While this is not a story about intentional deception it is an incredible story about people being misled by the system of internet information gathering that led to some significant pain for investors of one airline. Now admittedly I may look like I live under a rock because I did not see this story until it is being forensically reconstructed but I just had to say something about it. If this isn’t a warning about how delicate all of this “information age” stuff is then I suppose there never will be one.
So here it is as reported in both The Times and WSJ. Apparently, one curious late night / early morning researcher last weekend visited the South Florida Sun- Sentinel’s website and took a look at a story from 2002 which was about the bankruptcy filing of United Airlines. So far, this sounds pretty harmless, right? Well, since the Sun Sentinel’s system for updating top stories has apparently no filters, this story was bumped to the of “Popular Stories” in the business section. Now, along comes Google trolling its way across the net grabbing up all the latest news (apparently banking only on the reliability of the source itself to a large degree) and promptly displayed it in Google News. From the time that Google ID’d this hot story from 2002 and then displayed in its Google News section as current was 3 minutes and 2 seconds. Then the you know what hit the fan. According to the Times article:
“A Florida investment firm found the story on Monday morning with a Google search and posted a summary on the Bloomberg financial information service.
That visibility – Bloomberg is seen by thousands of investment managers and traders – sparked the run on United shares.”
The “run on United’s shares” mentioned here was to the tune of $1 billion (that’s right, with a B). As a result of this story from 6 years ago, the value of United’s stock went from $12 to $3. United Airlines needed to do a little reputation work as a result. Eventually, the stock bounced back but not completely. As of this writing it is trading at $10.90 which is about the top range of where it has recovered from the “glitch”. Glitch? I know there are many, many untold stories of money lost and gained on this “story” that was the result of one person’s search and the apparent inability of a paper and Google to correctly ID the story as 6 years old. There seems to be an almost cavalier attitude about this thing and I am amazed. Like I said I just found out about this today.
There is a lot of finger pointing that is occurring between Google and the Tribune Co., owner of The Sun-Sentinel. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has launched a preliminary probe into how this happened at what to do next.
I’m a little taken aback by this whole thing. Was the story not properly dated by the newspaper so Google couldn’t tell that it was old? Why did the paper allow it to get to the list of “Popular Stories” in its own business section based on ONE visit? Should anyone be ultimately responsible or is this just the price of the information age and the dehumanizing of a lot of what we do. Let’s face it, an algorithm can be real smart but unless there is some artificial intelligence in it (which is still artificial) it can only process what it is given.
So is the paper wrong for not properly tagging the story (or at least not to Google’s standards, God forbid) or is Google for not checking up? Google is playing the “we just take what is given to us” stance and the Tribune Co. is pointing fingers at Google. Oh, Bloomberg played a role in this too. I would highly recommend going to the Times article to get all the “he said, she said” on this one because it raises some interesting questions including who is responsible for this kind of “error” and is the Googlebot reliable just because it’s Google’s?
Interesting, for sure. Oh and how does this relate to internet marketing? Well, when your company that has a black mark in its past gets confused for the old version of itself and your online sales plummet because of the foul up then it will be pretty obvious.
SMB Takeaway: Not everything you read is real and it can hurt you. Even though you may be a small / medium business,you are not shielded from bad information getting out into “cyberspace” and costing you money. SMB’s HAVE to be concerned with what is being said about them online. Online reputation monitoring is for everyone.
Thanks and have a great day!
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Frank…. here are my quick thoughts/suggestions regarding your comment: “SMBs have to be concerned with what is being said about them online.”
Totally agree… an SMB’s unhappy customer can now easily complain to the world… and be heard! Given this new reality, here are a few simple suggestions that may help a business owner better “influence” what is being said online by grumpy customers:
1) Make it easy for customers to complain to you first. A prominent feedback link, follow up survey, and/or toll free phone number… can make it easy for a customer to tell you they’re unhappy so they don’t have to go “public”.
2) Act promptly to let your customer know that their complaint has been heard. Respond to their email, return their phone call, etc. Many a frustrated customer will be surprised that you even responded… and may give you another chance to keep their business.
3) Monitor what’s being said online… and join in the dialogue. If a customer is complaining on a review site, blog, etc. then find out about it and publicly tell your side of the story. Most folks know there’s often two sides and are willing to listen before passing judgment on your business… so tell yours.