I came across a great article today from Web Ad.Vantage regarding CGC and online shopping.  They sourced some research conducted by Bazaarvoice (an Austin company providing social commerce applications).  Here is what they put in their blog entry:

• 80 percent of US shoppers place more trust in brands that offer customer ratings and reviews.
• 3 out of 4 shoppers stated that it was extremely or very important to read customer reviews before making a purchase, and they prefer peer reviews over expert reviews by a 6-to-1 margin.
• 44% of US Shoppers polled consider ratings and reviews to be the most useful eCommerce site feature.

Web Ad.Vantage was rather excited by these numbers, but upon closer investigation they should be no surprise to anyone who has measured the influence of different mediums and discovered WOM far and away outpaces all other vehicles in terms of trust.  Customer ratings and reviews are quintessential WOM - no wonder 80% of people put more trust in brands that offer it.  Still, I’m glad other companies are bringing the information to the forefront.  Hell, it can’t hurt for people to hear it again.

What really stuck out about the Web Ad.Vantage post was not this data but where they took it from there:

The survey confirms both the trend towards Web 2.0 tactics on e-commerce web sites and the growing preference of consumers to base buying decisions on peer feedback.

In a quick informal review of major consumer brand web sites, I was somewhat suprised to find that Sony, Apple, Motorola, and Ikea did not offer customer review and/or ratings features within their storefronts. I thought for sure that these companies would want some level of customer dialogue.

Well, I’m not so surprised.  In my perfect world, every company would open their doors for customer feedback and embrace criticism.  However, what I have learned in apply CGC theory to my existing clients is that CG opinions and reviews is not as good a tactic for some companies as it is for other.

Sony has no reason to incorporate reviews, but Best Buy does.  Apple doesn’t need to incorporate reviews, but CompUSA should.  Motorola?  No.  Cingular stores?  Yes.  Ikea?  No (they only sell their own goods).  Wal-Mart?  Why not?

This is the picture I have been painting in my head.  As much as I want to propose CG reviews for, say, my travel client, I know the role for CG reviews is not on a proprietary website.  In such an arena, CG reviews are suspect.  They belong on TripAdvisor.com, CruiseCritic.com, Hotels.com, etc.

To this end, I’m going to do something I hate.  I’m going to write a numbered list.  This one will be in regards to the things you should consider when finding a place for Customer-Generated Reviews (CGR):

1. CGR should be incorporated for any brand selling other brands.  It should be incorporated as a primary component of a user interface, not as an “other information” section dumped at the bottom of each product page.
2. CGR is not applicable for brands trying to sell their own wares.  You might as well write your own reviews.  These proprietary reviews may actually be more helpful.  For instance, Sony can explain why I should get their MiniDV camcorder instead of their HDD camcorder and vice versa.  They’ll probably do a better job of this than some anonymous floating through cyberspace.

That’s it.  Two points.  I’m spent.

For any company falling into category two, do not fret.  CGR may not be right for you, but I’m sure there are plenty of other opportunities for you to bring co-creation into your business models.