Last night, as we were cooking dinner -- refried bean and soy "beef" tacos -- my boyfriend, Ivan, and I got into a lively conversation about the difference between the information published on the Consumer Reports products testing site and the consumer-generated reviews posted on the Gizmodo blog.
Consumer Reports, which used to be a monthly publication before it was "Web-ified," is often criticized for being slow and outdated because Consumers Union, its parent organization, relies on an in-house testing lab to provide vetted product reviews. The process takes time. Here's how it's described on the Consumer Reports site:
Before a product even enters one of the dozens of labs at our Yonkers headquarters, it has been subjected to considerable research. We gather data about products and services, about consumer demand in the marketplace, and about what our subscribers plan to purchase. Editorial, technical, and research staff then scrutinize that material, along with suggestions from our subscribers, to develop our testing schedule.
After additional research to define a project's scope, staff shoppers -- assisted by a network of shoppers in 65 U.S. cities -- buy the products we use as test samples.
To supplement laboratory testing, the survey research department gathers the experiences that hundreds of thousands of our subscribers have had with products and services through an annual questionnaire. Those results are the basis of our well-known auto Frequency-of-Repair index and other product-reliability reports....
Impressive! And useful. But in our fast-paced digital age, consumers want to know as soon as a product comes out how it works and what others think about it -- not a month or two after its release date.
Sites like Gizmodo offer an alternative. On Gizmodo, informed opinions on products are posted much faster -- it often feels like mere moments after a new product has been released.
If you are shopping for a new mp3 player, a positive review from a Gizmodo contributor might be all the information you need to make a decision. But what if you're planning to spend $900 on a new flat-screen TV? Is an informed opinion on Gizmodo enough information for you to make a decision? Or would you want a vetted product review like the ones Consumer Reports produces? (Full disclosure: I was pleased to learn that Ivan checked Consumer Reports before we purchased our new TV last Christmas.)
As with tech product reviews and evaluations, so too with the social sector. Thoughts and opinion about philanthropy -- what it is, what it should do, how it should be measured -- are being shared on blogs and social networking sites by growing numbers of people. But with the stakes that much higher, how do we filter the mounting flood of news items, blog posts, and tweets to get to the stuff that really matters? In other words, is there a Web 2.0 Consumer Union for philanthropy, a place where new ideas and social innovations are being tested and reviewed?
It's a theme that Tactical Philanthropy blogger Sean Stannard Stockton explored in a recent Chronicle of Philanthropy column. More and more foundation leaders are engaging in public conversations about philanthropy and social change, Stannard-Stockton noted, and they are to be commended for sharing their "thought processes in regular Internet postings." But, he adds,
As the amount of available information explodes, the wisdom to process it and put it in context becomes exponentially more valuable. In this environment, information becomes a resource that is valuable only when we place it in context. Access to information is no longer a competitive advantage. It is the ability to filter and process the flood of information that sets effective people apart....
As someone new to the sector, I feel compelled to ask: How do others navigate and filter the flood of information that crosses their screens every day to find the information that is truly important? And once you've found it, how do you put it into a context that is useful. Have you found Twitter, Facebook, or any other Web 2.0 platforms to be helpful? Or do you stick to more traditional media like print publications and organizational Web sites? This enquiring mind wants to know....
-- Regina Mahone
