Comments on: Mob bile

By: Brands and consumer social influence | b r a n t s

Brands and consumer social influence | b r a n t s — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:49:46 +0000

[…] issue that I have thought about several times. We even discussed it in the comments section of a post that (among other things) brought up the Kiruba-Cleartrip incident from last year. In my personal […]

By: Blocking Crowds | m a n u s c r y p t s

Blocking Crowds | m a n u s c r y p t s — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:16:41 +0000

[…] hate mobs, and on the other blog, it is a subject that keeps appearing every now and then. So it sucks to have been part of one. In a post from long ago – 5 years […]

By: Shefaly

Shefaly — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:24:48 +0000

I should have said “self-styled experts”.

By the way, read this if you haven’t already done so:
http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/pl_print

By: manu prasad

manu prasad — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:20:08 +0000

balu: i agree only partly on the objectivity of newspapers, too many vested interests.. but like you said, they’re supposed to… i wonder how many people took that trouble in the kiruba incident.. and that’s why i fear… and yes, i think someone asked that wuestion during that time too (is it because its kiruba that cleartrip responded).. i’d like to give cleartrip the benefit of the doubt. besides, what are RTs for? 😉

shefaly: yes, no arguments on both – your writing and drive-by commenting.. so perhaps i am asking for much…
and as always, i was merely asking if you could read something into it that i didn’t.. i mentioned experts?

By: Shefaly

Shefaly — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:55:56 +0000

For my part, I know that I try to write about/ discuss issues from multiple points of view. My experience however has been that most people do not have the time to be objective. Especially in the drive-by-commenting that goes on in the blogosphere. So you are asking for a lot 🙂

I said “at some level, one could argue/ others may claim”. You are drawing your own conclusions. I like to watch a stream like this but I do not have enough data to have an informed opinion, unlike the many ‘experts’ you mention.

By: | Balu |

| Balu | — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:15:07 +0000

Ah well, I work in a newspaper aka traditional media and I think there is one place where they have an advantage. They bring in objectivity (at least they are supposed to). When it comes to social media, people are required to hop between the website where the person is complaining and the site where the brand has posted their response and change their mind twice, thrice or many more times after reading each post. Atleast that was my case with the Cleartrip-Kiruba incident. But I liked the way Cleartrip handled it. That said, the real question is if companies would go overboard like this, if the person had a very small digital footprint. Will his/her voice be heard? What if he/she was a nobody just an average Joe?

By: manu prasad

manu prasad — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:19:47 +0000

if the involvement and distance clouds one’s objectivity, is that right, then? all i am asking for is some objectivity by the individual – whatever his proximity with the issue is, on the issue, before he becomes part of the mob .. if someone looks at the entire issue objectively, and then still decides that a wrong has been committed, please join the protest… my fear is that in the rush of real time, users dont pause to consider before they act..
free vs paid, i see it as a debate.. do you see a ‘witch’?

By: Shefaly

Shefaly — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:47:36 +0000

When is it a debate, a multisided debate and when is it a witch hunt? At some level one could argue that the whole Anderson-Godin-Brogan-Cuban thing is nothing short of a witch hunt. Others may claim it is a debate. The difference is normative and highly subjective depending on our involvement with the issue and our distance from the agency spouting/ expressing (see choice of words?) an opinion.