Customer Review Fears Come True. Belkin Worker Pays for Phony Product Praise

Written by Evan Schuman and Fred J. Aun
January 22nd, 2009

It took a long time for some retailers, such as Costco, to buy into the value of allowing customer reviews of products. Some feared alienating suppliers if customers offered overly candid comments, while others worried more about opening a Pandora’s Box that could not be policed, a place where the authenticity of both positive and negative reviews could never be truly known.

A rather blatant incident that was widely reported last week (Jan. 16) involving Amazon and electronics manufacturer Belkin has sharply reinforced those fears among e-tailers. Even worse, it has the potential to shatter the confidence of online shoppers.

Unlike almost anything else in E-Commerce, consumer reviews are based on pure faith. If a product doesn’t match its description or fails to perform properly, there are mechanisms for refunds and adjustments. But if an anonymous consumer said the product was great and it turned out to be horrible, what’s the recourse?

The next point, involving what the unhappy customer does or thinks right after that, is crucial. Does the consumer think, “I should have known better than to trust that anonymous idiot”? In that case, the venting is harmless. But what if the consumer thinks, “Wonder if that person was planted? And by whom? The retailer or the manufacturer?”

Retailer after retailer has seen the surprisingly strong impact that consumer reviews can have on revenue. But if consumers start to feel they’re being duped, they’ll stop reading those reviews and the sales will drop right back down. Who can afford that in this economy?

Here are some of the details of what happened with Amazon: A Belkin employee was caught paying people to write phony positive reviews about Belkin products and post them on, and Showing a jaw-droppingly incredible amount of audacity, the fellow was actually using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk service to hire people to “Write a Positive 5/5 Review for Product on Website.”

Hats off to Arlen Parsa, who exposed the shenanigans on his blog, The Daily Background. His write-up generated all kinds of publicity about the case and resulted in an acknowledgement from Belkin that it happened, a vow that it was not authorized and a promise it will be cleaned up.

But the drama didn’t end there. Gizmoto ran a follow-up story in which it posted a cut-and-pasted letter, supposedly penned by an anonymous Belkin worker, who said the online review payola scheme was typical of the type of underhanded activity commonplace at Belkin. That published report itself has the potential to be deliciously ironic. Is that letter real? Or could it have been written by a Belken competitor?

Aware Of The Issue

As for Amazon’s part in the soap opera, spokeswoman Patricia Smith said customer-written product reviews have always been a popular feature of Amazon even though the company met with some resistance from manufacturers at the outset. “It’s something we were criticized for right from the beginning,” Smith said. “The manufacturers asked, `Why would you want to discourage people from buying a product?’ We always felt we wanted to put both the negative and the positive out there. It doesn’t do us any good to have a customer buy something only to return it a week or two later.”

Essentially, she said Amazon does what it can to catch and delete fake reviews (she declined detailing those methods) but believes the benefits of the reviews outweigh the risks. As for the use, in this case, of Mechanical Turk to pay people to, as Smith put it, “game the system,” she said the Mechanical Turk team is “aware” of the issue and working on ways to thwart such misbehavior.

Too bad those measures weren’t in place when Bayard sought people for “positive review writing” and encouraged them thusly: Always give a 100 percent rating; Write as if you own the product and are using it; Tell a story of why you bought it and how you are using it; and Mark any other negative reviews as “not helpful” once you post yours.

Is it time to use automated and manually reviewed mechanisms to verify the legitimacy of all reviews and comments? It’s likely going to be worth it, but only if most retailers do the same. It will only take a few more incidents like this one to ruin customer comments for all.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.