It feels good to be proven right.
A recent study shows that we trust our friends recommendations less and less lately:
In some cases, social networks themselves may be contributing to the decline in trust. Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have allowed people to maintain larger circles of casual associates, which may be diluting the credibility of peer-to-peer networks. In short, the more acquaintances a person has, the harder it can be to trust him or her.
People in the comments are looking for the reason behind this, that the article doesn’t give.
Don’t worry, I’m here to help.
Remember, you heard it from the Owl first.
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
True, true. Two things will probably happen. 1) Some people will develop tools that will make it easier to glean information that you actually want from your social networking. I recently read about one that learns about what you like by what you click on. 2) There will be some sort of informal movement whereby people will lessen their use of these sites. If we all just tweeted in moderation about things that are actually worth tweeting, we could fix this problem and let the cream rise.
Your first point intrigues me, we’ll see.
Regarding your second point….if only!
Regarding my first point…told you so
http://www.google.com/buzz
Touche
Yes and no. To a degree, WOM is diminished because there are now so many mouths out there to listen to, and it’s hard sometimes to know who’s giving an honest bit of info and who’s trying to sell something. That being said, there are people that I know via social media that I trust because I’ve gotten to know them, and I would look to them for advice and recommendations on various things that I know they have a level of expertise in. And I know people do the same for me. I’d like to think that my opinion on technology-related issues is worth something, but I know that same can’t be said for marketing / advertising.
But in that case it’s no different than an offline relationship. Of course trust in authority will still exist, but only the medium is different. The process is the same as offline WOM.
My true point is that the word “friend” has been bastardized. And that’s why online WOM will see a decrease, because our friends online aren’t ranked. To these studies, to the general population, it’s all the same. And that’ when ignoring the noise begins.
Crap. First, Edelman can’t be trusted to conduct a survey that makes them look like the good guy. Second, they overemphasize the idea of “friends”, when they really mean followers or Facebook friends. Of course I don’t trust everyone in my social networks, nor would I consider them even true friends. The line was blurred the second we started adding random people and now the designation has been lost. Third, they mentioned we need to hear things in five places now to believe it. You know how frickin’ easy that is?
Crap!
I don’t care about Edelman. It’s ironic actually that I’m pointing out to them.
Your second point is my true point with both of these posts. Of course I agree. copying my reply to Norcross: “My true point is that the word “friend” has been bastardized. And that’s why online WOM will see a decrease, because our friends online aren’t ranked. To these studies, to the general population, it’s all the same. And that’ when ignoring the noise begins.”
To be honest, I’m just making fun of these studies and our choice of words.
I went back and reread your original post, which I loved and do agree with. But it got me thinking about Facebook, where I stumbled upon this thought: I have to admit that being at liberty to see the types of things people are posting–irrespective of the volume–actually helps me to weed out my friends, rather than marginalizing them all, and in some cases helps me select who to trust. When you have access to the types of things that a person is posting, sending, RTing, saying, etc., you’re almost better able to make a character judgment than you might be if you’re just hanging out at the bar once a week. Do I judge people by what they read? You know I do.
On the flip side, it is easier to fabricate and construct a perceived image of one’s self, which would totally fuck up everything that I just said, but that given, I still think it holds value, because the same can be said for face to face meetings. Unless, of course, I’m wearing a fanny pack. Then the gig is up!
I would reply the same thing: same thing happens in real life. You see what people talk about, what people read, and then you select your friends. Those are still your real friends.
I wouldn’t worry about the image construction. As long as you share online something that I consider valuable, I don’t care if you are not really that guy. You are to me.
So many interesting perspectives. I’m not sure what I’ll add since everyone has said it first. I guess the idea of WOM marketing will rely on how well you can translate your integrity online. Can people trust the source? I ‘m thinking brand building and marketing will become cheap commodities (and, I’m not using the word “cheap” to mean totally inferior or having absolutely no value – but to mean that there will be more of it around and may mean less in a sea of BRANDERS). It’s becoming (perhaps, slowly) more appearant that “trust is the new black” – that will be harder to buy (and find).
I remember a post by Ben Casnocha where he says that people will no longer follow companies, or newspapers, but rather people. those that you have come to trust after some time we’ll be the ones to inform you, tell you what matters, etc. We may be getting there…
The use of the word ‘friend’ is out of context, which has been covered. The nature of WOM is moving from an exploitable digital infancy to the world humans are more comfortable with; one in which they control their front door, and make the amount of friends they’re comfortable making.
For a while these social tools became a playground for inserting influence into previously closed circles. The first evolution in this new form of communication has been to a)empower us to reach more chatter, b)organize our community and chatter, and c)start filtering both. Throughout, we all trusted our best friends (in the real sense of the word) just as much as we did when we were kids. We now have tools to trust unknown sources, if we choose to.
WOM isn’t dead. It’s exactly the same as it’s always been. This was one of the major reasons I got into the project I did; transparency is the ingredient we all needed and will need going forward, because filtering is easy. Filtering will get solved; be it a major platform giant like Google or Facebook, or an upstart that really let’s us sort out the good stuff. It’s the ability to really be honest and forthright in an exchange, so that humans are effectively connected with valuable content, product, ideas, opportunities, friends, etc without wasting a lot of time regretting their decision to go look for those things.
First paragraph: agreed. I’m there. There’s a reason I keep following the same amount of people for a while…
Here’s the problem: “transparency is the ingredient we all needed and will need going forward.”
Transparency also lets mediocrity arise. Mediocre people with mediocre ideas will also share (trying to do good). Transparency may kill quality in a democratic world.
I definitely agree.
I think word of mouth is also declining because people primarily recommend services and programs they have a financial interest in. Bloggers will write a long post about some ebook or membership site that gives them a 51% affiliate question, but very little about products they truly love without the financial incentive.
If Apple computers had an affiliate program everybody would have links on their sites and in their posts.
How much can you trust someone if they are getting paid for the recommendation?
I think I wrote something about why sponsored tweets wouldn’t work. Absolutely agree John.
It’s an interesting point that you make Carlos. My first reaction when I look at someone’s profile, let’s say on facebook for example, and I see they have over 1,000 friends is to immdeiately think that they are superficial, or perhaps not to be trusted as much as someone with, say, 250 friends. I always think that to have that many people means there is no way you have been able to spend significant tme with any of them. It means you just add people that you meet once or twice, or anyone that adds you.
Interesting how something so trivial as a ‘friend’s’ list can affect you psychologically.
In any case, I agree. The word ‘friend’ has been bastardized. I hear people say all the time, ‘this guy is my friend, and that girl is my new best friend’, when they have only seen each other a couple of times. I don’t get it. Do they even really know that person? I wonder…
I do the same thing Gianpaolo
I remember reading The Tipping Point where it said that once communities get bigger than 150 people, we start weakening our ties. I rty to keep my numbers lower than 150 for that reason.