Unmasked: Secrets of the online review sites
You book a holiday based on a flattering write- up... but can you trust it?
AROUND £23billion of consumer spending a year, on everything from travel to electronics, is triggered after people read favourable online reviews. But these reviews cannot always be trusted. Here, The Mail on Sunday looks at how online shoppers are being manipulated.
SHOPPERS are often unknowingly swayed by technology savvy companies when they buy online – with their custom netted through the use of sophisticated and crafty marketing tactics.
Worse, some fall for illegal tricks such as the posting of fake reviews or false claims about financial protection. The following ways in which companies jostle for attention on the web are now under the spotlight.
FLAWED OR FAKE?
GUY Anker, of consumer website Money Saving Expert, says: ‘Millions rely on customer review sites when booking holidays, shopping and eating out. They are seen as a filter for people to circumvent firms’ cunning advertising tactics and find the truth about that item or service.’
But fabricated reviews and paidfor endorsements which do not make clear to customers that money has changed hands have prompted the Competition and Markets Authority, a regulator with the power to fine, to look closely at such practices. It says both reviews and endorsements have the potential ‘to mislead consumers and distort their decisions’.
Concerns include companies creating fake reviews – resulting in positive feedback for their own services but negative comments for rivals – and review websites ‘cherrypicking’ or omitting comments depending on how they want a particular business to be perceived. Some websites are fighting back and have introduced systems to weed out fake feedback.
Reviews website Trip Advisor says it has a ‘zero-tolerance policy’ towards fake reviews and threatens people who abuse the system with penalties. Users have the option to report inappropriate reviews but the website admits ‘no system is perfect’.
Anker adds: ‘Anyone who adds fake reviews should be condemned. They risk killing trust in the whole review system and therefore ruining one of the great benefits of the internet.’
The CMA has published guidelines on reviews that businesses should adhere to. It is currently investigat- ing companies that have failed to disclose when an endorsement has been paid for.
Reviews are thought to prompt an estimated £14.4billion of spending in the travel and hotels sector alone. And some businesses are harnessing the power of reviews by hiring ‘online reputation management services’.
One such service, Reputation.com, offers to put businesses’ reputation management on ‘cruise control’ by collecting positive reviews – from genuine customers – and sending a wash of them on to review websites to counterbalance any previous negative reviews or complaints. It says that after three months the average Reputation.com customer sees a 600 per cent increase in online reviews, ‘almost all of them positive’.
MARKETING TACTICS
COMPANIES now compete to be at the top of the list for internet searches. They do this because most shoppers look no further. But people can be duped. This is the view of 64year-old Stephen Sykes when he entered the obscure world of online advertising.
Three years ago the retired investment analyst bought a 17th Century property in the Furness region of the Lake District with his wife Janine, 62, a retired optometrist.
Their home stands in two acres of grounds and offers panoramic views across the Rusland Valley to the Coniston Fells. It was also the last home of English writer Arthur Ransome, author of the Swallows And Amazons book series for children.
Part of their home has been converted into self-catering guest accommodation, which they let to tourists. But after looking for ways to promote the business, they came across inconsistencies in how their property was marketed by one of the companies they advertised with.
The couple paid £430 to advertise the accommodation for one year on Holiday Lettings, a subsidiary of the reviews website TripAdvisor. As part of the deal, they agreed to handle bookings themselves. The alternative was paying no fee upfront but giving Holiday Lettings 3 per cent to manage bookings. Customers also paid the website a fee for using this second option.
It was only after handing over their money the couple discovered a problem. Two results would appear on Google when someone searched for Holiday Lettings. The top link, a sponsored advert and most likely to be clicked on, showed a restricted number of properties, while the second showed more options.
For the top link, only properties where Holiday Lettings handled the bookings were shown. The second link – which listed the couple’s home – included all other properties. Stephen says he struggles to see what advertisers like him are get-
ting for their fee if they are treated as second-class customers.
He adds: ‘I think it is unfair. One version of the website promotes only those properties which can be booked directly through Holiday Lettings, meaning owners who have paid up-front for an advert are disadvantaged. The consumer is unknowingly offered a limited and biased choice designed to profit the company.’
The Sykeses took their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, which initially agreed with the couple. But after the case was reviewed by a separate panel of ‘industry experts’ the complaint was dismissed.
Holiday Lettings states that visitors to the site via the sponsored link do ‘not necessarily always access a limited version of the site’. Different versions of the website would appear to searchers depending on different factors ‘including how they arrived at the site’.
Promoting companies that make more profit for a website is common, but in some cases the websites have been forced to change their habits.
Last year price comparison websites were rapped for hiding some of the best energy deals available in favour of suppliers they received commission from.
People switching energy providers online would not necessarily have known that ticking a box to see deals available for switching to straight away meant a restricted list of deals from suppliers with commercial ties to the website. As a result, energy regulator Ofgem tightened its rules for its list of approved comparison websites, which includes Money-Supermarket and uSwitch, banning them from doing this.
FALSE PROTECTION
ANY company claiming to be part of an association or regulated by an official organisation could simply be lying. Investors, in particular, should double check whether a company claiming to be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority actually is, by checking register. fca.org.uk.
Meanwhile, the Advertising Standards Authority keeps a list of online advertisers who are not playing by the rules. For example, the website Cheapflightscorner is listed for falsely implying membership of the Travel Trust Association, which offers financial protection to consumers.