I’m playing it a bit cynical here, but the job of a company’s own web site is to support the sale of their products. A company that promotes/publishes about what’s wrong with their product, isn’t long for this world. The corporate web site can do one thing easily: present the company’s message. It is far more expensive to have what we’re really craving: an honest, open discussion about the pros and cons of a product. But that requires dialogue and interaction that’s far beyond the budget of companies the size of W-S. (Would you spend $50,000/yr to hire an articulate community manager, or $50,000/yr to advertise your product around the web?)

In a free market we can’t expect the company itself to promote the failings of a product. That’s what third-parties are for. Epinions.com comes to mind (in concept if not execution) as an example. Any consumer that’s looking for something they’ve never seen in person had better look beyond the manufacture’s own web site for a more balanced look.

If that’s the case then the company needs to look at how their brand is represented on other web sites in addition to their own. I hope W-S is watching the reviews on Amazon and using that to either contact the users to help them resolve issues, or else working with Amazon to provide additional information that will negate the review, or scale back the claims of how the product performs.

Brand engagement on the web must extend beyond the company’s own web site and out to other web sites, in addition to the customer service aspect that Jared originally noted. (Whew, I hope I brought the thread back on topic…!)

Your question about pruning is a good one. It would stand to reason that Williams-Sonoma might prune out the bad reviews, since it doesn’t help them sell the product.

However, it doesn’t seem to be the case. This Cuisinart Coffee Maker, for example, only has a rating of 2.8 out of 5 stars, with 13 out of 20 (65%) reviews being a three-, two-, or one-star review. If they were pruning out the unsatisfactory reviews, it wouldn’t have nearly as high a percentage, I would think.

When we conducted e-commerce tests of Target.com, we saw users encounter products that only had negative reviews. Those users consistently asked, “Why does Target sell these if nobody likes them?” It’s a good question that we didn’t have an answer for.

The first example required the user to admit that their post purchase justification was wrong (the story they brought into was wrong). They were wrong. This is where authentic or integrity come into play.

The second example had no such story (probably) going on in the user’s head. They didn’t have to untell that story to themselves. They probably had far less inner belief in the products integrity so the failure was recognised and more honestly reviewed.

But you’re right. What’s the most valuable thing to a business? Trust. Integrity. Authenticity. Even more important than product. If people don’t trust you then you’re out of business. Great post, thanks.

I would not be at all surprised if W-S was ‘pruning’ their comments like any self-respecting corporation would do. I’m not saying that’s the right thing to do, but it is well within their rights to modify their own web site.

…Ross…