Useful, but not sufficient!

Last week, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) guidelines — issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs — came into being, with the promise of curtailing the range of mushrooming fake reviews over the Internet. Display and information about online products and services are by and large intangible, meaning that they can't be touched or felt. Screen visuals and accompanying descriptive texts are the only source of enlightenment that guide people to avail (or not avail) a particular product or service. This limitation of the otherwise highly beneficial and convenient online market creates a room for online reviewers, in whose shared experiences the user finds a sense of vicarious validation, or disapproval. Now the marketing of a product largely depends upon two factors — the quality of the product and consumer behavior towards the product. Since online reviews have the power to influence consumer behavior, they have become more of a marketing gimmick than just a friendly piece of advice. LocalCircles, closely involved in the drafting of the guidelines, noted that 64 per cent respondents in a survey acknowledged that they consult reviews at all times while 26 per cent do it occasionally and seven per cent for expensive products. This extent of reliability speaks for itself. Fake online reviews can be written to drive consumers towards availing a particular product or service. It can also be engineered in a negative manner by competing firms to taint the image of a particular rival company. Furthermore, e-sellers can also use fake positive reviews to resurface their unpopular products. Hitherto unregulated, this loophole has been misused against people in a somewhat streamlined manner to drive the profits of a few. Issuance of BIS guidelines is a positive step forward towards regulating this not-so-loose practice that influences trade and profits significantly. How much success will it achieve is a different question. The guidelines bank upon user identification — requiring users to submit their email address and mobile phone number before writing reviews. This tracking of sorts will allow the concerned authorities to monitor the behavior of reviewers, particularly the frequency, language and general context of their writing. The guidelines state that positive and negative reviews will be dealt with in a similar manner. Violative reviews may be removed and marked out. It appears challenging as to how the genuineness of a positive or negative review will be ascertained. The problem is particularly concerning in the case of negative reviews because they serve not only as feedback but also a registration of grievance by deceived users. While implementing the guidelines, it will be very important to ensure that this scope of grievance-making is not affected. Furthermore, while the guidelines appear promising, it is unclear whether they will suffice to address the intense problem single handedly. Incorporation of complementary measures can help serve the cause more efficiently. Like the Internet itself, the fake reviews prevailing on it are a global phenomenon. Claims have been made in the past that use of algorithms can come in handy in dealing with the problem. This, too, is not a tested formula. However, the BIS guidelines and algorithms together can be complemented with a behavioral change awareness drive to succeed in the pursuit of tackling fake online reviews. With time, users will organically learn how to take fraud cues and process the reviews in a fruitful way. By carrying out awareness drives at scale, this process of learning can be amplified. Only then the practical fallouts of the online fake review can be addressed completely. This argument, however, is not to discount the usefulness of the BIS guidelines. Given that online reviews have a bearing on trade practices, a regulatory framework was indeed pertinent. It just needs to be added that the guidelines are not enough on their own.