Need to better understand examples of “rewards” vs. “prizes” which can taint the authenticity of a review.

thanks!

@georgia I’ll probably respond in two parts, the second to follow tomorrow. I don’t see rewards or prizes tainting the authenticity of a review as much as cold hard cash. I think the exchange of dollars is understood as contractual employment. If you paid someone to review a product, they’re less likely to be seen as impartial. If you offer prizes for participating in a review, public perception is more likely to see it as simple motivation to get reviewers involved.

And though I lumped in “rewards”, I think we’ve all be trained to see rewards more as membership privileges. If you’re a member, rewards are probably discounts for one thing or another. They’re either earned by repetitive good behavior or they’re just perks for being a member. A prize is more often associated with an actual gift: a product, a free service, a vacation, etc.

Ultimately, the authenticity of reviews shouldn’t be tainted if the company states in clear language that incentives will be awarded regardless of the quality, opinion, or content of each review.

@georgia I’ll probably respond in two parts, the second to follow tomorrow. I don’t see rewards or prizes tainting the authenticity of a review as much as cold hard cash. I think the exchange of dollars is understood as contractual employment. If you paid someone to review a product, they’re less likely to be seen as impartial. If you offer prizes for participating in a review, public perception is more likely to see it as simple motivation to get reviewers involved.

And though I lumped in “rewards”, I think we’ve all be trained to see rewards more as membership privileges. If you’re a member, rewards are probably discounts for one thing or another. They’re either earned by repetitive good behavior or they’re just perks for being a member. A prize is more often associated with an actual gift: a product, a free service, a vacation, etc.

Ultimately, the authenticity of reviews shouldn’t be tainted if the company states in clear language that incentives will be awarded regardless of the quality, opinion, or content of each review.

@georgia, There is one caveat I’d like to add about yesterday’s response. Knowing at least a few blog communities rather well, I can attest to the fact that bloggers who review a product or service and do not acknowledge they were compensated have caused quite a stir at times. This is typically true of the most influential bloggers.

Guy Kawasaki test drove a few high-end automobiles this year and offered raving reviews, causing the public to question whether he was compensated for his endorsements. I saw accusations flying that he was given cars as payment for his reviews, but from what I remember, he denied the accusations.

I know some well respected bloggers in the social media marketing sphere always note whether a review is paid or not. They feel compelled to do so because their reputations are on the line and it’s always easier to keep a reputation good than to repair it.

The need for transparency increases exponentially with popularity and influence in the blogosphere. It’s a well-known and used tactic to blast popular bloggers with accusations, insults, or vehement disagreements in order to build some popularity for one’s own blog. That being the case, there is a need for transparency so one doesn’t become the unnecessary target of an ambitious newbie.

@georgia, There is one caveat I’d like to add about yesterday’s response. Knowing at least a few blog communities rather well, I can attest to the fact that bloggers who review a product or service and do not acknowledge they were compensated have caused quite a stir at times. This is typically true of the most influential bloggers.

Guy Kawasaki test drove a few high-end automobiles this year and offered raving reviews, causing the public to question whether he was compensated for his endorsements. I saw accusations flying that he was given cars as payment for his reviews, but from what I remember, he denied the accusations.

I know some well respected bloggers in the social media marketing sphere always note whether a review is paid or not. They feel compelled to do so because their reputations are on the line and it’s always easier to keep a reputation good than to repair it.

The need for transparency increases exponentially with popularity and influence in the blogosphere. It’s a well-known and used tactic to blast popular bloggers with accusations, insults, or vehement disagreements in order to build some popularity for one’s own blog. That being the case, there is a need for transparency so one doesn’t become the unnecessary target of an ambitious newbie.

Need to better understand examples of “rewards” vs. “prizes” which can taint the authenticity of a review.

thanks!