
37
In my honest opinion
21
Dealing with rogue reviews We explored people's awareness of the potential risks and personal liabilities attached to feedback and whether the threat of litigation deters them from reviewing. The findings show that consumers are much more aware of the potential adverse consequences of false reviews for businesses than for individuals. Consumers emphasised that rogue reviews are unfair and bad for providers, expressing concern about the impact of malicious and fake reviews on small businesses in particular. They had heard of cases where a rogue review had destroyed a business or its reputation. 'Bad reviews can cause harm to individuals' livelihoods and they may be exaggerated or just untrue.' (Light user group) Overall, we found that consumers are not attuned to the threat of personal liability for the feedback they provide. This is partly because they feel their comments are fair and reflect their experience so any reasonable provider would not object. They do not feel threatened as long as their comments reflect a genuine experience or opinion, relying on a perceived right to freedom of speech. However, as pointed out in an online discussion via Which? Conversation, people do not understand the law and may not know if they are saying something libellous which could leave individuals in a vulnerable position.38
Consumers support the right of providers to respond to negative feedback and rogue reviews. They consider it appropriate and sufficient for providers to engage with consumers' feedback within the 'rules of the game' that allow fair comment because there are 'two sides to every story'. Consumers did think the dialogue with providers was a good idea as long as it is a reasonable and positive exchange. There was no evidence that consumers went out of their way to favour providers who engage in dialogue but they did not like aggressive or argumentative responses, and taking down negative feedback. 'I think they've got the right to respond, if someone posted negative criticism. I think they should, it's their business [at risk]. Not delete it but say what was the problem, explain to me and I'll address the problem.' (Light user group) Consumers acknowledge that a simple right of reply may not be enough in extreme cases – especially where small businesses are unfairly damaged. They are however, uncertain about businesses using the law to assert their rights unless the case was clear cut. 'If it can be proved, legally, then possibly, but if it is an honest opinion then no.' (Care decisions group, online) 'It's their livelihood and someone's posted an erroneous view of their pub and never been in the place, they should be able to take them to court.' (Heavy user group)
http://bit.ly/VyDYou
38
Consumer Focus
22
Solicitors from hell39
Threats of litigation against sites and contributors have been made, attracting media interest and profile, as the complaint to the ASA about TripAdvisor and legal action by the Law Society against the solicitors from hell web site show (see box right). We saw no evidence that threat of legal action has deterred consumers from using online feedback so far but their attitudes could change if these examples set a precedent for the future.
Solicitors from hell started up when Rick Kordowski posted a blog about his experiences of failings in the profession. It developed into a site where people could post and share their experiences, 'naming and shaming' lawyers they felt had delivered poor service. The founder was sued for libel by individual solicitors (at least 16) claiming defamation, some of whom were awarded damages but the site continued.
In our research consumers reflected that if providers did increasingly threaten legal action then the rules would need to be very clear. Sites would need to inform consumers in advance of what is acceptable and what their liabilities are.
In 2011 the Law Society took up the issue, mounting a class action for defamation, harassment and breach of the Data Protection Act on behalf of the profession (all 145,381 solicitors practising in England and Wales). A High Court judge ordered the site to be taken offline.40
'Maybe some sort of legal warning so that people have awareness that if they say something naughty that's not true they can be done for it.' (Heavy user group)
http://bit.ly/VlGnNO and http://bit.ly/RZMDx5 The site has re-emerged at: http://bit.ly/OYGEbg
39 40
In my honest opinion
23
Attitudes to peer feedback about health and social care services
Public services are starting to explore opportunities to make more use of consumer generated input. Many local authorities, for example, systematically collect feedback on their online services as well as through their contact centres. Third party services such as FixMyStreet, a mySociety website where consumers can report potholes, broken street lights and similar problems to their local council provide an impetus for councils to respond and resolve them. As part of an ongoing strategy for developing online public services,41 there is also increasing interest at central Government level in the potential for online feedback. A range of initiatives have been launched in consumer-facing services. For example, in health, NHS Choices42 allows people to rate and comment on local GP, hospital and dental services. In the university sector, Rate my university43 publishes student reviews of the university they attend and the course they are following. Third party services operate in these sectors too. Patient Opinion44 collects and posts stories of people's experiences of health care to which providers can respond, helping to create a cycle of improvement in services.
Government recognises the potentially empowering effect of improving information about services, especially online, so that consumers can make better informed choices, or drive markets through switching suppliers.45 In discussions about reforming the social care sector ministers raised the idea of a national database of care homes, with a TripAdvisor-style ratings and review system to allow people to compare different homes.46 Several nascent services have recently been launched in the social care arena, partly encouraged by this Government interest.47 Against this background Consumer Focus wanted to explore what people thought about the proposition of online review and feedback in health and social care. We organised distinct focus groups involving participants with recent experience of researching care options and a group of people aged 55 and above with an interest in the area.48
Consumer empowerment strategy, Better choices, better deals 46 http://bit.ly/RT0npW 47 Anecdotally 39 services are in development according to a Think Local Act Personal workshop in June 2012; including www.iwantgreatcare.org and www.findmegoodcare.co.uk 48 See full research report for details of the methodology: http://bit.ly/RgxZiZ 45
Open Public Services White Paper 2012 with its emphasis on transparency, accountability and public services that are 'digital by default' 42 www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx 43 www.ratemyuni.co.uk/ 44 www.patientopinion.org.uk 41
Consumer Focus
24
Consumers want to use peer feedback in social care Only a few individuals were aware of or had used online feedback in the context of health or social care services – for example only three of the 39 people who took part in the focus groups had used NHS Choices. But overall they responded positively to the idea, especially those with recent experience of researching care options, as long as they had assurances about: ●● the integrity and authenticity of any comments and reviews ●● the option to remain anonymous for those who post (to protect against adverse repercussions) ●● delivering reviews in sufficient volume to be useful 'It would improve things for them to exist.' (Over 55 group) The research showed that overall consumers anticipated that online feedback sites for social care will be extremely useful to fill an information gap, especially if choice becomes more of the cultural norm in this sector. They perceive that access to firsthand information about actual experiences – good and bad – will help them to explore options, prepare for the choices they may need to make and spread good practice. '[With] patients getting more choice in their healthcare something like this is needed.' (Care decisions group, online) 'This stuff [choice of care] is very personal and views of people in the same situation are not only a comfort but could avoid a terrible mistake.' (Care decisions group, online)
'Is it a good idea? Absolutely. I think it would raise standards and improve value for money.' (Care decisions group, online)
Feedback is part of the mix Consumers' general experience of using online reviews coloured their views of how they would treat feedback about care. They talked about reviews and feedback as 'one part of the mix'. In the context of social care this included consulting company literature, basic factual information like price, Care Quality Commission and other reports. 'You probably wouldn't take the one website and what it says and run with that one, you'd probably seek two or three and then compare them.' (Over 55 group) They also stressed how important it is to go in person to see the home or facilities for themselves, if at all possible, before making a decision. 'When you read positive feedback you do automatically feel better, but I would still go and visit myself and make up my own mind.' (Care decisions group, online) 'Because, at the end of the day, for this sort of thing it's the face to face that's going to determine your final decision, what the place looks like, what the staff that are greeting you look like, what the behaviour of the staff looks like, how are the other patients that you see in there being treated, are you free to go and speak to the patients. These are all the things that will help you making your decision, based on the facts.' (Over 55 group)
In my honest opinion
25
Fears and concerns Consumers flagged up a number of potential risks that would need to be addressed to make a feedback system in social care effective: ●● Bias arising from the tendency for comments to reflect the extremes of good or bad ●● Being open to abuse, manipulation, fake or rogue reviews ●● Insufficient volume or coverage of reviews ●● Negative reviews being unfair and harmful to individual consumers, staff or businesses ●● Negative repercussions for individual consumers, staff or businesses These are similar to the issues raised in connection with other online review services but were perceived to be potentially more damaging in the context of care. This is primarily because care services are so dependent on personal relationships. This characteristic makes it easy to identify the individuals involved – with possibly damaging consequences for staff providing or individuals receiving services. It makes the option to remain anonymous more important to consumers in the context of social care than it was otherwise. A fear that posting a critical comment may have negative repercussions for themselves or others, especially the individuals receiving services, was mentioned several times. 'People might be afraid to comment if named, and their relative ill-treated.' (Care decisions group, online)
Consumers perceived that the characteristics of social care and how it is experienced distinguish this kind of service from the kind of review-based systems they were accustomed to. They felt it was in a different category from commenting after buying a product, going to a restaurant or staying in a hotel. In the context of care, users are dependent on the service for their quality of life and the experience is ongoing, which could make individuals reluctant to criticise if they felt vulnerable to repercussions. The heightened awareness of possible negative consequences – for providers, staff, and users – led consumers to emphasise even further the need for people to be fair and honest in posting online comments. They wanted any service about care to take special measures to discourage and reduce the incidence of inaccurate or malicious comments (while protecting the privacy of the individuals concerned). On the other hand, there was little concern in the focus groups about the possible legal liabilities of individuals posting comments. They felt that, as long as the comments were honest and providers able to engage in dialogue to respond to negative feedback the system would work.49 As with the more established review services, consumers thought care providers should be able to respond to negative feedback. '[They] should be able to defend themselves, but in a positive way.' (Care decisions group, online)
In contrast, consumers participating in the accompanying user-based design project were much more conscious of the possibility of being sued for unfavourable remarks
49
Consumer Focus
26
Some consumers in the focus groups remarked that health and social care is special; it is so personal and individual that ratings and feedback were inappropriate. They were more comfortable about giving feedback on the overall service rather than an individual member of staff. This approach is less personal so could reduce the potential damage to individual reputations, especially as care requirements are so individual and one person's opinion may differ from the next. 'Because it's not the kind of service that everybody uses and sometimes you might have an individual who works well in one particular home with a particular patient who has perhaps a small range of conditions or disabilities and they would behave very differently from dealing with somebody who has a wider range and are more dependent on their services.' (Over 55 group) 'I have got problems with that because relationships like patients and their doctors, clients, professional advisers vary according to the nature of the individual.' (Over 55 group)
Special challenges The overriding concern about the risk to individuals in care or to individual members of staff informed consumers' perceptions of how such a service would develop. They felt sensitivity about the potentially negative consequences of giving feedback would inhibit the development of online review for social care. Combining caution with the lack of experience in providing this kind of feedback led them to conclude that people would be very reluctant to take the plunge. Without a reassuring precedent, few would want to 'go public' with their comments, let alone be the first to do so.
Because it will take a long time to build up consumer confidence to post comments, consumers found it hard to see how comprehensive the service could be – at least in the short term – which would impact on its effectiveness. Consumers also anticipated it would be difficult to keep the information current. Based on their own experience of high levels of staff turnover in care services – especially in domiciliary care – they concluded that feedback could quickly become out of date and less useful. They also said that small providers might not have a lot of feedback because they do not have many service users in the first place, so it would be hard to assess its validity. The focus groups also highlighted the likelihood that many individuals in care may not be in a position to provide online feedback themselves. Some users of care services would not be able to use the internet because of an infirmity, a lack of access or the appropriate skills. Others, for example people with dementia, may need help to express themselves. This meant knowing the characteristics of the reviewer became very important. Consumers told us it would be critical to know who actually posts the feedback online: for example is it a service user, family member or carer. And also whether they are reporting their own experiences or doing it on someone's behalf.
Customised service model These findings led us to conclude that designing an online peer review service for social care will require a customised approach, working with service users and other key stakeholders such as family members and carers, rather than an 'off-the-shelf' solution. Our Today I... told my story50 report goes into more detail and outlines the consumer based design project we used to identify the principles for an effective service. http://bit.ly/Sw7ztd
50
In my honest opinion
27
Building on the foundations
Our research supports the quantitative work cited earlier on the widespread use of online review and networking opportunities. It is clear that consumers are becoming comfortable with using online review and feedback systems, and that they put a great deal of trust in what they learn from their peers. Technology is enabling consumers to communicate and network more than ever before. Consumers can not only have their say but can share their views and experiences directly with many others, offering consumers a voice that has not previously been available. These tools have been transformational, initiating a rebalancing of power as consumers can challenge information asymmetries more effectively. Consumers are no longer isolated individuals, passively receiving what is provided. They can alert one another to good and poor practices, share their positive experiences and help to drive improvements or hold providers to account. The shift in relationships between consumers and providers means people can now easily by-pass the old gatekeepers as the Vodafail and Kryptonite lock examples demonstrate. This new world of connectedness includes many challenges and opportunities for providers and developers as they find a way to tackle emerging and future issues as the peer-to-peer landscape evolves.
Verification: Given the need to maintain high levels of trust in the integrity of feedback, quality assurance systems are likely to be a key area for development. reevoo and feefo are examples of one approach to verification of consumer generated content. Research into more sophisticated automated systems that scan and reject content that fails to meet predetermined criteria, such as the approach used by Qype and TripAdvisor, is also ongoing. Anonymity: Consumers perceive anonymity to be especially important in challenging areas where consumers (and staff) feel vulnerable to negative repercussions, as we found in our discussions about social care. User generated feedback services with guaranteed anonymity may lead to new models that ensure comments are legitimate at the same time as protecting individual identity. The tensions between privacy and anonymity versus accountability and verification will need to be addressed, if not fully resolved. Accountability: Linked to verification and anonymity is the idea of making those who post comments accountable for what they write. Increased accountability could help to reveal how much negative feedback originates from business competitors engaging in sharp practice rather than unfair or inaccurate consumer feedback. How's my feedback, the prototype website for people to give feedback about the feedback on review sites is an attempt to improve transparency in this area. The guestscan.co.uk approach is more direct, reporting on people who its members judge to be rogue reviewers.
Consumer Focus
28
Redress: An effective system of redress for those who are wronged by rogue reviews will also increase the integrity of review systems. This could involve an alternative redress system which avoids the need to take recourse to the courts, which would be of particular benefit to individual consumers and small businesses. The development of online legal services could provide access to information and guidance on libel and other legal issues, and no-win-no-fee compensation services might come into the market.
No going back One thing is certain. Now peer to peer feedback is established, consumers want to continue to enjoy the benefits it offers, despite the current inherent weaknesses.
New solutions will emerge to improve the effectiveness of online review, not least because – on the whole – it is a good thing for businesses and providers too. Feedback provides them with intelligence and insights that can be fed back into product and service improvement. And in the end, if they do not embrace these new communication and information flows, they may – like Vodafone – learn the hard way. 'When companies fail to live up to their promises, are hard to contact and hard to get compensation from, it should come as no surprise that its customers will rise up and revolt in as public a manner as possible, with Vodafone's Vodafailure in stopping the Vodafail site and class action a portentous corporate omen.'51
www.itwire.com 28 December 2010
51
In my honest opinion
29
Consumer Focus Victoria House Southampton Row London WC1B 4AD
t: 020 7799 7900 f: 020 7799 7901 e: contact@consumerfocus.org.uk www.consumerfocus.org.uk Media team: 020 7799 8004/8006
Published: November 2012 If you have any questions or would like further information about our research, please contact Alison Hopkins, by telephone on 020 7799 7985 or via email alison.hopkins@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