If Honda allows negative comments then will John allow me to make a negative post on his blog? Discuss

User co-creation is only useful if it throws off customer intelligence. I like what Honda's doing. But I don't like letting consumers create ads. Let them tell you what they like. Keep the creative expertise closer to the vest.

Good questions -- the bigger trend is that people enjoy publishing their opinions or creative projects online. For some it is about 5 minutes of fame, for others it is simply entertainment. And it is the best news in entertainment since the VCR killed the local moviehouse. Just as good old internet websurfing requires using your brain more then TV channel surfing, posting comments or uploading a film to win a competition requires even brain engagement. We will be saved of becoming a western world of couch patatoes -- there is hope for our contnued evolution!

Firstly, from the current 3 posts, I hope you don’t have to be called ‘John’ to contribute to this discussion! I had an interesting debate with a colleague on whether today's world of blogging and user interactively will create a world of bedroom authors and publishers, but no actual consumers. With everyone appearing to be actively contributing to the Internet discussion, you could think so. However, recent stats show that only 5% of people actually contribute anything at all, while the rest just consume. A speaker from the Times Online (sorry I forget his name) at last years Revolution Forum commented on this matter. Some may suggest that blogging removes the need for writers, editors and publishes such as the Times (as has been proven by Wikipedia), but their approach has been to embrace and actively encourage personal comment. However, they take the view that consumers still value the opinion of the ‘expert’ and a regular columnist, rather than just Joe Bloggs in his bedroom. Therefore, any blogg, including this post, is only worthwhile if someone else, maybe you, has found it interesting or useful. Considering brands attempt to involve consumers in their marketing, I both praise their approach, whilst keeping an ear of scepticism regarding this ‘gimmick’ factor of this latest buzz-activity. It will only be successful if the involvement is of interest or entertaining for the user. On Honda’s approach to allowing both positive and negative comment, I applaud their approach. Any brand which censors or removes content that does not pass their PR departments guidelines is not providing a true space for comment and feedback, but just a set of idealised customer quotes, that in today’s world the consumer neither believes or values. Either do it properly, or not at all.

Hi, Yep - that was Paul Hayes, publisher of the Times (who has some interesting things to say about reporting to Rupert Murdoch by the way..). Anyway, his point of view is obviously that the world needs 'editors', more so now than ever. I agree with that naturally, but these editors will increasingly be techical solutions (as search engines can be considered to be) rather than people making an editorial judgement on behalf of a perceived audience. The negative 'UGC' thing is interesting. If were a brand I would jump at the opportunity to hear what people say about my product or service, whether it be good or bad. Surely that's the best way to make it better. Les grandly, inviting negative user feedback in a public forum alllows the brand to a. invite feedback that contrasts with the negative and b. demonstrate to all how well it handles complaints by taking the feedback on board and making changes. I believe Honda turned one ardent critic into an evangelist for the car - and brand - by keeping them in the loop about how their complaints were being taken on board and feeding into improvements in the car. Any brand that fears complaints needs to reassess its mission in life. Surely it should be to make pot loads of money by delivering what people want?

Surely in terms of selling products, unless you're providing people with their basic needs (food, water, shelter) nothing is worth bothering about. But by asking the question "why bother?" are we not limiting ourselves creatively by filtering out ideas that may have been great had we given them the chance? Just because "we" think that people may not engage, doesn't mean we shouldn't be providing them with the opportunity (clients and budgets willing of course).

The new interactive technology is causing more damage to Brands and Businesses than ever imagined! Despite spending hours on the 'phone or online your customers are just not connecting with you, resulting in angry customers hanging up and going elsewhere. We are becoming more and more divided by technology. Your customers' dread interactive voice-response, the on-hold music that doubles the annoyance of queuing, the codes and passwords, are all barriers to effective communication. The rage among your customers has reached an intensity, which is now causing great damage to your relationship with your customers. We are now dehumanising our customer relationships even more than conventional advertising ever did, the very objective of which was to do the exact opposite! Your customers appear to be invisible to you except as computer generated stereotypes, while your organisation is viewed as remote and unreachable causing stress and suspicion rather than customer satisfaction. According to a recent study by database software specialist Data Vantage. Fully eighty nine percent of service providers are failing to deliver the seamless service your customers want. Causing damage to your brands, customers to defect, thus putting more pressure on sales. And all because of a failure to understand that simple word "communication"!

I'd bother because either you bother or you don't.

People who cannot be bothered don't bother about anything.

People who interact act.

Their mind stays younger and fitter because they bother.

They bother because they're interactive and enjoy learning from others.

It's all a matter of whether you can create interest or not.

Some websites succeed, many fail because the content is rubbish.