Everyone knows what social media does. For every blog there are comments, every forum has its threads, some twitter conversations last for weeks. It is the interaction between author and reader that makes it distinctive. The “Letter in the Times” would look like this if someone pressed “print all”.
And in amongst the cheap jibes and the flaming , will be the genuine comments that take the debate forward, that ensure that the original idea is grounded in popular acclamation or consigned to the virtual paperbin – junk.
We are keen to leave feedback – good and bad. But the impulsion to complain is stronger than the impulsion to praise. Most feedback appears negative but its very existence is a testament to engagement , no feedback is most dangerous – the parrot may be dead.
So organisations that establish digital services which allow people to read but not comment are running risks that are latent rather than evident.
Let’s say for instance that you run a 30 second video clip about you on You Tube but disable comments. That clip may find itself the subject of derision on any number of sites, you have no control of the content- the comments are with the threads that have sprung up elsewhere- such is the risk of virality!
The loss of ownership and control is compounded by the risk of dereliction. I am currently working on a couple of projects that involve databases which aim to be inclusive and comprehensive, designed to bring choice to the market.
Neither wants to include a feedback system (though there’s functionality for trip-advisor style rating and of course verbal feedback). Without the promise of a qualitative aspect to the listings, the listings will present choice with no direction. Filters can narrow choice but without feedback attaching to the choices, there is no referral system, no means to choose.
Similarly, those who have choices have nowhere to record their experience – good or bad, the natural wishes of people to comment (whether in person or anonymously) are strong. The drivers may be cathartic- to purge a bad experience or exuberant, to share a good one- but these expressions are always typically driven by a strong emotional response.
Without these emotional responses, the information we post is derelict.
And this is the problem. The fear of feedback is that feedback is rarely measured and objective, it is nearly always emotional and biased. The fear is that the bias will be in the wrong direction and that the wisdom of the crowd may not be the “house view”. Worse , it may lead to litigation.
Without feedback, the information is derelict but with it, the information changes. Reading the comments I will re-read the original posting with new eyes.
Fear of feedback is more than a distrust of one’s public, it’s a distrust of one’s own position. The insecurity that leads to wanting to create a static piece of information stems from a fear of change, both in the perception of the post and of the person posting.
In one of the cases I am working on , I asked the question “what’s worrying you about feedback”.
The answer was fear not of the feedback but of the impact of the feedback on the project
- Those advertising would withdraw their listings
- Those sponsoring the project would withdraw funding
- People would take the comments as advice (with legal liability for the consequence resting with the owners of the database.
To which the counter-arguments are
- Those advertising have nothing to lose by being listed – if they are not liked they know how to change
- If those sponsoring the project are concerned about the commercial value, they should recognise that the comments are the project’s value and without them it risks dereliction
- A simple legal disclaimer, distancing the project from any comment is sufficient to mitigate legal risks to an acceptable level.
Of course a static site is easier to run, it does not need moderation and it will have no complaints (on the site). The complaints will appear elsewhere!
This sign appeared un prompted on the side of my tenement
Just a power-point slide, printed in colour and laminated, half an hour’s work!
Authority no longer sits with those with a title, it is bestowed on those who engage constructively and evidenced by feedback.
Those in authority have everything to lose by social media but everything to gain. Even if you reach the top, you need to be constantly revalidated. That is why Boris Johnson is doing such a great job- he is constantly asking for (and getting) feedback from those around him.
Without submitting ourselves to the judgement of others, our authority has no legitimacy. This is why we cannot fear feedback, we have no choice but to enjoy it.