August 4, 2005

a certain trust mechanism

zzzzzz7654243.jpg
A friend of mine was recently scre­wed over by her land­lord. Seriously. Scre­wed. Over.
I don’t know the full story, but it’s bad. She’ll have to go to court, poor thing. She’s already lost her busi­ness; if she sur­vi­ves ban­kruptcy I’ll be sur­pri­sed.
Neither she or the evil land­lord is a blog­ger. But a wee voice tells me, had they both been blog­gers, there’s no way he would’ve done what he did.
Because he’d know other blog­gers like you and me would be over him like a rash, telling every­body about what a scum­bag he is. And so the next time you searched his name on Goo­gle, the front page would be splat­te­red with his scum­bag act, his repu­ta­tion in tat­ters, and his abi­lity to con­duct busi­ness dama­ged fore­ver.
Having a valua­ble online repu­ta­tion keeps you honest. Because if you do something squirly, you will pay dearly, and you will pay fast.
And of course, the more this beco­mes self-evident to me, the har­der I find it doing busi­ness with non-bloggers. An inc­rea­singly essen­tial trust mecha­nism seems stran­gely absent.
[BONUS LINK:] What hap­pens if you own a moving com­pany and you’re not very nice to some­body, and that some­body has a blog etc. Illus­tra­tes what I’m tal­king about per­fectly. If your still scep­ti­cal after rea­ding it, then go here. Thanks to Alan Gutie­rrez for the link.

15 Responses to “a certain trust mechanism”

  1. Peter Cooper says:

    Whew, now I’m sure great minds think alike :) I blog­ged on the same point a cou­ple of days ago, though with res­pect to hiring someone. You’re totally right in a more gene­ral sense, and I’m ama­zed that more peo­ple don’t blog for this reason.

  2. Ken Dyck says:

    You could do all that damage that you’re tal­king about even though he doesn’t have a blog to defend him­self. Not that I’d advo­cate it… but out of curio­sity, what’s stop­ping you?
    What is it about having a blog that would make him more worthy of attack?

  3. hugh macleod says:

    Nothing is stop­ping me per se, but that’s not the point I’m making. My point was, if he was hea­vily inves­ted in the blogsphere, I doubt he would’ve dared do it in the first place.

  4. Bill Olen says:

    Yes, in a small or well-connected world, in a place where every­body knows your name, repu­ta­tion is everything. My wife and I live in a small town, and when one of our clients rac­ked up a large over­due balance in a short time, an offhand men­tion of it to another busi­ness owner spread like pla­gue. The trust mecha­nism can be blogs or geo­graphy or both.

  5. Craig says:

    This is actually a very impor­tant point! A lot of work has been done on the future of tran­sac­tions — how to esta­blish trust, or repu­ta­tion. It’s beco­ming ever more impor­tant as tech­no­logy marches for­ward.
    A blog is one method I don’t think anyone’s really thought about.
    Unfor­tu­na­tely, many peo­ple won’t do blog­ging, for a huge variety of rea­sons. These peo­ple either break or dimi­nish the “trust via blo­gosphere” method. Hmmm…

  6. I deci­ded that, moving for­ward in my career, I’m only going to dis­cuss soft­ware publicly for simi­lar rea­sons.
    During the boom here in little Ann Arbor, Michi­gan, a town that fan­cies itself a cul­tu­ral and tech­no­lo­gi­cal cen­ter, there were a bunch of peo­ple pla­ying start up.
    Often times, during an inter­view for a posi­tion, and they’d have me sign an NDA.
    After sig­ning the NDA, they pro­ceed to read me an article out of last month’s Wired.
    It was spooky. Sig­ning an NDA, and then having someone show you a web based shop­ping cart. How entit­led do they feel to this idea? If I bal­ked, they’d all joke , about how unen­for­cea­ble an NDA is. Well, then why have one?
    These days, I insist on com­mu­ni­ca­tion through USENET and blog­ging, because I don’t want to waste time with peo­ple guar­ding open sec­rets.
    There is always a time and a place for con­fi­dence, of course. I simply don’t want to keep sec­rets for stran­gers. If you want to get to know me, get to know me out in the open.

  7. Steve says:

    A natu­ral weigh­ting exists for this sort of thing.
    Heavy weight influence:
    - family and friends you know well.
    - large groups of peo­ple you may not know, but who share the same com­mon view.
    - trus­ted docu­men­ted facts.
    Light weight influence:
    - an indi­vi­dual or small group you don’t know well.
    - undo­cu­men­ted expe­rien­ces (espe­cially those con­trary to your world­view).
    Your friend’s plight, for exam­ple, would fall into the “light weight” influence for me:
    - I don’t know her.
    - I don’t know the details of the story and I can’t ima­gine details that could explain how a tenant/landlord rela­tionship could cause the tenant to lose their busi­ness and face ban­kruptcy.
    Current social-network sys­tems have mecha­nisms for posi­tive endor­se­ments (Lin­ke­dIn for exam­ple), but is there an equi­va­lent for the flip side of that coin? Bet­ter Busi­ness Bureau? Peo­ple seem moti­va­ted to create posi­tive social net­works, but nega­tive social net­works? When was the last time you repor­ted some­body to the BBB, or inves­ti­ga­ted some­body through the BBB?
    In case you’re won­de­ring, I’m not jud­ging your friend, I’m merely using her case as an exam­ple (as you did).

  8. Steve et al. — Has ever­yone seen the story of Quick Boys Movers?
    http://accordionguy.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/7/29/1086759.html
    An exce­llent exam­ple of a nega­tive social net­work is the Goo­gle bomb.

  9. steve says:

    I had another thought or two. Posi­tive social net­works are crea­ted and grow natu­rally because the nodes on the net­work achieve mutual bene­fit. The nodes attract. In nega­tive social net­works the nodes repulse each other and natu­rally want to decay. I’m not sure how you’d pro­tect a nega­tive social net­work from deca­ying. Most peo­ple don’t hold grud­ges for very long.

  10. Steve — I liked that last point so much, I made I little post out of it. I agree that nega­tive net­works are not that power­ful. Unless you do something com­ple­tely awful, inci­dents pass.
    Jeff Jar­vis’ expe­rience bad with Dell is recor­ded. Jeff gets sick of Dell. He moves away from Dell. He stops wri­ting about Dell because he has no lon­ger owns a Dell.
    He has a Power­book now. He’s going to be wri­ting about that Power­book for years to come.
    Oops, here’s an aside:
    Blog­ging angry is folly. Vie­wers don’t follow the links. They simply see the venom. Venom stains your blog.
    Not sure where that came from.

  11. Scott W says:

    I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it. At this point in time, the odds of shit-talk about a land­lord hit­ting the eye­balls of anyone with even a remote pos­si­bi­lity or ren­ting from him, or ever inte­rac­ting with him (even via refe­rral) are slim to none.
    A very limi­ted seg­ment reac­ting to a very limi­ted mar­ket. There will still be loads of peo­ple lined up to buy/rent who have no expo­sure to the “evil done”.
    The peo­ple who even throw around the desc­rip­tion of their com­mu­nity as the “blo­gosphere”, in my opi­nion, vastly ove­res­ti­mate their influence in the real world. Out of the 50 or so peo­ple who make up my family and cowor­kers, maybe one or two regu­larly read blogs. And by that I mean the easy shit, like boing­boing, not the guys like English Cut, Lin­coln Sign Co., and espe­cially not MyLandlordSucks.com.
    They don’t really give a crap what some Joe Public with an inter­net con­nec­tion thinks about various aspects of the world. They don’t have the time to worry, even if they had the net-savvy to be expo­sed to the fellow’s site in the first place.
    A two-bit land­lord has no rela­ti­vely audience (that mat­ters to his busi­ness). And even if the story was pic­ked via the vic­tims side (if said vic­tim was popu­lar in the blo­gosphere) no one will care, as the odds of anyone being A) ready to move to a new place and B) con­si­de­ring a place in this landlord’s neigh­borhood, are basi­cally none. Nill. Irre­le­vant.
    Human nature is still sel­fish, and if it won’t really influence their lives, they won’t care. For ins­tance: this may seem callous, but since I don’t know your friend, I am not intri­gued by, nor do I care how the story of her trou­bles go. I’m sure she’s going through a hell I wouldn’t wish on anyone, but if you published the name of the land­lord, I would not care one bit, even if I lived around the cor­ner from him. It’s all irre­le­vant to me.
    For awhile lon­ger, at least, a bad land­lord or his tenant blog­ging are pretty irrelevant.

  12. pete says:

    Agree with Scott. Last time I loo­ked, the world of com­merce, and just about everthing else, hap­pe­ned outside the self-important, drop-in-the-ocean blogsphere.
    I do feel sorry for your friend.
    But let’s say a land­lord was blog­ging? (BTW: I’m a land­lord and I have a blog) What if his side of the story made him out to be the vic­tim? Would a blog really solve the issue of who-to-believe? What about slander?

  13. hugh macleod says:

    No! No! Scott and Pete, the Blo­gosphere is The Truth and The Way! ;-)
    Seriously though, my point was more about trust mechan­sims and their beha­vior, not “the almighty power of blog­ging” etc.
    The chan­ces of other peo­ple fin­ding out about your actions does affect your beha­vior. You are less likely to rip some­body off if you think third par­ties will find out about it, quickly.

  14. The influence of the blo­gosphere is big and gro­wing. Peo­ple get onto the inter­net and they find us, the blog­gers. We are gene­ra­ting the con­tent that other peo­ple seek. (There really is an oppor­tu­nity now to punch above your weight in influence.)
    So the “web sur­fer” “logs on” to the World Wide Web and uses a search engine, pro­bably Goo­gle, to ans­wer a ques­tion. They get ans­wers, from blog­gers.
    Where’s that link about Jeff and the Dell?
    http://ricksegal.typepad.com/pmv/2005/07/memo_to_dell_je.html
    You know, stuff like that.
    Does it mat­ter in the case of a sma­ller busi­ness tran­sac­tion, bet­ween small firms or indi­vi­duals? It mat­ters a little now. But it will mat­ter a lot more in the future. Peo­ple are going to learn to search this run­ning com­men­tary first.
    You’ve got to be care­ful. Those links are perma.

  15. Steve Cooper says:

    Is this the eco­no­mics idea of Per­fect Infor­ma­tion at work?

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information;
    In eco­no­mics, a state of per­fect infor­ma­tion is requi­red for a com­ple­tely free mar­ket to func­tion. That is, assu­ming that all actors are ratio­nal and have per­fect infor­ma­tion, they will choose the best pro­ducts, and the mar­ket will reward those who make the best pro­ducts with higher sales.

    In essence, you could look at the blo­gosphere as a way of get­ting clo­ser to per­fect infor­ma­tion, taking us clo­ser to more effi­cient mar­kets.
    (BTW, I know too little about eco­no­mics to defend or really even endorse the idea, but mebbe someone else out there can add some info?)