What if the "consumer making a buying decision" doesn't exist?

[AuntieEmma[$]]

A lot of the discussions here are based on the premise that reviews on epinions should be aimed at the "consumer making buying decisions." From that premise, it follows that writers are wasting consumers' time if (1) They ramble, free-associate, and brainstorm into the input box without making any effort to organize their thoughts, or (2) They produce "creative writing" primarily meant to entertain other members, or (3) They write things that are off-topic.

That seems to make a lot of sense, but ... what if the premise is wrong?

What if there aren't any "consumers making buying decisions" reading the reviews?

Then, whose time is being wasted? Isn't the writer's time being wasted by catering to an audience that doesn't exist?

My sense is that there are only a small number of categories in Epinions that "consumers" use to "make buying decisions."

All the people that I know who are non-members of Epinions that use Epinions -- or any online resources, for that matter -- to make "buying decisions" do so only when they're buying big-ticket items -- appliances, electronic equipment, that kind of thing.

I don't know -- and can't even imagine -- anyone trying to decide whether they should have lunch at McDonald's or at Burger King feeling that they should do some online research first. Same thing for whether they should buy "Time" instead of "Newsweek," or "Hustler" instead of "Playboy."

In fact, it seems to me that the vast majority of categories on Epinions -- and thus, the vast majority of reviews -- are unlikely to be consulted by any "consumers" with the purpose of "making buying decisions." That's my impression anyway. Agree? Disagree?

If I am right, though, then is there any point in aiming reviews at a non-existent audience beyond a sort of wistful if-you-build-it-they-will-come attitude?

[Alawston]

I don't know. I see your point, but there's been quite a few times when I've decided to go and buy a book, thought 'Must find new author' and seen what my favourite reviewers are reading.

True, I then go out to Waterstones and buy it there, but hey.

One big clue to the plausibility of the Epinions premise might be here. My brother writes music reviews as Divine_Cheese. I was utterly impressed with one of them, and clicked on a 'buy this item' thing from his review, WITHOUT TELLING HIM.

He didn't get any IS for that review that month, or the next, despite his article being the ONLY factor in my decision.

It seems clear to me that Epinions is after the heavy traffic rather than fussy consumers.

Andrew

[frazzledspice]

I am much more likely to look at Epinions before getting a book or a CD.

People buy many more CD's and books than they do computers.

I did buy Tivo as a birthday present for my husband after reading bankrott's epinion. We even chatted about it.

When I bought my last cell phone, I was in the Sprint PCS store. My previous cell phone's adaptor had broken, and they no longer made the adaptor (talk about planned obsolescence.)

When I discovered this, I bought a new cell phone. Didn't look at any Epinions. Just said, "Show me what all the ones that cost under $100 do."

My husband bought me a Hewlett-Packard combination printer/fax/scanner for Christmas. I didn't look at any Epinions. We were in Best Buy or Circuit City and I saw this printer/fax/scanner for a great price. Our current printer was old, attached to our old computer. Our current fax uses those film cartridges that cost $13 and only give you 100 pages of copies.
There were about three different models.

Now when I buy technological equipment, I am very different from most technological reviewers (particularly software reviewers.) I know that "powerful" means "complicated."

Take "Finale", for example (musical composition program.) So what if it's the best? Does that matter if it takes a year to learn the darn thing?

What I want is something that is only as "powerful" as I need it to be, because I don't want any more "complications" than I have to have.

As far as click-through buys go, I don't know if I've ever clicked through and bought something after looking at an Epinion.

I usually go to a rebate site and click through from the rebate site if I shop online. And if I am buying something technological, I usually buy it in a bricks and mortar store.

Back when Naval was still the CEO of Epinions, a group of members chatted with him.

I said, "When companies advertise in magazines, TV, newpapers or radio, there isn't any way that they can ascertain how many times their ads or commercials led to a direct purchase. Why should it be any different with Epinions?"

If Epinions is just a big combination of affiliate sites, and if they only get compensated for ads when people make purchases, they are in big trouble.

Even the "buy it here for "X", buy it here for "Y", buy it here for "X plus Y", which is a big help, doesn't really always lead to a purchase.

If I see "buy it at Half.com for $7", I go to ebates, click for my rebate, and go into Half.com

If I see "buy it at B&N for $10," I do the same thing.

If I see "buy it at Amazon for the lowest price" I might click through Epinions, since Amazon isn't affiliated with rebate sites. That's one reason I hardly ever shop at Amazon.

[susanwhipple]

Overheard at work:

Two employees, a new mom of twins and a very proud and involved grandma discussing the products associated with babyhood...
Grandma: "and we looked on Epinions.com and they listed this one as very safe compared to the others."


I think they were talking about car seats. It was such a weird rush to hear it . Wish I had the nerve to interupt and ask what she thought of the site.

[mrisch[$]]

I agree - that's why IS is down...

[jsgoddess]

Whenever I read reviews I'm using Epinions as a consumer--that's why I rarely read reviews in areas where I don't consume.

Of course, there are some items that, in general, lend themselves more to one-review-buying decisions. I could go see a movie based on a well-written review, and often do.

I could buy a book based on one as well, and have done so.

I find new authors through Epinions, though I usually find them at the library rather than buying the books.

So, we have met the consumer and it is us.

Julie

[susanwhipple]

Originally posted by jsgoddess

So, we have met the consumer and it is us.

Julie

And it is people exactly like us, with the minor exception of either having the time or the desire to write product reviews.

I get, on the average, about 6 emails a week from people not a part of epinions. They surf in, looking for something, and then write me to ask me other things (whether that be about the artist or the product).

In a couple cases where we've written back and forth, I've asked why it is they decided to find my email address and write me. Every single one of them has said that my friendly and real life approach in my reviews made them feel like they got email me and I'd answer them. That's one of the reasons why I preamble and add my own life idiosyncracies to my reviews (and the other reason is that, it's a habit that's too hard to break!).

I do think that consumers are using the site for advice.

What I don't think is happening is that they are using it to make their direct purchase.

And maybe, just like someone else suggested, this is the fundamental flaw in epinions business plan. With that said, how could they generate the appropriate revenue to stand out above the other places that offer product advice?

[29th_Candidate]

Originally posted by kristinafh
"With that said, how could they generate the appropriate revenue to stand out above the other places that offer product advice?"

By (EP's) marketing to its strengths; not acting as though it's embarrassed of them. By EP's refraining from foolishly wasting its precious time and resources attempting to beat, or even compete with the other guys at THEIR game; it doesn't have to. Why would a talented hockey player attempt to farm out his basketball-dribbling prowess and hoop-shooting skills to compete for a starting position on a basketball team that's three or four players deep at each position, when the city's equally popular hockey team needs players at every position?

Nirav may be, (and I realize this could be wild speculation, but just in case it isn't,) sacrificing the company's (as I see it) primary strength; its "trustworthy" (i.e., to be personal and human, thus "real," if not necessarily as "informative,") touch," because he feels more comfortable dealing with his computer and statistical computer-generated info, (i.e., the competition's main strength.) If this is so, even remotely, then perhaps Nirav might be wise to consider "takin' one for the team," so to speak; --hiring an advisor or two whose area of strength is "puck-handling," not "ball-dribbling," so that he and EP might exploit this area of strength, one for which his competition has no apparent defense, and thereby exploit his "computer-voiced" competition's Achille's heel, rather than be annihilated attempting an ill-advised frontal assault.

There was a time not long ago, when people would have laughed at you if you told them you were going to make a fortune "brokering information." The ones who didn't laugh, went off and began multi-billion dollar corporations; the ones currently "brokering information." The genius of "Madison Avenue" lies not so much in its ability to exploit media to show potential-consumers WHY they (i.e., the consumers) need a product, but rather in its ability to show them THAT they need a product (at all.) When millions of fools ran out and bought "pet rocks," or "mood rings," do you think any one of them asked himself, "why do I need (or even want) this crap?" My point is simply that people imagine 95% of their "needs;" (ask any "reformed pack-rat.") Madison Avenue just presumes to help people assume we "need to consume" and consume, and consume, until we are consumed by our own consumption. Though Madison Avenue would have you believe that it appeals to a consumer's needs, the truth is, it appeals to a consumer's imagination. It invents a need where none before existed, then, with the invisible stealth of "frost at midnight.. ...performing its secret ministry, unseen by eyes..." (Coleridge/"Frost At Midnight") it suggestively, enticingly enlists you, by way of your imagination, to be its most persuasive advocate.

So-- What does all this drivel have to do with epinions'...

"...generat(ing) the appropriate revenue to stand out above the other places that offer product advice?"

I'd tell you, but...

[WARNING: Not particularly subtle point about to piledrive your frontal lobe through the back of your cranium! Please proceed with caution... Ready? Here it comes... 3... 2... 1... a-a-a-a-a-nd, CUE'EM!]

...hey, --do you *REALLY* NEED or trust me, your "flesh-and-blood," "non-corporate," non-interest-conflicted," next-door neighborly, "horse-sensible," ultra consumerly-helpful "provincial-politician;" 29th_Tom "SCADS" Sawyer sellin' you on matters of this whitewashian nature?

Heck... with all those trustworthy, "non-hidden-agenda'd," "genuinely-concerned about your welfare; couldn't care less about your money," Honest-Abe-in-Illinois-the-crap-out-of-you, personal-warmth-radiatin', "hands-on-experiential, "Father-Knows-Beastial," "info sans techno babbalese-offerin'," corporate-sponsored product information provider websites alternatives beating down your front door, I didn't really think so either.

--Your Bandwidth-Jumping-On, White-Space-White-Washin',
--29th

[Insufferable, Impenitent Arrogance] P.S. --Nirav, after you read this, I welcome you to give me a ring (I mean on the phone) if you'd like to have anything I've hereinbefore, thereinbefore, (or anywhere-nearinbefore) discussed, translated back into semi-coherent Corporate-Babbalese, SCADSAT-ese, Legal-Jargonese, Boilerplate-ese, Boolean, Wooly-Boolean, Boolsheddese, Ahmdownahnmahhanzanese, Ennahmjezzbaconbaconyooplese, Nevuhevuhdissuhgrese, Alwazewillingtoappese, Juhzwuhnnuhputchoowadese Ahthingkahmterninjapanese, ("Ahreallythingseauthingseauthingseau dialect" only) or Parisian French. [/Insufferable, Impenitent Arrogance]

(Pardon my html tags if they didn't properly parse; I'm all "tongues" when it comes to translating Hypertextmarkuplanguage-ese.) (Just kidding)

[aggiebrett]

Jim ("29th") is right. Psychotic, but absolutely right.

Epinions, Inc. truly seems to be frittering away its greatest strength in downplaying the "personality" of its reviewers in favor of encouraging the brownshirts and good squads of the site to go out and administer a beat-down to anyone who DARES to do something OTHER than post a list of pros and cons using small words and flavorless prose.

I have never — NEVER — used Epinions as a buying guide, and the reason is very simple: I don't truly trust you people enough to make my buying decisions for me. I can see how I might one day <i>consider</i> the opinions of a few people, sometimes, for specific sorts of purchases, but for the sort of non-essential stuff I most often buy (music, books, movie tickets), I rely far more heavily upon the recommendations and discoveries of my friends.

When I read music reviews on Epinions.com, I almost always start by heading to the homepage of a few trusted Pinheads whose tastes and personalities mesh with my own somehow. And the only way I can effectively and accurately determine when and if this "meshing" takes place is to get a handle on a writer's true personality and way of thinking.

For THAT reason, I am almost always far more influenced and impressed by a review that drips with passion than I am by a dry rote by-the-numbers description of the songs and lyrics.

First, show me THAT you feel, then make me understand WHAT you feel and WHY, and then maybe — MAYBE — I'll "agree" to walk side by side with you for a while as we share some bit of ourselves with one another, swapping tunes and stories and bits of our soul.

That's not something that I can get from a stupid damned Excel-driven spreadsheet, nor is it something that has much statistical relevance or can be easily manipulated and quantified.

Amazon's system actually does a pretty good job of recommending titles that echo my established listening/buying patterns, but I find that their recs are often a little too predictable, and for every three CDs they recommend to me (and which I often already own, verifying/validating the accuracy of their system!), there will be one CD they pimp to me that I know full well I'd not like in the least. As good as they are, they still miss badly on a significant number of recommendations to me. Additionally, the algorithm is NOT going to kick out a seemingly random "out of left field" recommendation based upon the fact that it knows I liked the particular tone of two songs on some out of print CD I heard in a friend's car. A computer can't make the same sort of well-educated random guess that one of my friends (online or real-world) can after we've communicated back and forth about what we're digging and why.

Contrary to what many people might suggest or prefer, "The Consumer" simply doesn't exist as a monolithic entity with one set of rules for determining what is truly "Helpful" or why. If Epinions (AND its more aggressively close-minded users) ever snapped to that obvious fact, the site might be able to take better advantage of its innate "humanity." Instead, a frightening number of people (both in the user base and in the ranks of management) seem hell-bent to scrub out and wash away all possible hints of that shaggy humanity, preferring that all data points fit neatly onto a pre-determined curve, individuality be damned.

IMO, this is a shamefully short-sighted and ultimately destructive attitude, for both the company and the community of Epinions. What makes Epinions so potentially useful is the same thing that makes it so interesting and (often) so infuriating: all those varied voices singing a different tune and spouting contradictory views. Expecting or demanding that everyone come to the party with the same hopes and desires and tastes and intentions and perspectives seems not just unrealistic; it seems boring in the extreme.

And them's <i>my</i> thoughts.
.
.
.
B

[29th_Candidate]

That played like a symphony, Brett...

Can you email me the mp3, please?

[jeff_wilder78]

Originally posted by aggiebrett
Contrary to what many people might suggest or prefer, "The Consumer" simply doesn't exist as a monolithic entity with one set of rules for determining what is truly "Helpful" or why. If Epinions (AND its more aggressively close-minded users) ever snapped to that obvious fact, the site might be able to take better advantage of its innate "humanity." Instead, a frightening number of people (both in the user base and in the ranks of management) seem hell-bent to scrub out and wash away all possible hints of that shaggy humanity, preferring that all data points fit neatly onto a pre-determined curve, individuality be damned.

IMO, this is a shamefully short-sighted and ultimately destructive attitude, for both the company and the community of Epinions. What makes Epinions so potentially useful is the same thing that makes it so interesting and (often) so infuriating: all those varied voices singing a different tune and spouting contradictory views. Expecting or demanding that everyone come to the party with the same hopes and desires and tastes and intentions and perspectives seems not just unrealistic; it seems boring in the extreme.

And them's <i>my</i> thoughts.
.
.
.
B [/b]

Brett (and Jim) nailed it perfectly. The Epinions management is stuck on a litany of 1-track thinking, the exact same litany that killed Writtenbyme. That litany may eventually be the death of Epinions, if the management (and certain members) doesn't get its act together soon.

Let's consider this for a minute: What exactly <I>is</I> a review and what is just more or less listing facts about the product?

In my opinion, a review always combined two things: the essential details needed to understand the product and the reviewer's reaction to the product as well the audience whom the reviewer felt the product was most approrpiate for. In other words, a piece that listed a good amount of fact that was balanced out by a good amount of opinion.

Now let's look at some of the categories on Epinions. We'll start off with one of the two I'm most active in: Movies (music being the other).

Look at how a professional reviewer like Roger Ebert reviews a movie. He tells you about the movie sure. But his reviews are not just ones that summarize the plot and say whether or not it's good or bad. He adds wit and humor and often discusses other issues in the context of the review. Thus by reading his reviews, you often get a good sense of Roger Ebert the man and who he is, as well as his opinion of the movie in question. His types of reviews are, I'm sorry to say, not the kind of ones the Epinions management (and those select members) want in their database right now.

Now if I wanted just a basic summary of a movie, I could just log on to the Internet Movie Database and look it up there. But if I want to get a series of varied reactions to the movie, Epinions (or if I'm looking to read one of Ebert's reviews, the Chicago Sun-Times) is my first stop.

Same goes for music and books. The best kinds of reviewers in those categories are the ones who can crank out reviews that tell as much about themselves ane entertain as much as they tell about the product and inform.

(One Note: I don't mean to offend anyone (if I do, I apologize). But it seems like many of the people who are the tightest sticklers for the so-called "rules" are most active in the Kids And Family area.)

Unfortunately Epinions management and some of those sticklers don't get it. They are going on a misguided notion that the really "Helpful" reviews are the ones that just list the facts about the product and nothing more. If that's the case, what Epinions should do is just eliminate the reviews and put up links to the company's respective websites. That would eliminate the middle man. Of course, they would have to come up with some way of getting people to click the links to the shopping areas and actually buy the products. What Epinions wants is a shopping portal masquerading as a product review site.

Wake up sticklers! Wake up Epinions management! That is NOT going to work!

What will work is highlighting the types of reviews I discussed above and get some editors/TRs who really know what to do (Some of the ones we have now do fall into that category) with them, instead of tosssing around "the rules". It would work, the site would draw in a lot more shoppers and you could MAYBE move toward starting to turn a decent profit. But if all you want are third-rate hacks to write silly blurb reviews, you're not going to get very far.

Nobody's going to stick around if all Epinions is is a glorfied add billboard.

[29th_Candidate]

jeff_wilder78:

Your post summarizes my latest review. Needless to say, I found its arguments compelling; its logic irrefutable, its conclusions... well, I hope Nirav is open-minded enough to consider what you, Brett and I have attempted to articulate here.

I would like someone who has read this string's posts; who considers our logic flawed or specious, to step up and present his or her view, taking care to detail the arguments she/he uses to support that view, because I may be too biased by my own personal experiences and beliefs to see the broader picture (if there is one.)


Nirav:

Your thoughts?

With Constructive Intentions,

--29th

[susanwhipple]

I respectfully submit that all "sticklers" do not overlap with all "people who list just the facts". There is some overlap, but you can not draw a conclusion from that.

There are many people you might consider 'sticklers for the rules' (I say might because I have no idea how rigid your definition is of that term) who consistantly give their opinion of the product.

Personally, I can only read people who let me know, in some way, if I would like the product or not, not just if they liked it. I can't know that without getting some idea of their tastes, personality...

I don't think that beieving in: rating by the guidelines, posting on this site within the TOS, having only one account, staying on-topic, and not posting someone else's material without proper notation has anything to do with what or how someone writes .

I often get the impression that some people feel that there are only 2 types of people on Epinions, either you:

1) write creatively and don't follow rules if you don't like them

2) follow all the rules, but write cookie cutter drivel

[aggiebrett]

Originally posted by susanwhipple
I often get the impression that some people feel that there are only 2 types of people on Epinions, either you:

1) write creatively and don't follow rules if you don't like them

2) follow all the rules, but write cookie cutter drivel

I don't think that *I* have ever said or suggested such a thing — at least, I certainly hope not, since that would be a painfully simplistic and inaccurate generalization.

People come to Epinions.com for all sorts of reasons and with all sorts of agendas and needs, which is EXACTLY why I've wondered how or why anyone could seriously expect or demand this weird wild crowd to be able to consistently rate on such a subjective scale as "helpfulness."

What's even more disturbing (and destructive), however, is the way this error has been seized upon by a certain segment of the community as tacit "authorization" to demand that others adhere to any one interpretation of "what is 'helpful'?"

Oh well.



B

[29th_Candidate]

Originally posted by susanwhipple
I respectfully submit that all "sticklers" do not overlap with all "people who list just the facts". There is some overlap, but you can not draw a conclusion from that.

Hello Susan--

I respectfully accept your submission, and in the same spirit of respectful candor, I assure you that if, for some reason, I have given the impression summarized by you in the paragraph above, I am genuinely unaware as to why that might be. My position is, and has always been, (and was in fact, the motivation for my sponsorship of the SCADS W-O) that one could operate well within the EP T.O.S. parameters and still generate a product review that wasn't merely a bandwidth-wasting "virtual conduit" for mindlessly transferred product facts which no consumer in her right mind would seek from a 3rd-hand information source, where said facts were as or more accessible from their 1st and 2nd-hand sources.

[i]There are many people you might consider 'sticklers for the rules' (I say might because I have no idea how rigid your definition is of that term) who consistantly give their opinion of the product. [/b]

I appreciate your inclusion of that parenthetical qualifier, because I consider myself one of those very "sticklers" to whom you here, refer. I also, am firmly of the opinion that I consistently give the opinion of the product; this, despite any reputation for creative review-writing I have, that might appear to refute it.

[i]Personally, I can only read people who let me know, in some way, if I would like the product or not, not just if they liked it. I can't know that without getting some idea of their tastes, personality...[/b]

This we have in common, Susan.

[i]I don't think that beieving in: rating by the guidelines, posting on this site within the TOS, having only one account, staying on-topic, and not posting someone else's material without proper notation has anything to do with what or how someone writes . [/b]

This belief we also have in common.

[i]
I often get the impression that some people feel that there are only 2 types of people on Epinions, either you:

1) write creatively and don't follow rules if you don't like them

2) follow all the rules, but write cookie cutter drivel
[/b]

Unfortunately, your impression is not entirely without merit; but like any fatally-flawed over-generalization, there is an element of truth to it. The element of truth exists, not so much because those categorizations are mutually exclusive, nor because people lack the imagination or skill to follow all the rules AND write creatively, but rather (I believe) it stems from a poorly-worded "cookie-cutter" policy that trickled down from the management of the word-tah-yah-mutha-site <i>(pardon the colloquialism, but the urge was too irresistable.)</i>

I first recall seeing it during January or February 2001, when a reviewer left, as her justification for an NH rating on a competent, yet creative review, a comment quoting Nirav in, what I recall, was his second or third chat. Though I never read or attended one of those chats, the grader's quoted comment seemed so... well, let's not discuss that. Suffice to say that I had to read through the chat to verify for myself, that the reviewer had not made it up. Nirav denies having said it, but I copied it directly from the community chat, to use for future, humor-related purposes.

The person querying Nirav (in the chat) who I believe was BoXny SXXXXs, had asked Nirav whether a review should be downgraded for being written in an artistic or creative manner. Nirav appeared to try to avoid addressing the question as it was asked, I would venture because the terms "creative" and "artistic" were too overbroad and vague for him to use to articulate what would have perhaps been such a sweeping and spontaneous policy edict. Nonetheless, he appeared anxious to address the issue it represented. The response I recall reading was: <i>(approximately)

"The truly helpful product review is one in which the reviewer provides scads of useful product information, calculated to help the consumer make better buying decisions." </i>

There was more, but the gist seemed to opine that arty, creative, or "personal" reviews were not particularly useful vehicles of helpful product info transmission. I believe this vague enunciation of policy, went a long way towards polarizing the community in terms of the dichotomy you outlined in the paragraph above.

--29th

[jeff_wilder78]

Originally posted by susanwhipple

I don't think that beieving in: rating by the guidelines, posting on this site within the TOS, having only one account, staying on-topic, and not posting someone else's material without proper notation has anything to do with what or how someone writes .wtf:

No it doesn't. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Hell most of the best writers on that site believe in that! Even some of the ones that do push the envelope ocasionally.

I often get the impression that some people feel that there are only 2 types of people on Epinions, either you:

1) write creatively and don't follow rules if you don't like them

2) follow all the rules, but write cookie cutter drivel

[/b]

Yes there are some people who do feel that way. That perception is inaccurate. Part of that perception could be attributed to a certain (very small) segment of the populace that can't seem to get a joke. Not necessarily their fault. But more the fault of a management that isn't sure about the level of helpfulness in a review (as Jim explained accurately in his response).

About a year ago, Epinions added some new categories. Some categories that seemed somewhat out of place as far as serious consumer information goes (IE: How To Choose Socks, How to Care For And Maintain Garden Hoes, How To Choose Cereals). It was apparent to most people that those categories could easily be summed up in about 100 words and some people took to treating them as more or less jokes (which is what they basically were).

That wasn't surprising (and it produced some hilarious writing. If you haven't read Sloucho's socks piece I recommend doing so). What surprised me was that a few people actually seemed to take those categories <I>seriously</I> and lower-rated pieces that were writen in a spirit of fun. There were only a few that did that. But the mere thought of that was surprising.

There was also the addition of rather vague member advice categoires (Such as the Major Performers categories in music). How to rate in categories like that is somewhat hard to decide, since they are more or less just for generally commentary. But I have seen a few instances of Major Performers essays get rated down because they were about a specific performer and not general Major Performers in Rock.

I can't really think of how to sum it up as well as Jim did. I'll just say that if Epinions wants to really get the bodies in, they should promote the reviews that entertain and inform.