I would see this as part of an inevitable cause and effect cycle in the marketing environment.
- Faced with an environment where consumers are becoming more informed by the abundance of information available online as well as more suspicious about the validity of claims made by marketers, the consumers respond to a stamp of approval from some independent third party.
- Companies observe this trend and now we have a case where independent third parties are providing questionable impartial verification on customer satisfaction (a difficult thing to measure in the first place).
- Consumers lose faith in the "independent" ratings and rely instead on public opinion.
- Companies observe this trend and either pay reviewers to give good reviews or submit false reviews themselves (see this New York Times article)
The vicious cycle continues and companies need to draw an ethical line in the sand. Do they refuse to lie and possibly lose market share?
The question that intrigues me is "What is step 5?"
I believe it will still have a lot to do with recommendations, but not the kind of endorsement that a national cricketer gives to a mobile phone company. I am talking about the kind of support that your best friend gives to their favourite beer. Or the nod of approval that your son's best friend's mum gives to the headache tablets she is using. Positive reinforcement of products from people with whom you have a pre-existing relationship, nods of approval granted within small tribes.
The question now becomes, how are companies going to treat / amaze / enchant / awe these customers so that they are compelled to tell someone?
