# MIT study about online reviews & fanboys



## hamada (Jul 15, 2013)

> Self-Appointed Brand Managers
> The second explanation is in some respects the reverse of the upset customers explanation. It is possible that these customers are acting as “self-appointed brand managers”. They are loyal to the brand and want an avenue to provide feedback to the company about how to improve its products. They will even do so on products they have not purchased.9
> We can further investigate this explanation by asking: when would a self-appointed brand manager be most likely to write a review? One possibility is that customers are more likely to react when they see a product that they did not expect. If a customer, who has only purchased women’s apparel from the firm, is browsing the firm’s website and notices that the firm now sells pet products (for example), this may prompt the self-appointed brand managers to provide feedback by clicking the button inviting a review. Why would self-appointed brand managers be more likely to write a negative review? The French have a phrase that may help to answer this question: “Qui aime bien châtie bien,” which translates (approximately) to “your best friends are your hardest critics.” We investigated whether there is a relationship between the number of items that customers have purchased and the reviewers’ product ratings. The pair-wise correlation between a reviewer’s average product rating and the number of items purchased is 0.048 (p < 0.01). In other words, the most loyal customers are the most negative reviewers.
> 10
> ...



something interesting to read.... i bet it fits many members here.....

http://web.mit.edu/simester/Public/Papers/Deceptive_Reviews.pdf


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2013)

*Re: online reviews & fanboys*



> A person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.


I bet this fits many members here, too... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Troll_(Internet)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 15, 2013)

*Re: online reviews & fanboys*



neuroanatomist said:


> > A person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
> 
> 
> I bet this fits many members here, too...
> ...


+1000


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 15, 2013)

*Re: online reviews & fanboys*

I agree with the premise. A lot of folk never gave the M a chance because it wasn't a digital contax G2 with an EF mount. Yet a lot of the same people proved themselves to be utter sluts when the price dropped. (I was always intrigued, but I had to wait until the initial drop before parting with the cash)

I don't think too friendly a response is expected by the OP. Are they trolling? Time will tell.

I do try and inject some non gear, or at least non canon gear chat now and then. We all know the expensive gear works best and we all wish we had it. In real life not all of us are going to have but we can still produce decent work, or at least have a great time trying.

Fanboys, Fanfoes or whatever, Canons still top of the market, even if it's grudingly accepted that it's products no longer lead it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 15, 2013)

*Re: online reviews & fanboys*



neuroanatomist said:


> > A person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
> 
> 
> I bet this fits many members here, too...
> ...



as does, perhaps even more often, wikipedia/blahblah?title=rabid fanboy

;D


----------



## canon_convert (Jul 16, 2013)

but...but...Nikon has more DR 

:hides:


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 16, 2013)

In the interest of getting this thread locked or deleted, I will now begin posting in it...(hears ferocious typing with overtones of righteous indignation percolating through those internets)...

As I just now typed in another forum...guys who own stuff, tend to like what they own. 

Btw, on a different topic entirely...I am tired of reading and hearing the phrase "rock this", "rock that". As a rock music fanboi, it irks me that people nowadays "rock stuff", but it has nothing to do with the music. It's like they are mocking the music that was once so cool!! And the phrase started getting used like a decade ago...isn't it now time to "hip hop" something, or to "honky tonk" something? You know, that woman that just walked in is hot...she is really hip hopping those daisy dukes...I bet she can really honk my tonk...or at the very least, steal some other woman's husband and then have a twitter war about it...then write lame songs about the whole experience, and how it helped her grow...blah blah. 

*And now to hijack this onto another topic...Please list your favorite computer monitor for editing, and why...priced under $1500, sized over 20 inches diagonal. The one that delivers the best bang for the buck...or else the one that "rocks value" the most...wins! Thanks...*


----------



## brad-man (Jul 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> In the interest of getting this thread locked or deleted, I will now begin posting in it...(hears ferocious typing with overtones of righteous indignation percolating through those internets)...
> 
> As I just now typed in another forum...guys who own stuff, tend to like what they own.
> 
> ...



You seem to be rather _unfocused_ for a photographer...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 16, 2013)

hamada said:


> > Self-Appointed Brand Managers
> > The second explanation is in some respects the reverse of the upset customers explanation. It is possible that these customers are acting as “self-appointed brand managers”. They are loyal to the brand and want an avenue to provide feedback to the company about how to improve its products. They will even do so on products they have not purchased.9
> > We can further investigate this explanation by asking: when would a self-appointed brand manager be most likely to write a review? One possibility is that customers are more likely to react when they see a product that they did not expect. If a customer, who has only purchased women’s apparel from the firm, is browsing the firm’s website and notices that the firm now sells pet products (for example), this may prompt the self-appointed brand managers to provide feedback by clicking the button inviting a review. Why would self-appointed brand managers be more likely to write a negative review? The French have a phrase that may help to answer this question: “Qui aime bien châtie bien,” which translates (approximately) to “your best friends are your hardest critics.” We investigated whether there is a relationship between the number of items that customers have purchased and the reviewers’ product ratings. The pair-wise correlation between a reviewer’s average product rating and the number of items purchased is 0.048 (p < 0.01). In other words, the most loyal customers are the most negative reviewers.
> > 10
> ...



(remembering 20 years ago): GIMME BACK MY LUNCH MONEY YOU GUYS!!!


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 16, 2013)

brad-man said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > In the interest of getting this thread locked or deleted, I will now begin posting in it...(hears ferocious typing with overtones of righteous indignation percolating through those internets)...
> ...



Not sure what you mean.


----------



## Radiating (Jul 16, 2013)

So in other words companies get trolled by their best customers when they do bad things.

That makes sense. Honestly it doesn't matter if a review is a first hand experience or a technicall assement, it is a review. Not a "personal account of first hand experience with the product".

If you make a product that is known to be terrible, people have a right to know that it is terrible.

"Review XYZ Product - 1 out of 5 stars

This product is utter garbage because it underperforms in ABC catagories"

Rather than study how many reviews are first hand accounts, maybe it's more important to study how many reviews are accurate.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Jul 16, 2013)

How can a "review" be accurate without being firsthand? Otherwise it will be "true" he-said-they-said..... may be true but not "review"....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 16, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> How can a "review" be accurate without being firsthand? Otherwise it will be "true" he-said-they-said..... may be true but not "review"....



In some cases the specs alone count for much and they can be reviewed even if you've never touched the item. If the upcoming 5th gen iPad were to list at $1500, 12.5" screen, 640x480 graphics, no wifi, no cellular, 16GB memory I think you could pretty easily start ragging on it without ever having used it.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 16, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> RAKAMRAK said:
> 
> 
> > How can a "review" be accurate without being firsthand? Otherwise it will be "true" he-said-they-said..... may be true but not "review"....
> ...



I can see both sides here.

Example 1.

The EOS 7d. A cemera folk shouldn't buy because it has noisy images and the af is lousy.
How many times do we hear that?

Am I too much of a fanboy when I point out that my experience of the 7d (& all d4/18mp EOS cameras I've owned) need some work on the raws, and that the af is good when you take time to understand it, set it up for your needs and use the right mode for the right job. Actual experience. 

I bought the 7d based on a usp (only 25fps dslr on market at launch) and the reviews at the time (detailed from AP Magazine and Dpreview, hands on)

Some folk who slate it do so because they (i guess) didn't post-process correctly, want jpegs out the cam, didn't spend time getting to know the af. 

Are they wrong to recount thrir experiences? Are they wrong to recount their pals experience even though they haven't used it? Are they wrong to tell you what they read on a forum?

Just where is the line?

Of course folk chip in with 'my 5d3 is much better, my 1dx is much better' well, duh! Doesn't answer the question of whether the 7d is a good buy for somebody with 7d money.

Are these guys trolls? Of course not. 

Example 2.

The m. Thank god. I'll repeat that the fw1 was a pig out the box in wide flexi-zone. For me and my way of working it's actually great. Even better with fw2. Were the reviewers right? Given the target market of powershot upgraders, perhaps. But it wasn't the whole story. Are the folk who slated without ever touching one right? No. But in this case I'm glad they did.

Example 3.

Fcpx. Never installed it. Never used it. Never will.

Knew from spec sheet that without rs232 device control in suite, that without omfie export or laga y support it was a lame duck for me. Or rather my clients who still proffer tape for me to work with.

As i clunked along on 32bit fcp7 I envied the reported speed gains in rendering, the background transcoding.
But consistently every review said I had to relearn my editing technique.
Killer for me.

And adobe obliged with track based editing with 64bit rendering, no transcoding, legacy fcp shortcuts
I knew from the specs that I would need to replace my mac pro to run fcpx, and I knew there were better products for me. Or did I?

Aren't i and everybody else guilty of affirmation bias? Blind to flaws because we want to love (what for most of us) are toys, trinkets. In terms of value for money, do hobbyists really get good value from bright expensive glass? Probably not. But it gives us status, kudos amongst our peers. The white lens club.

And of course the images are so much better. Or whats the point?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 16, 2013)

Tongue partly in cheek for last para btw.


----------



## eml58 (Jul 16, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Tongue partly in cheek for last para btw.



I really want to take your Posts seriously Paulwalnut, but that Squirrel Photo you Posted sort of gave me room for Pause now .


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 16, 2013)

The squirrel with the 10-stone testicles? Posting that image is going to haunt me isn't it?


----------



## eml58 (Jul 17, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> The squirrel with the 10-stone testicles? Posting that image is going to haunt me isn't it?



That's the One

& 

Yep


----------

