While viewing this video, my most recurring thoughts – clichéd as they may very well be – keep returning to this: falsifying a social medium with the intention of tricking a hypothetical group of consumers into trusting that a good or service has been regarded as superior by the general public appears to require a lot more mental, physical, and even emotional effort than simply employing the honesty policy. (I use “simply” here because even though many choose to contest the notion of telling the truth, at its core, facts are able to stand long after crafted statements have crumbled for one reason or another.) Weaving inaccuracies good deal of upkeep; lies are chores that one can never quite be done with. When lies are the roots there are stems that subsequently shoot forth adding to the growth over and over. The role of these shoots is ultimately to help the original deceit to survive. If these stems were to sprout but happened to die then the root itself would eventually be uncovered. Constant watching and tending and remedying are vital to the evolution and life expectancy of propaganda. Looking to past examples, the aforementioned requirements are at their strictest and most indispensable when other people are included – whether they know it or not.
It’s in people’s nature to question constantly throughout our lifetime. In their most basic form questions are the instruments through which we may learn about uncertainties and the unknown – like a seemingly exceptional product. Knowledge is a kind of power and therefore mankind craves it and we only stop our inquisitions once our minds have been sated or exhausted. Surely, throughout shopping history, all consumers have been handed reasons to doubt the verifiability of a product’s true level of quality. Skepticism of mankind’s ability to be 100% honest is especially called into question when it comes to money and even more so when it comes to our own money. These questions and suspicions are a big part of why I think for an individual to attempt to fabricate, for example, user reviews for a product that is new to the market will solely result in an utterly trying process with zero to minimal gain. If one instead put forth the same amount of effort towards an actually commendable product, they will most likely receive real rave reviews and reap the benefits for an extended period of time.
Continuing to craft a labyrinth of lying as a means to entice and ensnare patrons requires immense creativity and cunning. Abilities that may have to be summoned at a moment’s notice should a potential customer near the creations Achilles’ heel – a poorly constructed or mistakenly overlooked facet of the fibbing. If the owner of a small business had a mind to fabricate glowing reviews on behalf of their restaurant, the reviews would need to be almost entirely different in not just the word choices, but there must also be strong dissimilarities in the language, style, tone, vocabulary and even consider emitting various emotions at variable degrees. Even the least demanding of consumers could shed light on the owner’s immoral acts if they read the collection of reviews and found they strangely showed patterns or repetition. There are so many things to consider and so many thoughts to process before merely starting. Furthermore, the nefarious effort exacted in this case by no means guarantees any increases in profit. Should the proprietor be caught, a scandal could spread, prospective customers could fill with resentment, current customers could become displeased and regret their past transactions with said company, and – should the story ultimately become the focus of mass media – any substantial praise the restaurant could receive in the future would most likely be (a) immediately disregarded, (b) assumed more forgery, or possibly even (c) raise further suspicions. (All of which are based on the presumption that the business was able to stay financially afloat while lugging around their notorious reputation.) One of the more serious potential consequences is that the titleholder could have action taken against them for the falsehoods by the rightful authority (Bureau of Consumer Protection). In the end, the owner could face more than $300,000 in fines. All of this truly feels as though it would require loads of effort and scheming and a number of necessary manipulations to keep the lies going accompanied with exhaustive shares of mental stress which could most definitely conclude unfavorably, if not with the death of the business.
This becomes even more apparent to me when tuning back to Andy Sernovitz’s video case study whereby he asserts that the FTC (Federal Trade Commerce) has begun “cracking down” on dishonest, unclear, lazy and vague companies’ behaviors in regards to their social media practices, standards, policies, and training that should be created with only honest intentions and given accurate attention. Even businesses with that seem inactive in this category of marketing – such as failing to correct a misstatement made to the public or failing to act proactively with potential cases where a company’s representation gives less than full disclosure – would all be wise to “clean up [their] mess.” While a lot of Andy’s proclamations about specific ways to act ethically when taking advantage of today’s many social media strikes busy businesses as an intimidating undertaking, he makes it known that though changing procedures of a company can be cumbersome, there are several resources and online tools (e.g., the “Disclosures Best Practices Toolkit” at socialmedia.org) to help ease companies into the structural swaps crucial to avoid any and all cases where a firm could be held liable due to unethical behavior.
We are living in the Digital Age and will remain in this technology-infused society for a long time to come. If we do right by these innovative marketing avenues, they will do right by us – we just have to look at the “invisible” numbers to be convinced.
No comments:
Post a Comment