APRIL 24, 2008

Turning The Tables On Sellers

The term “Web 2.0″ has been used many times to describe the current iteration of online communications.  Here are a few definitions of Web 2.0 that I found online:

• Web 2.0 is all the websites out there that get their value from the actions of users. (Information Week)
• Web 2.0 is the popular term for advanced Internet technology and applications including blogs, wikis, RSS and social bookmarking. . . . One of the most significant differences between Web 2.0 and the traditional World Wide Web (retroactively referred to as Web 1.0) is greater collaboration among Internet users and other users, content providers, and enterprises. (WhatIs.com)

• Web 2.0 is the term given to describe a second generation of the World Wide Web that is focused on the ability for people to collaborate and share information online. Web 2.0 basically refers to the transition from static HTML Web pages to a more dynamic Web that is more organized and is based on serving Web applications to users. (Webopedia).

These definitions tend to fall into two camps: those that focus on the changing technology of the web - static vs dynamic; and those that focus on the effect of that change - one-way communication vs. collaboration and dialogue.

Regardless of the definition, Web 2.0 has significantly impacted how organizations and people talk to each other.  One byproduct has been the erosion of the traditional power structure between buyers and sellers, companies and consumers.  Message boards, blog review sites, customer feedback and ratings systems - these very public avenues for consumers to express their thoughts and opinions weren’t around ten years ago.  They have become go-to sources of information and authority about everything from cars, electronics and movies to political candidates.

I’ve always seen this Web 2.0 thing as a leveler - one that puts buyers and sellers in equivalent positions with each other.  However, I recently learned of a policy change at eBay that suggests that ground is shifting again - this time in favor of consumers. 

Historically, eBay sellers and buyers have each been able to leave feedback, with the seller and buyer in each transaction rating things like the speed of shipping/payment, the quality of the goods shipped, the level of communication between the parties, etc.  Recently, however, after learning that buyers were afraid of retaliation by low-rated sellers, eBay decided to stop allowing sellers to leave negative feedback about buyers. 

This means that sellers who have negative experiences with buyers - ones who don’t pay, for example - have no recourse against those buyers, at least not a public one.  Buyers, meanwhile, have no restrictions on the type of feedback they can leave for sellers. This seems unfair to me, and certainly not in the spirit of Web 2.0.  This policy puts us back in the world of one-way communication, not that of information-sharing dialogue.

 The Fivecentnickel blog agrees:

While I can understand their reasoning, this change creates an uneven playing field, where sellers with excellent reputations can be held hostage by buyers with unreasonable expectations. Let’s say that something gets lost or delayed in the mail. In the past, the buyer was more likely to follow up with the seller and try to work things out, as they didn’t want to jump straight to negative feedback and receive the same thing in return. But now buyers are free to fly off the handle without trying to get things resolved.

Here’s a Washington Post column on the topic as well. According to the column, many sellers have launched boycotts of eBay in response to this new policy. 

I’m curious - are there other signs out there of shifts in balance that disadvantage sellers or companies? Is this part of a larger trend, or is it an isolated example?