As different types of platforms and functionality are introduced to the web, quite often what was seen as a no-go area in terms of acceptable or normal behaviour is now open season.
Such changes are widespread, affecting both how consumers behave online, especially when armed with the ability to spread around the web instantaneously, as well as how brands go about their business on a daily basis.
The very idea of social media is an obvious example. Everyone can be a publisher, share their opinions about individuals or organisations at the click of a button - sending the so-called Old School methods of journalism (perhaps getting at least two sides to a controversial story, for example) down the drain.
Nothing new there, such practice has been around for years now.
Startup-of-the-moment Pinterest is another obvious case - it's content sharing abilities triggering hype the web hasn't seen for, well, since the last startup-of-the-moment (Quora, Color?) but leading to all sorts of hand-wringing in recent weeks over copyright issues.
But mobile and clever online editing tools are taking things to a new level, meaning existing protocols for both organisations and individuals are being challenged regularly.
Here are two examples from this week.
1. Net Effect and BO.LT
Net Effect is a UK-based marketing agency which specialises in building websites and improving distribution for travel agencies and tour operators.
This week it wanted to highlight how it believed some travel websites are hiding charges from consumers, only adding on fees at further down the road into the booking process.
This is a common problem around the industry, highlighted often by consumer groups, media and sometimes even triggering legislation.
Net Effect tried something else. Using a site called BO.LT, a tool which allows people to clone, alter and republish any website, Net Effect picked on one particular site, air ticket agency Fly.co.uk, to showcase what it says are unfairly displayed prices.
It changed wording on the site:
- "Unique flight deals from leading airlines!" to "We charge you up to £40 pp more than airline own sites!"
- "Top deals of the day on fly.co.uk" to "Top deals of the day on fly.co.uk - until we add on £40 per person and then they become the worst!"
Apart from small box at the foot of the page indicating it was a BO.LT modification, a casual visitor would be none the wiser.
Okay, some might say it's a bit shady to play with the content on another site, but so what, nobody was harmed in the making of a cheap shot across the bows of another site.
Well, Net Effect then spent one evening this week tweeting about what it had discovered and linking to the mock-up page using a URL shortener.
Some might not see the funny side, especially when Net Effect incorrectly stated that Fly.co.uk was - or thought it used to be - owned by a rather large travel brand.
Furthermore, the accusation about adding on £40 per person to each booking isn't true (we tried a number of times).
Net Effect co-founder Steve Rushton admits via email that he didn't realise ownership element was wrong and has since changed the BO.LT sign.
But on the question of playing around with another site's content and publishing it on an open forum such as Twitter to make a point (despite in an earlier email saying, "All the businesses I have been involved with are very hot on ethical practises quite rightly"), he adds:
"Just to say - my motivation was not for my commercial gain - I can think of ways of being less cryptic for that. It was using the tool to get a point across to agents we work with that they could compete against online. It was the perfect example about what I tell them everyday."
Fly.co.uk has not responded to emails for its reaction.
2. Report A Taxi
Report A Taxi is a new mobile application from the US, developed by a company called YInteract.
It's an interesting idea: passengers can use the service to complain about taxi drivers! Here is some of the press release:
You can report cab drivers for either good (doesn't happen too often) or bad service with RAT, which is free and for iPhone and coming soon to Android and BlackBerry.
Even though it can be used at any location, it is primarily geared for NYC at the moment but we plan on expanding it soon.
Passengers can use RAT as a fast and effective way to hold cabbies accountable for their actions! Taxi drivers know that passengers are busy and won’t take the time to call into the city to complain, but with a smartphone app people can get their voice to the city in under a minute.
And a clip:
Disgruntled passengers can essentially report a cab driver on the road - and it's so easy.
Enter the driver’s medallion number, or use your camera to take a photo of the numberChoose from a selection of known issues (e.g. Using cell phone, refused credit card) or enter your ownChose from the menu and date and time of the incidentEnter where the incident occurred (choose from map or enter an address)Review your submission and hit the SUBMIT button!
But perhaps too easy?
We asked a few questions: "What are the legal ramifications of this? Is material collected via a phone admissible in court if it came to that? Have the taxi authorities sanctioned its use as a tool to combat poor service? What does the NYPD have to say about it?"
RAT has all the answers:
"Users have the option to attend a hearing. If they do not choose to attend a hearing, the information simply goes to the Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) and they use it for their records. If someone chooses to bring the matter to court, they have the option to go in person or do it over the phone.
"We have met with the TLC and have had talks about possibly integrating it into their system and we hope that down the line that will happen. They felt that Report A Taxi was a great tool to help improve the cab experience. Other taxi authorities have contacted us about the possibility of expanding our app to their city and that is in the works now.
"We have had no response from the NYPD."
Perhaps RAT is indeed a great tool to "improve the cab experience", arm the consumer with the tools to complain, etc. But, similar to as some might argue with issues around unverified reviews, the opportunity for either mischief or fraudulent activity is a dangerous one.
Conclusion
These two examples, whilst very different, illustrate that both consumers and businesses are now able to do things that simply were not possible just a few years ago. (Digital) Power to individuals, some might say.
People may agree or disagree with the processes, but the reality is that such behaviour (unless banned by an authority somewhere) is likely to stay around for a long time. So watch out (especially if you're a cabbie or a website owner with hidden charges).