This was posted April 13, 2009 on my blog “Positively Media” at Psychology Today.
First it was “Dell Hell” and now it is “#AmazonFail.” For all the debates over the purpose, point, and value of social media, it is events like these that illustrate how important they have become and how powerful they can be.
“Dell Hell” is one of the iconic stories in the history of social media sending an emphatic message that consumers have a new power. In June 2005, blogger Jeff Jarvis shared his less than satisfactory experience with Dell’s customer service on his blog “Buzz Machine” with the title “Dell Hell.” (This story is documented in a number of places, including the books Groundswell and Citizen Marketers, both quite interesting.) The reach of Jarvis’ blog got his story out there, but the fact that his experience resonated with so many other Dell customers coupled with the system properties of the Internet sent the story viral, ending up not only all over the web but in the New York Times and Business Week. Dell had quite a wake-up call that resulted in substantial internal changes.
To quote Yogi Berra, we’re having déjà vu all over again and Amazon gets to learn Dell’s lesson.
For those of you who haven’t been following the Amazon story, the company recently revised its ranking system. The system, like Google’s search algorithms, causes search results to be based not just on content match but also on popularity. An Amazon ranking is very important to authors because it allows their titles to appear on bestseller lists.
The furor began on Live Journal, when author Mark Probst noticed that the ranking had been removed from his young-adult novel with a gay character. As Probst remarked in his blog, he checked other gay titles and found that they too had been de-ranked. The story on his blog was picked up and reported on Twitter with the hashtag #amazon fail. (The hashtag is an identifier that tags Twitter posts to make them searchable.) Twitters and retweets (resending someone’s tweet) spread the information that Amazon had stripped the sales ranking from adult content (no pun intended). Although the de-ranking was intended to be targeted at all adult content, the result was the deletion of rankings from hundreds of gay and lesbian books while overlooking quite a bit of heterosexual lit-porn. The story and outrage reverberated through Twitter with #amazonfail quickly becoming the number one word on Twitter.
People began to collect lists of books of questionable content. Carolyn Kellogg on the The LA Times blog Jacket Copy reported that the sadistic murder story “American Psycho” remained ranked while the well-reviewed nonfiction work “Unfriendly Fire,” about the scoial costs of the current gay ban in the military, lost theirs. An online petition ensued.
New tools in the distribution arsenal since Dell’s misadventure, such as Google Bombs, were organized and deployed. Google bombs are a collective effort of people to link to specific words so that they disrupt the Google search and come up first. In this case the words are “Amazon Rank,” taking searchers to an explanation of Amazon’s transgression. The story of Amazon Rank reached epic proportions in little over a day.
Amazon reported that this was an unfortunate computer error. Many, but not all, are skeptical. At the least, this episode has raised issues about Amazon’s control and the transparency of the de-ranking process. Either way, social media has scored another victory for the little guy by proving that individuals have a voice and can make a difference.
The moral of the story is that the power has shifted from a one-to-many to many-to-many model, as Clay Shirky discusses in Here Comes Everybody. This means that not just as customers, but as citizens, we can and do get involved and make our voices heard in response to perceived abuses of power. The conversation can go global at any time and it just doesn’t matter anymore who starts it. Because of the way we, are tied together as nodes in a system, something as innocuous as a Tweet can trigger a cascade of information across the network. That one Twitterer now has the potential to create social change.
Hello,
mprcenter.org – da best. Keep it going!
Thank you
AnnaHopn
Maybe. But I’m not completely convinced this was an intentional ranking change. What advantage would Amazon really gain? Why would they want to disenfranchise part of their loyal customer base? For what purpose?
Call me cynical, but unless it’s somehow financially beneficial to Amazon, I don’t see a conspiracy. And if it is indeed financial, then it’s something else entirely.
I do think you’re right about the power of social media to act as a catalyst for social change. But while this is an example of how the viral process works, I really don’t think it’s a good example of how to wield that power.
Just my perspective so far… Thanks!
Hi Jenifer,
Thanks for your comment. I don’t know for a fact that this was intentional on Amazon’s part. What I do know is that some books did have their rankings removed and the widespread perception was that this subtle form of censorship was not uniformly applied. In some cases, reality becomes less important that the perception since it is the belief about Amazon’s behavior that triggered the response.
But to your point about wielding power: I don’t think social media is how an individual exercises individual power. Social media does connect common voices that might never have heard one another. This changes the psychology from individual to a group dynamic. It validates the issue and creates a collective energy source and identity in the groundswell reaction. Just like companies can’t control their brand, an individual can’t control if a complaint becomes a social upheaval. Common themes will emerge in both cases, for better or worse. What social media does is lower the threshold for the energy necessary for an idea to take hold.
Pam
Pam,
Good answer! *nodding* 🙂
Jenifer
Keep up the good work.