The one thing I was less impressed with was the site's ethical standards and control over its writers. We repeatedly asked the founder about that, and I found his answers to be quite evasive. To be honest, it's not the end of the world in Thrillist's case. The worst case scenario is basically a writer receiving some payment in exchange for a favorable review, which would lead to one mediocre night out for a reader that followed the recommendation.
Nevertheless, the general idea bothers me. Should I trust the stuff I read online? I'm always suspicious of gushing Yelp reviews, but should I trust Thrillist? or even Techcrunch?
This story from a few weeks back is just one example of what I believe to be a very common issue. Thrillist's founder may have said that he trusts all writers are honest and that editors are able to monitor them, but I remain unconvinced. Let's not forget that a minute later he spoke about the non-compensation perks of the job, which apparently include "Sleeping with PR girls."
Again, no biggie when discussing Thrillist. The issue is that branded content overall is a hot topic in advertising now, be it in TV or online. My fear is that soon we won't be able to tell the difference anymore.
Jonathan Shulman
1 comment:
You bring up a good point. I agree that Thrillist needs to better articulate how product reviews are being conducted. However, it seems as though not too many users are questioning the authenticity of their recommendations which enables them to continue to grow their user base.
Along the same lines, in class we discussed how online users trust each other’s reviews and recommendations when conducting research on a restaurant, hotel etc. However, there is no way to verify the authenticity of user generated content. Content that may be deemed very valuable can be filled with flaws and biases. Never the less, we "the users" continue to let each others reviews dictate our decision making process.
How can we determine the value of user generated content? Can a mechanism be developed to verify its authenticity; or is its value based off of others ability to trust?
This is going to be a difficult challenge because too many variables exist when trying to derive the authenticity of UGC.
My hope is that enough people will start to actively take part in providing transparent feedback to both the author as well as other members of the site. If enough people commit to following this standard, the biased and flawed users will be identified and not trusted as a worthy source.
Post a Comment