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 

How to guru-proof yourself?

The rebirth of social media has seen the birth of many “experts” and “companies” who are proclaiming to understand consumer relationship far too quickly. It made it look as though resolving consumer conflicts and handling feedbacks are as easy as installing a processor on your motherboard. Some companies misled into the whole bubble find themselves stuck at a point, why haven’t their relationship improve with consumers?

For the experienced customer service professionals, they can attest that handling consumers is far more tricky than what we hear from social media enthusiasts. How do you listen to an unhappy customer? How do you lead the unhappy customer to see from your point of view? Can the recommendation of a product be trusted? Sure, many Web 2.0 companies offering social media services will promise you the world.

In the social media environment today, it is important for us to do our own research and investigation too. Eventually, you will have to decide between communication skills and technological skills. Like what Valeria commented in my previous post… technology changes, human don’t. Therefore, interaction skills should always be ranked higher than technological knowledge. Rules of engagement just doesn’t change. How do you spot the fakes then?

Transparency. Someone is promoting a product/service to you aggressively, can the person be trusted? How is the person associated with the brand? Are there any vested interest (eg; commission or shareholding in the brand) that is hidden from you unknowingly (intentionally and unintentionally)? Is the person a real customer, or a manufactured customer?

Contradicting actions. You’re being pitched by a social media “guru” on getting involved with a certain programme, is that in accordance to the professional beliefs and principles? Is the person also putting into practice what they preached on engaging customers? Are their actions consistent with the company’s mission statement? If the provider cannot even practise that in their own companies, how can they do that for you? Is the provider also supportive or endorsing shady dealings of another service?

Integrity and credibility. You read a lot online and you are unsure. Are there any official statement from the company? Are there conflict of interest from the same person promoting a product/service on their blogs, but yet rebukes with the reason of “personal opinions” only when criticism arises? How do you know when a person is speaking in a corporate entity, or when a person is speaking on personal grounds?

Experiential. What’s the reputation about this person? Can the stories be verified? Can the person offer a solid explanation where there are doubts? Are there any questionable behaviors that are against the essence of social media, in this case?

Stepping into the social media scene is not easy. The experts made it looked easy, but it’s not. While navigating through social media, we must understand that our personalities makes up a portion of our works. Can you imagine a marketer trying to sell to clients the benefits of interaction with customers, but yet curses and swears at every criticism? It’s morbid, I know.

If you decide to buy into the hype, always remember to protect yourself by investigating the parties involved beforehand. Many a times, mentors and associates often raised the point that social media is still in its infancy with very little regulations. If there are any suspicious factors… stop, step back and breathe the air out of the marketing talks and manipulation. Give yourself enough time to think thoroughly, and penetrate all angles. How will a social media programme benefit you? Is that the only programme available? Or if you’re looking to endorse a certain product/service, are you able to provide answers to queries?

I am not saying social media programmes serves no purpose. With hundreds of voices proclaiming to do social media, it is time we start examining if some of them are truly going social or practising manipulative media. There are also many more who can provide answers, but the bulk of investigation and verification still falls very much on your own shoulders. With careful observation of each and every social media “guru” and their behaviors, you will actually find that it is not very difficult to bust the facade behind some of them.

Unfortunately in Singapore, more and more individuals are toying the scene because there are no official bodies to govern the ethics of such companies. They are allowed to roam freely, while continuing to dupe unsuspecting consumers or corporate companies into their services. It’s a sad truth that must be fixed.

Above all, if you think a certain social media programme benefits you or your company, remember that there is no free meal in this world.

July 18, 2008 | Filed Under Social Media, Web 2.0

Leave a Comment 

A case of Anonymity or Naivety

The debate on anonymity is certainly going to stay for a long time. There are those who are fiercely defensive of their private lives, like myself. There are also those who automatically disregard anonymous individuals, stripping them of any credibility. But, how important is the disclosure of identity in a widely abused Web 2.0 environment?

A new local tabloid was recently drawn into the issue of anonymity, with possible “incitations” as an obstacle to healthy discussions or for possible sensationalism by a social media “guru”. Come to think of it, if not for sensationalism a tabloid wouldn’t be called a tabloid, online and offline. I figured we would have learnt that from Edison Chen’s sex scandal that erupted over the internet and printed tabloids. (Check the dictionary)

Coming back to what I called a “widely abused Web 2.0″ lifestyle, it is indeed sensible for anyone to hide certain parts of their identity. At least to me, seeing your face on your blog or corporate site does not necessary indicate your credibility. Hence, it reduces us to that important question; what protection does the Web 2.0 environment offers to encourage disclosure of identities?

Here are some recent cases of how your identities can be compromised and abused;

Woman branded as prostitute in Facebook scam
A young advertising sales executive discovered shockingly that her identity has been stolen when she received a “friend request” with her name and photographs. The ending of this article also reported a businessman taking legal actions against an old school friend whom created a fictitious profile of him in Facebook.

Students details flashed over Google
The court ordered Google to remove pages which displayed students social security number (just like our Identity Card numbers), test scores and names. Google claimed that it is not able to crawl secured sites but the details appeared on Google anyway.

Satellite maps and social sites used to organize trespassing
Property owners are shocked to find strangers using their swimming pools at night, and also left behind rubbish like beer cans. Your private property is not all that private afterall, given the interactive web we have today.

While the above incidents do not explicitly indicate how the lacking disclosure of identity has soured online interactions, they tell us that we are hardly protected online. Given this lack, it is only natural the best course of action is to conceal as much details as possible. Easily, security breaches in the IT industry proves Web 2.0 to be equally hazardous where personal identities are concerned.

The lack of protection is not only evident on the general platform, but also internally. Let’s take a look at some prominent cases.

Hewlett Packard rogue staff sold product vulnerabilities in black market
The clientele list includes the US Government even. If the same can be done for product vulnerabilities, the same can be done with your details registered in their system. Not convinced? Read on.

Rogue employee sold consumers’ financial data
It’s a whopping 2.3 million consumers’ data which were stolen and compromised. The data included personal details, bank accounts and credit cards information. These are not things we will want to place in our blogs.

A worthy note though, these incidents are barely the tip of the iceberg. With such atrocities online, the anonymity adopted by many does not necessary imply “the intent to deceive, mislead or worse, abuse”. True, there are still people who will conveniently use anonymity to attack, but thankfully, no Government has disbanded any police force for having a rogue officer or two.

It would be naive for anyone to think that disclosure of identity will be able to lend you any more credibility than you deserve. At least for me, my assessment of credibility goes beyond just a picture on the wall. Especially so for bloggers… contents, contexts and the communities play a big role in my determining of credibility. Perhaps, disclosure of identities is falling right into the hands of data miners or for the unscrupulous, an easier path to attack individuals. Just look at how many Facebook applications made it compulsory for users to disclose their personal information to the creator?

Businesses nowadays are adopting social media more, and anonymity is a big part of it which we cannot ignore. Instead of tearing down the credibility of anonymous comments or writers, it is more important to engage. Understand the values they contribute otherwise not available by those whom have disclosed their identity but not being able to say anything more for fear of complications.

At least when your identity is abused, the critics of your anonymity will be the last person who will help you to repair your reputation. This, I assure you.

July 3, 2008 | Filed Under Blogging, Social Media, Web 2.0

3 Comments 

Next Page →