CitizenSpin

Testing times - web survey pilot

How much credibility do consumers lend to information from different sources online? I’ve already written about the ethical considerations in blogging – and the fact that bloggers seem to see no need for a code of ethics. So are consumers savvy enough to work out what’s credible comment, and when someone is biased?

As regular readers will know, one of the points of setting up this blog was to help with my exploration of trust and sources of information online. It’s now come to the time when I can’t delay the research for my dissertation any longer … and so I’m piloting my questionnaire here.

I’m planning to deploy the questionnaire sometime towards the end of the month. The link will be put on a web site which is run for people who are searching for bargains and products and services online – www.moneysavingexpert.com. So the sample will be self selecting, and already pretty web savvy.

The main focus is to try and find out if consumers view different information on line, with differing credibility, depending on its source. Some of the questions are based around work that I’ve done to produce semantic differentials form journalistic values here.

Please feel free to complete the pilot version of the survey and send me your comments. It would be really helpful in developing the research. If you think there are issues that I’m missing, or better ways of finding information then please make suggestions.

That link to the questionnaire again: http://www.thesistools.com/?qid=11255&ln=eng

Thanks
Matt

Four ethical elements to blogging, but bloggers 'see no need'

New research suggests that while there may be four main underlying ethical drivers in blogging, bloggers don’t see the need for a code of ethics.
I was trying to get a framework together for assessing trust of online media previously, and have since come across a site with some research carried out by undergraduate students at Nanyang Technological University, in Singapore.

They undertook a brief literature review of online ethics, netiquette and nethics. The study drew four main areas, and broke them down into their component parts:

• Truth telling – honesty fairness, equality and completeness in reporting;
• Accountability – answerable to the public, honesty in one’s work, revealing conflicts of interest, and bearing consequences of one’s actions;
• Minimising harm – privacy, confidentiality, flaming, consideration of others’ feelings, respecting diverse cultures and underprivileged groups;
• Attribution – plagiarism, honouring intellectual property rights, and giving proper credit to sources.

One broad conclusion from the survey is that “bloggers currently do not perceive a strong need for a blogging code of ethics.” However, the researchers perceived a difference between people writing personal weblogs and those writing blogs for other reasons.

Personal bloggers were more concerned with attribution and minimising harm, others valued attribution and truth telling the most. Personal bloggers were also perceived to be “less consistent in practicing the ethics they said they valued”. Non-personal bloggers were perceived to bring a more ‘journalistic’ approach.

Matt

Online information - credible & reliable?

So how do you judge whether information online is credible and reliable? My dissertation aims to research the level of trust that readers attribute to blogs, and who writes them.

With this in mind I’ve been looking at news, or journalistic values – as a way of providing a scale to judge the various sources of information against.

As far as BBC News is concerned it has five main values: truth, impartiality, inclusivity, fairness and accountability.

The Radio-Television News Directors Association, an organization exclusively centred on electronic journalism, maintains a code of ethics focusing on -- public trust, truthfulness, fairness, integrity, independence and accountability. RTDNA publishes a pocket guide to these standards.

So using these values as a basis, it’s possible to develop a list of semantic differentials – against which readers can judge content online.

Trustworthy … undependable

True … False

Integrity … unsound

Impartial … partisan

Fair … biased

Independent … unfree / partisan

Neutral … aligned

Inclusive … selective / exclusive

Accountable … unanswerable

Accurate … wide of the mark

Sensational … moderate

The idea is that people will complete a questionnaire, and judge information from a variety of sources – PR professional, CEO, journalist and fellow consumer – against these variables.

Matt

Internet provides 'perfect' product and price information

We all know you can get a good deal on goods and services on the internet. But information available online appears to be changing the way consumers are researching their purchases – and has implications for ‘bricks and mortar’ retailers.

“Car makers in the US find that eight out of ten buyers have used the internet to research not just the exact vehicle they want, but also the price they are going to pay. The situation with consumer electronics is similar. Nowadays, if someone wants to work out which flat-screen TV to buy, they start their research online, even though the majority will not complete the transaction there.”

That’s according to Paul Markillie, marketing editor of The Economist’s writing in the Intelligent Life magazine (Summer 2005 – p33).
America’s Online Publishers Association says that research indicates more than 90% of people aged 18-54 say they would turn to the internet first for product information. And in Europe the latest research indicates the growth in internet use - with the Internet and less time with so-called "traditional" media like TV, radio, magazines or newspapers. The research published on OPA Europe, asked consumers about their media consumption habits over the past year, 61 percent of the respondents said they spend more time on the Internet today than a year ago, with 32 percent saying they spend "much more time," and 29 percent claiming to spend "somewhat more time" online.
So where are people going for their online information? There are commercially run shopping comparison sites search engines provided by Google, Yahoo! maor MSN.
There are also sites where consumers find out information on products and services from each other – www.moneysavingexpert.com is one of the largest in the UK – the bulletin boards are full of tips and reviews, all generated by the users of the site.
And there is other consumer generated media – campaigning sites, and blogs where people proffer their opinions on goods and services.
The internet is moving the world closer to perfect product and price information. When armed with such information it makes consumer more confident and bold enough to walk into a car dealership and refuse to haggle. But as to which information has greater influence, and what consumers believe in what they read appears to have been researched little.

Matt

Who do you trust? Blogs and the Internet as reliable sources

Rummaging around the other day for the Intelliseek report – Consumer Generated Media – I came across some new research of theirs which addresses blogging and trust – Trust MEdia (geddit – ME-dia!).

The report examines how the ‘blogging phenomenon has drastically altered the landscape and challenge traditional tenets about the control of messaging by corporations, the media, the government, marketers and company stakeholders.’

It goes on to quote the Edelman 2005 Trust Survey – which indicates that peoples’ trust has shifted from authority figures to “average people like you” – interesting in terms of how much importance consumer blogs and reviews may have in forming a company reputation.

The report then goes on to detail the Edelman/Intelliseek 100 Trust MEdia Blog Director in which blogs are ranked for being: influential, trustworthy, authoritative.

The top PR blogs are:

• Micro Persuassion
• Corporate PR
• POP!

The lists were compiled by finding links in 27 search engines – those with high traffic and influence were examined to find additional blog links within each category and those links further reviewed.

The report doesn’t say whether the source of the blog – CEO, journalist, practitioner or consumer was assessed. Is this an important issue in the trust accredited to information online? Just a thought.

Matt

Google news ditches blogs over accuracy?

The Sunday Times ran an item about the growing behemoth that is Google this weekend Google: How big can it get?
What was interesting was a section in a side bar about Google News. It went on to say:

"One potential flaw is that the most recent stories are presented first, rather than the best or most authoritative versions. Google is working on an algorithm to rank the credibility of news organisations, to ensure that (for example) stories from Times Online rank ahead of bloggers and poorly funded newsletters."

So it seems Google too has been vexed by the trustworthiness of material online, and has come to the conclusion that the size of the media organisation equates to the credibility of what it writes. However, think back to the New York Times debacle this time last year, as covered here by CNN, and you may conclude that argument is be flawed.

Theres been much debate about the Google algorithm and how fair it is in prioritising content, the fact that its operation is mysterious seems to feed the speculation, and there have been studies on whether it introduces political bias.One of the conclusions is that there appears to be a trade-off between breadth of coverage and depth.
If you want you can view a live breakdown analysis of the sources used in the Google News front page.

It remains to be seen if Google News does rewrite the algorithm to rank for credibility, however if they do, were unlikely to know the workings behind it.

Matt

Trust the bloggers? Who can you believe online?

Dan Gilmor, in his book 'We the Media. Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People', asks whose information you can trust online? He concludes there is a lack of framework for establishing the veracity of information and the credibility of the author. He calls for: "A reliable reputation system world allow us to verity people and judge the veracity of the things they say based, in part, on what people we trust say about them."
There are already some systems in place for checking the reputation of individuals within online communities - look at the way eBay operates its ratings system. Would this be appropriate for sources of information online, or corporate web sites?
There is a common argument that the public are becoming increasingly media savvy - Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, used a lecture at the University of Central Lancashire to quote a variety of statistics which indicate that the public are getting progressively more cynical about the motives of public figures (1). However, others see little evidence for this claim, researchers in a report for the UK media regulator Ofcom warn: "Notwithstanding widespread speculation that the public has become increasingly 'media-savvy', it remains unclear how far rigorous evidence supports or qualifies this claim." (2)
So who can you trust online? Can readers distinguish between something written by a journalist, public relations practitioner, or a fellow consumer? If they can, do they lend different weight to the information?
Matt

(1) Rusbridger, A., (1999) Who can you trust? Aslib Proceedings, Vol 51 No 2, Feb 1999 pp37-45
(2) Livingstone, S., Van Couvering, E., & Thumim, N., (2004) Adult Media Literacy. A report compiled by the Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics, for Ofcom