A Look at Belkin Mechanical Turk Response

by Daniel Dessinger on January 23, 2009

belkinCrunchGear.com reported on Belkin’s response to last weekend’s “shilling fiasco”. You can read Belkin’s full response to the public here, but we’re just going to take a quick look at the steps Belkin’s president, Mark Reynoso, claims the company is taking.

But first, a fair warning to CrunchGear: Had you missed it on this one, you’d have a reputation crisis of your own. Pointing out individuals/companies without factual verification is opening the door to potential error, lawsuits, and damage to one’s reputation. A easy solution for this is to liberally apply the word “allegedly”: “So and so allegedly paid users to give positive reviews.” That is easier to swallow, because it communicates that you have not verified the information yet, but are passing along the rumor.

Having said that, let’s take a look at Belkin’s public statement about the Mechanical Turk fiasco:

We want to stress that this is an isolated incident and to re-instill trust with you, we have taken the following courses of action:

- We’ve acted swiftly to remove all associated postings from the Mechanical Turk system.

- We’re working closely with our online channel partners to ensure that any reviews that may have been placed due to these postings have been removed.

It’s also important to recognize that our retail partners had no knowledge of, or participation in, these postings.

Once again, we apologize for this occurrence, and we will work earnestly to regain the trust we have lost.

Sincerely,

Mark Reynoso

President, Belkin

Belkin offered

  1. Humility
  2. Acknowledgment of the need for rebuilding trust
  3. Removal of ads
  4. Removal of paid recommendations
  5. Protection of partners’ reputations
  6. Sincere, straightforward apology
  7. Humility (again)
  8. Addressed by President of the company

Time will tell how effective this strategy was, but I commend Belkin for conducting reputation repair from a non-defensive posture. Some executives have an irrational sense of “no one can touch me” syndrome, which will ultimately lead to even hairier scenarios before all is said and done. The attitude of Belkin’s reply is commendable, though the scope or reach of its message may not be able to compete with the reach of its crisis. Ultimately, the news of a scandal spreads faster and farther than an apology or a retraction.

Lesson learned? Proactive reputation monitoring and building would have caught this fiasco within the first hour of posting, and could have prevented most, if not all, of the damage done.

Are you paying attention? THIS is why you can’t afford to assume it won’t happen to you. This is why you can’t afford to wait until something bad happens. Repair is more expensive and costly than building.

Popularity: 28% [?]

Share and Enjoy:
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • IndianPad
  • LinkedIn
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • email
  • Fark
  • MySpace
  • Print
  • SphereIt
  • Sphinn
  • Technorati
  • Twitter

Tagged as: belkin, crunchgear, repair

  • Jeff
    How much did they pay you to write this positive review of their response? Unfortunately, anything positive related to this company is tainted when a scam like this is exposed. I am sure you are on the level but who knows? Anyway, do we really believe this employee was paying for these post out of his own pocket? The public should demand independently verified expense reports for the now two individuals involved and expose who approved those expenses if any.
  • Interesting question, Jeff - one you might also level at me on my site. I often comment on positive (and negative) handling of online reputation issues.

    I can't speak for Dan, but there's no pay-off going on when I write about a company (heck, I won't even have Google ads on my site because I think they totally compromise the value of information presented).

    I do it because it interests me, because I have expertise in that area and because the blogging platform allows me to create content that will bring in readers and/or potential prospects.

    That said, Dan, Jeff's question is a valid one. I came here today via a Tweet you sent me a little while back commenting on a post I made about the basics of online reputation management.

    You pointed out that my post listed 'reactive' steps to managing a reputation online and that you took a 'pro-active' approach with your clients.

    I'm interested whether you think Jeff's question needs a response (from your own online reputation point of view)? My advice to clients would be that it does.

    In response to your Tweet, I also take a 'pro-active' approach with my clients - but have you noticed how very few actually become clients on a 'pro-active' sell? Most people that I work with come to me when they're in pain - when they've been stung, and it hurts. Up til that point, ORM is a bit 'academic'.

    Does your experience bear that out? Or are your clients forward thinking enough to hire you before they run into any issues?
  • Sam, I typed out a long response and it was erased by my lovely browser.

    Let me just say that my point to you was that we set the standard with what we write. Lists of how to repair reputation are fine if presented as reputation repair. To call these lists "how to's" for ORM is misleading, because ORM is not reactive only.

    I have had clients that are proactive, and clients that are reactive. There are surely far more reactive companies out there looking for solutions, but they are not the only ones.

    I provide several web marketing services, which allows me the opportunity to explain proactive ORM to clients originally interested only in SEO, PPC, blog consulting, or social media marketing. Not everyone can see beyond their assigned budget, and not everyone is willing to spend marketing dollars as an investment. Such is life. We wouldn't have thought leaders if everyone were equally stategically involved.

    To sell any client, I listen to them first. I want to know who they are, what they want, and what they think they need. This frequently opens doors for me to introduce strategies and insights they weren't anticipating, and sometimes I just plant the seed for them to think about. But ultimately, I only present services that guard, protect, and build my clients' businesses, so there's no ultimate logical reason to not buy into what I tell them.

    In a much less shady way, it's like selling life and health insurance to newlyweds. Not everyone will take the bait, but those who do are prepared and face life's challenges with more confidence. And the costs are minimal when compared to the costs they avoid.

    As for blogging with or without ads on your site, that is a personal choice for each person to make. If I provide value to other marketers who then repeat what I've said to their prospects, I don't mind making a little profit from their visit. There's a "moral highground" some people take in every industry, claiming to be purists of some sort or another, which may or may not be true, and ultimately proves nothing because every person's motivations are uniquely their own.

    I watch prime time television. The ads shown during these shows may or may not have any relevance to my life, but their presence doesn't detract from the quality of the show. Ads are ads. When it comes to blogging, the presence of ads does not change the quality of content one writes. Their presence can be more or less distracting, but the written content is what it is, no matter what. I see no reason to believe otherwise.
  • "I’m interested whether you think Jeff’s question needs a response (from your own online reputation point of view)? My advice to clients would be that it does."

    I see the rhetorical humor in Jeff's comment, and thus saw no reason to comment. Since you've brought it up, I will respond anyway.

    Jeff, I never write sponsored posts on this website. I never mention current clients' names, and I never intentionally sabotage anyone's reputation. Privacy is important. Honesty is important.

    Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. A bad news story is published. I can accuse the unknown saboteur for trying to damage a company's rep. A positive story is published, and I can accuse the writer of taking money for a positive spin.

    The Web world we live in is going to get much more confusing before it becomes more simple. Sabotage and impersonation will proliferate until a universal ID is levied on the world, which may never happen given the apocalyptic associations with such a process.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: