23 June 2009

Risky Editorial Workflow Can Sabotage Product Evaluations

Recently a colleague attempted to post a product evaluation for Origins, an Estee Lauder brand. An initial product review submission was rejected because it mentioned a non-Estee product. After excising the offending language, the review was resubmitted. It was rejected again. My dogged colleague was determined to post a review, and requested an explanation. This time the Company said it had made a mistake, and permitted the post (after an "up to 72 hours" delay).

Workflow for editorial review of product evaluations and customer-submitted commentary may prove increasingly important, as such postings may prove long-lived, and potentially quoted and spidered far beyond the original post. Eloquent or prolific posters can be influential, with opinions that spread virally beyond the original scope. Enterprises must develop efficient but sound editorial practices to respond to product evaluations sensibly, with both transparency and consistency.