User Generated Content Is a Failure–At Least Much of the Time
Starbucks, the Chicago Tribune, and some knuckleheaded commenters
I was planning to write an article about the Starbucks Hail Mary barista quality play that involved closing all of their stores for three hours. Talk about a drought!
But serendipitous searching pointed me in a completely different direction.
As part of my research, I was reading a thoughtful article in the Chicago Tribune online. Noticing that there were seven comments, I thought they might add some value on the actual user experience following the closing experiment.
No such luck.
With one exception, the comments were completely useless. Perhaps worse than useless, they were stupid. Here’s a sampling:
Jahree Battle Creek, MI
Starbucks coffee smells like skunks.
Markimal
Maybe Starbucks will add nicotine to its coffee just like big tobacco did to cigarettes to “retain customers!”
Jahree
ChicagoGal wrote:
Good for Starbucks to take the time and money to refine their service. Business wise it was a huge risk to close down stores and train employees during business hours. I applaud them for going back to basics and trying to perfect the company. Many companies can learn from that.
And to the previous posters: This article is not about the coffee, it’s about the company. So why don’t you publicly display your ignorance somewhere else.ANOTHER FOOL
ChicagoGal
Jahree wrote:
<quoted text>ANOTHER FOOL
you think this is about coffee? I’m sorry but this business and money….everything is about business and money.
Keep in mind that these were the comments that made it through a monitoring process. It appears that at least three comments had been deleted, presumably because they were obscene or offensive.
Until I stumbled on these comments in the Chicago Tribune, I had assumed that the terrible user generated content in our local Southwest Florida newspapers was somewhat unique. We have a host of wacky commentary to articles in the Naples Daily News and the News-Press. I had surmised that these voluminous and often vituperative comments simply emanated from a populace heavily weighted with retirees who have way too much time on their hands.
Apparently Southwest Florida is not unique.
User generated content diminishes rather than enhances content quality within beleaguered newspapers
As far as I can tell, a first-rate article in the Chicago Tribune about the Starbucks experiment is only diminished by the caliber of commentary that follows. If I can generalize from my own experience, I would never bother to check the comments in the Chicago Tribune again. I’m pretty sure most people who took the time to soldier through this garbage would feel the same way.
User generated content can work. Within the blogosphere, there is plenty of thoughtful and relevant commentary. I believe that derives from the fact that those who comment really care and tend to be knowledgeable about the subject at hand. Moreover, those of us who blog, can eliminate all of the peculiar stuff that shows up.
But, when it comes to broader media such as the Chicago Tribune or the Naples Daily News, it sure doesn’t look like user generated content has much of a future. If that’s what our nation’s newspapers are counting on for survival, they are going to be very disappointed.
Trackbacks [0]
There are no trackbacks.
Post Comment
Fields marked with * are required.
Comments [4]
Newt,
I’m not refuting what you wrote re the quality of commentary on newspaper blogs. I just want to add that the fault must at least partly be laid at the feet of the newspapers and the journalists who write for them. I think it’s a problem based on habit. The print world is used to writing one way communications (whether by journalists or advertising copywriters). Even if they tack on a “We’d like to hear what you think, dear readers.” to the end of the article or column. They haven’t set up any open ended questions within the content. They haven’t piqued curiosity or invited comment by exposing the gaps in their stories.
Nearly all content needs to be relevant online as well as off. It all starts life in digital format, so it will have an online life whether intended to or not. Print writers (with the possible exception of novelists) must learn how to craft content that works both off and online.
I think that this really reinforces the need to moderate off topic comments. Perhaps the question to ask is, “Does this comment add to the discussion?”
I know that Matt Cutts of Google who gets thousands of comments on his blog keeps an eye on this and “prunes” when he feels its off topic.
If you take it from this point of view, you are protecting your content and adding value to it.
Brett, thanks for a typically thoughtful comment.
You are exactly right. You would think that a big newspaper would value its brand enough to filter non-relevant and really wacky comments.
Because all those dumb comments effectively diminish an already at risk brand, they risk accelerating the decline of newspapers into oblivion.
On the other hand quotes like: “Starbucks coffee smells like skunks.” - could be considered adding to the conversation. They’re not overly offensive, stupid yes, but not overly offensive - and in many cases an idiotic comment like this can fuel someone that potentially wouldnt post to make a rebuttal, but in an intelligent fashion (just to prove how smart they are
So yes, there’s no room for offensive commenting, but the occasional “accidental” slip through of a stupid comment can add to a conversation IMHO