Should “commercial activities” over blogs be regulated?

Recently, I opened up a round of discussion in Plurk to the question above and I am thankful for the generous feedbacks from those who participated. There were many points raised - although conflicting. As we know, there are no regulatory bodies in Singapore to oversee the rise of Web 2.0 companies. The blogging scene has become a free-for-all to some companies.

My other purpose is to raise some discussion of how to better the credibilities of bloggers and Web 2.0 companies. In such a small scene, the undesirable conducts are easily amplified and bring other legitimate companies down on their knees. Bloggers are no different, as per social networks and interest groups.

The first set of questions were;

1. Is there even a need for regulatory bodies?

2. Should product reviews have a set of guidelines?

3. If what we deemed as unethical business conducts in the real world adopts Web 2.0 approach, does going online mean it is any less unethical?

Some hidden interests of individuals I discovered during the past month tells me that we do indeed need a regulatory body. While I am not prepared to expose them openly, internet users and bloggers are unknowingly being misled through sophisticated networks which tell them nothing much about the hidden benefits. Opinions do change, when we know how a certain individual is promoting a certain service to us happened to be a shareholder compared to the opinions of another authentic customer without any vested interests.

Secondly, what legal redress can internet users seek when they realized they have been “duped” or “treated unfairly” online? When Associated Press issued legal demands to Rogers Cadenhead for the quoting of their news, Media Bloggers Association stepped in to help defend and mediate the clash. In stark comparison, this is precisely what’s lacking in Singapore.

The bloggers also came up with some counterpoints, all of which I agreed with;

A. How can bloggers, or readers at large, know of any vested interests of the promoter?

B. Regulating social media is counter-productive.

C. Sponsored product reviews may hurt Google Pagerank, and cause bloggers/promoters to hide their interests intentionally.

D. Some companies strictly enforce “positive-only” reviews.

There are a lot more considerations but I thought the above were the key essentials. As I had described to the participants, product reviews are only a part of the equation. There are also signups to social networking sites where personal data are being harvested and even sold on the basis of “the community”.

MDA once replied that they will be regulating the internet scene with a “light touch”. If there’s any regulatory bodies to govern such commercial activities, I believe that is the way to go. Despite the display of disclaimers, the lack of enforcement tells us that a disclaimer is just as good as a piece of well-written collateral. It serves no other purpose, because even in the event that a disclaimer had been breached, no formal sanctions will be brought forward against the offenders. In the real world, you would have been hauled into courtrooms for frauds or misleading advertising alike.

Some bloggers however, welcome some degree of regulation.

i. A set of protocols will be a good start.

ii. Bloggers and companies is to decide if they should hide their intentions and vested interests, and sacrifice their credibilities.

iii. Elsewhere out of Plurk, involve the major legal bodies, media associations, advertising and marketing boards to set ethical standards in the Web 2.0 realm.

The short discussion was only the tip of the iceberg. And it barely begun…

July 29, 2008 | Filed Under New Media, Social Media, Web 2.0

4 Comments 

Comm Unplugged is officially banned from Ping.sg

Following my previous post and the visit by Ping.sg founder Uzyn Chua, this blog has been banned (and I supposed my user account has been deleted too). I think I have said a lot, and the short reply by Ping.sg founder was sufficient to show the arrogance (and that of the community manager) behind what he called “a community”. Still, I do not regret saying what I have said and I stand by my words.

I don’t intend to debate if I should be unbanned, for the fact that it is now a clear example if it is indeed a “community”. I put the facts up here, but the readers - you - are to draw your own conclusions.

July 22, 2008 | Filed Under Blogging

30 Comments 

Is Ping really sorry?

I wrote out strongly against Ping’s unjustified banning of critics against the community manager here, and also businesses that “appeared” to “support” or “endorse” the shady issue. On a personal level, the community manager saw herself losing many “friends” because she was caught red-handed far too many times.

As fellow blogger wrote, there are always lessons to be learnt. However, putting down the ego and admitting one’s mishandling is often the hardest thing to do. By chance, I recalled this article in my Google Feed Reader and nobody could have said it better than Heather Yaxley had. Her last two paragraphs were enough to sum it up for Ping’s community manager’s arrogance with DVD and her “supposed” apology.

PR should also counsel against the non-apology (as seen frequently in US election campaigns) - which basically says we are sorry if you’ve been offended/affected… rather than actually apologising for the organisation’s actions.  I always feel this adds insult to injury as not only has someone been impacted, but they are made to feel guilty for recognising this.

However, as with the political apology, perhaps it is not surprising that there are many strategies conceived by which you can say sorry without perhaps really meaning it.  In my experience that’s a skill accomplished by many 4 year olds, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised if either lawyers or PR practitioners counsel the ambiguous apology either.

You can read the full article here.

Perhaps the inexperience behind the team contributed to the saga, and it’s a good lesson for companies wishing to engage bloggers. You will need a lot more transparency, sincerity and justifiable actions than you previously thought.

So to my question… I hope they are.

July 22, 2008 | Filed Under Blogging, Public Relations

2 Comments 

Next Page →