Fake review on Consumer site

Forums › Off topic › Fake review on Consumer site - busted

1 | 2 | 3

877 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1821086 12-Jul-2017 10:38

MikeAqua:

Dulouz:

It was probably a naive and over enthusiastic new graduate wanting to show her dedication to the cause.

Lucky for her she was able to turn on the water works enough for Sue Chetwin to feel sorry for her ...

But then again maybe it wasn't a fake review. Maybe she genuinely has issues with Flick and how Consumer does their ratings and wanted to share her views. She then realised the potential conflict of interest and decided to put it right and Sue is just using this to get into the media. I guess we'll never know and probably don't need to.

Amanon

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1821182 12-Jul-2017 12:08

Dulouz:

Wiggum:

Consumer New Zealand, "Choose what's right for you with confidence"

I wonder how many people read the Flick article, saw the fake comments, and decided to go with another power supplier based on those comments. Its a real shame that consumer NZ does not have the balls to publish the offending company.

Yeh - lets ruin her life.

It won't ruin her life. It might actually save her from making more bad decisions later in life and thereby safe us all from the negative consequences.

Public failure is generally best rectified by a public apology no matter what the cause of the transgression is.

quickymart

13709 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1821209 12-Jul-2017 12:19

Something Todd Barclay has yet to pick up on.

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#1821235 12-Jul-2017 13:00

The person was talking about a firm in Asia he was paying to have it's staff write and pots positive reviews for his business on relevant websites, including the review function of his own site, forum websites etc. Like I said it was at least ten years ago, so no doubt you could get away with more than you can now.

My point is really that you can buy online reviews for your product.

Mike

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79016 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1821238 12-Jul-2017 13:05

MikeAqua:

The person was talking about a firm in Asia he was paying to have it's staff write and pots positive reviews for his business on relevant websites, including the review function of his own site, forum websites etc. Like I said it was at least ten years ago, so no doubt you could get away with more than you can now.

My point is really that you can buy online reviews for your product.

Yep, what you're describing is spam, pure and simple. And whatever money this person put into it, was wasted.

My technology disclosure

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#1821242 12-Jul-2017 13:11

Dulouz:

But then again maybe it wasn't a fake review. Maybe she genuinely has issues with Flick and how Consumer does their ratings and wanted to share her views. She then realised the potential conflict of interest and decided to put it right and Sue is just using this to get into the media. I guess we'll never know and probably don't need to.

If it's not fake review, it's still a glaring conflict of interests, especially as it was able to be traced back to the PR Firm.

In Chetwin's article she says the woman initially blustered, then apologised and then broke down. Chetwin is usually pretty implacable in her role (as she should be).

I just read between the lines this is why Chetwin didn't name her (or the company).

I do wonder if someone who couldn't turn on the tears at will and do the chameleon like transition described from bluster, to apology and finally crying would have received the same clemency ...

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1821285 12-Jul-2017 14:32

Dulouz:

Wiggum:

Consumer New Zealand, "Choose what's right for you with confidence"

I wonder how many people read the Flick article, saw the fake comments, and decided to go with another power supplier based on those comments. Its a real shame that consumer NZ does not have the balls to publish the offending company.

Yeh - lets ruin her life.

I'm sure all of have potential to ruin our own lives by lying.

She's been done a huge favour by being let off the hook - and she's done a disservice to her industry by not fessing up, issuing a sincere apology, and taking her licks.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1821577 13-Jul-2017 00:46

I still think that the PR company should be named. But after first offering them a right of reply. This will force the PR company to either admit that they are completely in the wrong, Or force them to issue proceedings against their employee for disobeying company policy, and opening up their company to legal action. As well as PR damage both to themselves and their customers.

A large company - especially one that does PR. Should have robust internal processes to ensure they don't break the law. Including the laws of defamation and libel. And such companies would (or should) have policies around the use of social media by staff.

Also the fact that a simple Google search on that woman's name was enough to link her to the PR company. Implies that She holds quite a high end job there, I very much doubt that She was only employed to do min wage typing or clerical work at that PR firm. And if She actually had a genuine negative experience with Flick Electric, There would be things like powerbills, emails, or telephone call logs ect. To prove that She did interact with Flick beforehand.

I think also that a fake negative review about a competitor company is far worse than a fake positive review about a company that you are employed by / linked to. EG - If I say that "company A gives me excellent service" it would be hard to say that it directly damages company B. Of course it would still be misleading. But if I instead say "company B has completely awful service, so I have now switched to company A" That is a direct attack on company B, which would be outright defamation. Instead of only being misleading.

For the record, Im not intending to imply that fake positive reviews are somehow OK. They are not. But I think that fake negative reviews are far more serious, and there should be serious consequences when they get discovered.

In Australia, Choice (their equivalent to Consumer NZ) discovered that certain models of LG fridges, had devices installed to fake how much electricity they used. My understanding was that it worked by detecting standard test conditions, and disabling some fridge functions to lower power usage. (not doing any defrosting would be an easy method of doing this). To their credit, Choice openly named and shamed LG for faking the power usage of their fridges. I assume that Consumer have full records of exactly what happened. So they should be able to publish those records without any fear of legal action being taken against them.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1821578 13-Jul-2017 00:58

Is not conceivable that, in fact, she posted the comment in her personal capacity from her work (a fairly common occurrence, I am sure) and then someone pointed out that the firm represented the other company? If she was far enough down the totem pole and the firm large enough, it is possible that she would not actually be aware of every client the firm has.

That aside, online reviews should always be taken with a shovel full of salt IMV, especially things like Trip Advisor. Their system is basically a popularity contest. Ask it for the best hotel in Location A and you may well get a $25 backpackers just because more people have given it 5 stars when compared to the Mandarin Oriental in the same place, which quite obviously would beat it in a list of 'best' hotels.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1821579 13-Jul-2017 01:02

Aredwood:

I still think that the PR company should be named. But after first offering them a right of reply. This will force the PR company to either admit that they are completely in the wrong, Or force them to issue proceedings against their employee for disobeying company policy, and opening up their company to legal action. As well as PR damage both to themselves and their customers.

A large company - especially one that does PR. Should have robust internal processes to ensure they don't break the law. Including the laws of defamation and libel. And such companies would (or should) have policies around the use of social media by staff.

Also the fact that a simple Google search on that woman's name was enough to link her to the PR company. Implies that She holds quite a high end job there, I very much doubt that She was only employed to do min wage typing or clerical work at that PR firm. And if She actually had a genuine negative experience with Flick Electric, There would be things like powerbills, emails, or telephone call logs ect. To prove that She did interact with Flick beforehand.

I think also that a fake negative review about a competitor company is far worse than a fake positive review about a company that you are employed by / linked to. EG - If I say that "company A gives me excellent service" it would be hard to say that it directly damages company B. Of course it would still be misleading. But if I instead say "company B has completely awful service, so I have now switched to company A" That is a direct attack on company B, which would be outright defamation. Instead of only being misleading.

For the record, Im not intending to imply that fake positive reviews are somehow OK. They are not. But I think that fake negative reviews are far more serious, and there should be serious consequences when they get discovered.

In Australia, Choice (their equivalent to Consumer NZ) discovered that certain models of LG fridges, had devices installed to fake how much electricity they used. My understanding was that it worked by detecting standard test conditions, and disabling some fridge functions to lower power usage. (not doing any defrosting would be an easy method of doing this). To their credit, Choice openly named and shamed LG for faking the power usage of their fridges. I assume that Consumer have full records of exactly what happened. So they should be able to publish those records without any fear of legal action being taken against them.

Your example of saying "company gives me excellent service" is not really far removed from Brand Ambassadors all over the world who appear in print and TV ads telling you that Brand X is the best etc etc though, is it? Essentially they are paid to do just that - George Clooney and Nespresso, for example, or the All Blacks and a brand of deodorant, or that Kevin bloke who used to be on Fair Go flogging carpets.

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1821591 13-Jul-2017 04:40

Fair Go flogs carpets? I don't watch it much, have they changed tack?

Bung

6354 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1821616 13-Jul-2017 08:39

that Kevin Milne bloke (who used to be on Fair Go) flogging carpets.

Resnick

238 posts

Master Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1821621 13-Jul-2017 08:44

BlinkyBill: Fair Go flogs carpets? I don't watch it much, have they changed tack?

Haha, no It's just that Kevin was doing carpet ads soon after he left Fair Go as a presenter. Possibly so soon after that it could be implied that the Fair Go brand was endorsing said carpet.

quickymart

13709 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1821626 13-Jul-2017 08:58

Actually I saw one of those on a van driving around yesterday, so they're really getting their money's worth out of him :)

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1822183 13-Jul-2017 23:01

Geektastic:

Your example of saying "company gives me excellent service" is not really far removed from Brand Ambassadors all over the world who appear in print and TV ads telling you that Brand X is the best etc etc though, is it? Essentially they are paid to do just that - George Clooney and Nespresso, for example, or the All Blacks and a brand of deodorant, or that Kevin bloke who used to be on Fair Go flogging carpets.

At least in that situation it is obvious that those people are being paid to appear on that advertising.

1 | 2 | 3