Recently I posted "Consumer Trust Eroding In Web Sites? which, among other things, promoted the 10/26/05 C.R. WebWatch Conference on "Trust or Consequence: The Web's Reputation at Risk". I did this because I believe in their overall mission to help all online consumers and users. This, in turn, will help bring long term buyers together with ethical and value driven sellers, in my opinion.
But, any chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So, when I read "Temple: Trust Must Be Earned Not Endorsed" by a RockyMountainNews.com columnist, John Temple, the title caught my eye, as I've posted a lot about TRUST. It turns out that Mr. Temple got a letter from Consumer Reports WebWatch that said: "DEADLINE LAST-CHANCE NOTICE: This ad goes to press immediately. Please note that we need your feedback within the next five business days regarding the placement of your brand name. There is, of course, no charge for this." But, what follows is interesting.
The letter goes on to say: "Should we not receive a prompt response, your company name may appear on our Web site and other communications as a site that has not complied with our guidelines." Now, initially it said: "Consumer Reports WebWatch is going to press with the attached ad to The New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today on/or about October 24, and we wanted to give you the opportunity to have your company's name appear under the 'Trust Worthy' column." Wow, that IS an opportunity! But, to me, the "weak link" who wrote the copy of the letter was kind of doing the old "Mafia Offer" of "making an offer you can't refuse".
Somebody at C.R. Webwatch was using the "carrot" of "have your company's name appear under the 'TRUST WORTHY' column." with the "stick" of "your company name may appear on our Web site and other communications as a site that has NOT COMPLIED WITH OUR GUIDELINES." This whole experience was like "arm twisting" to Mr. Temple who called C.R. WebWatch. After talking with the PR firm for them he says, "Next I heard from the organization's director, Beau Brendler, who thanked me for letting him know about my feelings. He told me that there had been three complaints and 150 signed pledges." (out of 6,000 letters that went out).
Now, I attended one of their Web Credibility Conferences, and there was NO PRESSURE to sign this Pledge. So, I can only assume that a "weak link" at C.R. WebWatch wrote that letter, or the PR firm did. In any case, I don't think it was a deliberate "Do as I say; Not as I do" situation. However, maybe this scenario will cause a closer watch on their own letters that go out, as it did cause Mr. Temple to say: "Sure, consumers need to be wary of the Web sites they deal with. But do we really need "experts" like WebWatch to protect us?" I think we do, to help bring AWARENESS LEVELS UP, but his understandable sarcasm in the online newspaper is part of the new Consumer Generated Media that is growing every day. How would you feel if you got that letter?
Comments