For the past 20 years, Yelp has been providing a platform for people to share their experiences at businesses ranging from bars to barbershops. According to the company, in that time the platform has published 287 million user reviews of over 600,000 businesses.

There’s a reason review sites like Yelp are so popular. No one wants to spend their hard-earned money on a dud product, or fork over cash for a bad meal. So we’ll seek advice from strangers and use various clues to judge if a particular review is authentic and reliable.

But sometimes these cues can lead shoppers down the wrong path. Other times, the reviews are simply fake.

I’m a linguist who studies “word of mouth,” or what people tell each other about their experiences. Advances in text analysis have allowed researchers like me to detect patterns and draw conclusions from millions of product reviews.

Here are some key findings from research that I and others in my field have conducted:

Signs of foul play

How can you tell if the review you’re reading is sincere?

Competition might sometimes push businesses to pay people to compose positive reviews for their products or negative reviews for competitors. Bots can also manufacture fake reviews that sound like they’ve been written by humans.

As a result, fake reviews have become a big problem that threatens to delegitimize online reviews altogether.

For example, a recent study estimates that fake reviews compel consumers to waste 12 cents for every dollar they spend online.

The reality is that people do a pretty poor job at discerning a fake review from a real one. It’s essentially a coin flip—studies have shown that shoppers can correctly identify a fake review only half of the time.

Researchers have also tried to identify what characterizes a fake review. They’ve proposed that those that are too long or too short, in addition to those that don’t use the past tense or a first-person pronoun.

Yelp has long been well aware of the issue. The company developed an algorithm that identifies and filters out “unhelpful” reviews—and that includes reviews that are too short.

It’s important to think about the difference between how you might write a review after you’ve tried a product, or if you’re coming up with something out of thin air.

In a 2023 study, my colleagues and I suggested that the main difference lies in whether specific language is used. For example, a real review will contain words that are more concrete and describe the “what, where, when” of the experience.

By contrast, if someone hasn’t actually stayed at, say, the hotel they are reviewing, or didn’t dine at the restaurant they are writing about, they’ll use abstract generalities loosely related to the experience.

It’s the difference between reading, in a review, “The room was clean and the beach was nice” and “The room was so clean, we felt like it was new. A sandy beach was steps away, which allowed us to easily take a dip after our hike. The shimmering ocean water also made the view from the window special.”

Real reviews can still mislead

Even if all fake reviews were filtered out, do product reviews still help you make better decisions?

As is often the case in marketing research, it depends.

Researchers have delved into this question for years and can point to a variety of review features that can help your decision making.

For example, you might assume that if you’ve read a few reviews for a product, and they are similar to each other, this means there is a consensus about the product. Indeed, studies have shown that similarity across opinions is more likely to make readers more certain.

My research shows that similar reviews increase consumer certainty about the product. However, I’ve also found that these similar reviews are more likely to be written by consumers who are less certain about their experience with the product. It’s likely that they simply repeated what others said in their reviews, pulling from those reviews to craft their own.

This creates a paradox. Readers of reviews that sound similar will be more certain that they’re making the correct decision, even as the writers of those same reviews were less certain. At the same time, reviews that differ from each other will elicit hesitancy in readers, even though the writers of the review were in fact more certain about their experiences.

The text isn’t the only element that influences readers. In ongoing research, I discovered that the sheer number of available reviews on a platform can influence how you perceive each individual review.

So, if you’re reading a review and it is one of, say, 1,572 reviews, you’ll think it is a more credible review than if that same review was one of, say, 72 reviews.

This might seem illogical, but it can be explained by the human tendency to take quantity as a sign of quality: If a product has many reviews, this could mean that it’s popular and that many people have purchased it. A halo effect occurs, and you then subconsciously believe that everything about the product—including its reviews—is better.

But for the most part, despite these issues and others, consumers still make better purchasing decisions with reviews than without them.

It’s just a matter of knowing what to look out for.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Fear of missing out has rocketed the value of artificial intelligence companies, despite few signs as to when the technology will turn a profit, raising talk of AI overenthusiasm.

The mystery deepens when it comes to predicting which generative AI firms will prevail, according to analysts interviewed by AFP.

ChatGPT-maker OpenAI secured $6.6 billion in a funding round that propelled its valuation to an eye-popping $157 billion, sparking new worries there is an AI bubble poised to burst.

“We are in the bubble where all the vendors are running around saying you have to deploy it as the latest digital transformation move,” independent tech analyst Rob Enderle of Enderle Group said of generative AI.

“I expect this ugly phase for the next two to three years, but then things should settle.”

To the critics, buyers don’t really understand the technology, and the market needed for it to thrive is not mature yet.

Enderle also contended that investors are pouring money into generative AI companies with the mistaken notion we are close to technology that has computers thinking the way humans do, called general artificial intelligence.

That “holy grail” won’t show up until 2030 at the earliest, he said.

‘Revolution’ is here

Industry titans Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft have thrown their weight behind the technology, entering into partnerships and pushing out products to accelerate adoption.

But the tech giants are spending big to provide sometimes flawed features that for now cost them more than they take in from users.

The huge investments in OpenAI shows that Big Tech is willing to sink “substantial cash into a company that’s dealing with significant operation losses,” Emarketer analyst Grace Harmon said of the OpenAI funding round.

There’s a “lingering fear of underinvesting in AI and losing out…even if investments are not guaranteed to provide returns,” she said.

Dan Ives, a Wedbush Securities analyst, is one of Wall Street’s biggest believers in generative AI’s importance and compared ChatGPT’s emergence to an “iPhone moment” that will see one trillion dollars in spending during the next three years.

An “AI Revolution is not just at our doorstep, but is actively shaping the future of the tech world,” he said after OpenAI’s historic fund-raise.

Wall Street for now stands firmly with Ives and has sent the stock price of AI-chasing tech giants to record levels since ChatGPT burst on the scene in late 2022.

Nvidia, the AI-chip juggernaut, in June briefly became the world’s biggest company by market valuation amid the frenzy.

But according to media reports, OpenAI will lose $5 billion this year on sales of $3.7 billion.

The company told investors the pain will be short-lived and that revenue will rise exponentially, hitting a whopping $100 billion in 2029.

More than poems?

The question is whether people will pay for generative AI services such as Microsoft’s CoPilot that depends on OpenAI technology, said Creative Strategies analyst Carolina Milanesi, who pushed back against the idea of an AI bubble.

“Consumers are going to start going beyond the write-the-poem-for-me stuff,” Milanesi said.

“It will become part of our lives and we will depend on it, because we will be forced to.”

But for now, the generative AI business model is tough, since data center and computing power costs dwarf revenue, according to analysts.

Still, Milanesi doesn’t think the tech industry is getting carried away with generative AI.

“How this shakes out is the way to think about it, not so much the bubble bursting and everyone losing out,” Milanesi said.

“It’s a bit of a Darwin situation where the survival of the fittest is happening,” she said.

And while there is more excitement about generative AI than real proof of its success, the technology is moving exceptionally fast.

“Investors are not sure what the destination is, but everybody is jumping on the boat and they don’t want to be left behind,” Enderle said.

“That typically ends badly,” he said.

© 2024 AFP

Should young people be paid less than their older counterparts, even if they’re working the same job? Whether you think it’s fair or not, it’s been standard practice in many industries for a long time.

The argument is that young people are not fully “work-ready” and require more intensive employer support to develop the right skills for their job.

But change could be on the horizon. Major unions and some politicians are pushing for reform—arguing “youth wages” should be scrapped entirely for adults.

Why? They say the need to be fairly paid for equal work effort, as well as economic considerations such as the high cost of living and ongoing housing crisis, mean paying young adults less based on their age is out of step with modern Australia.

So is there a problem with our current system, and if so, how might we go about fixing it?

What are youth wages?

In Australia, a youth wage or junior pay rate is paid as an increasing percentage of an award’s corresponding full adult wage until an employee reaches the age of 21.

This isn’t the case in every industry—some awards require all adults to be paid the same minimum rates.

But for those not covered by a specific award, as well as those working in industries including those covered by the General Retail Industry Award, Fast Food Industry Award and Pharmacy Industry Award, employees younger than 21 are not paid the full rate.

Why pay less?

Conventionally, junior rates have been thought of as a “training wage.” Younger people are typically less experienced, so as they gain more skills on the job over time, they are paid a higher hourly rate.

But there are a few key problems with this approach, which may not be relevant given many employers’ expectations for their workers to start “job-ready” and a lack of consistency in the training they provide.

Training up and developing skills is an important part of building any career. But it isn’t always provided by their employers.

Many young workers train themselves in job-related technical education and short courses, often at their own expense and prior to starting work.

Employers reap the benefit of this pre-employment training and so a “wage discount” for younger workers may be irrelevant in this instance.

None of this is to say employers aren’t offering something important when they take on young employees.

Younger workers coming into employment relatively early have access to more than just a paid job, but also become part of a team, with responsibilities and job requirements that support “bigger-picture” life skills.

Those who employ them may be contributing to their broader social and cultural engagement, something that could be considered part of a more inclusive training package. Whether that justifies a significant wage discount is less clear.

Calls for a rethink

There are growing calls for a rethink on the way we compensate young people for their efforts.

An application by the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association—the union for retail, fast food and warehousing workers—seeks to remove junior rates for adult employees on three key awards. This action will be heard by the Fair Work Commission next year.

Sally McManus, Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said the peak union body will lobby the government to legislate such changes if this application fails. The Greens have added their support.

That doesn’t have to mean abolishing youth wages altogether. But 21 years of age is a high threshold, especially given we get the right to major adult responsibilities such as voting and driving by 18.

A transition strategy could consider gradually lowering this threshold, or increasing the wage percentages over time.

Lessons from New Zealand

We wouldn’t be the first to make such a bold change if we did.

Our geographically and culturally close neighbor, New Zealand, has already removed the “youth wage”—replacing it with a “first job” rate and a training wage set at 80% of the full award rate in 2008.

A common argument against abolishing youth wages—and increasing the minimum wage in general—is that it will stop businesses hiring young people and thus increase unemployment.

But a 2021 study that examined the effects of New Zealand’s experience with increasing minimum wages—including this change—found little discernible difference in employment outcomes for young workers.

The authors did note, however, that New Zealand’s economic downturn post-2008 had a marked effect on the employment of young workers more generally.

What’s fair?

It’s easy to see how we arrived at the case for paying younger adults less. But younger workers should not bear the burden of intergenerational inequity by “losing out” on wages in the early part of their working life.

The debate we see now echoes the discussions about equal pay for equal work value run in the 1960s and ’70s in relation to women’s unequal pay.

We were warned that paying women the same as men would cause huge economic dislocation. Such a catastrophe simply did not come to pass.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

EU countries gave a definitive green light on Friday to hefty additional tariffs on electric cars made in China, despite strong German opposition and fears it will trigger a trade war with Beijing.

The European Commission—which provisionally approved the step in June after an inquiry found that Beijing’s state aid to auto manufacturers was unfair—now has free rein to impose steep tariffs for five years from end October.

China has slammed the “protectionist” tariffs and promised retaliation, but talks on addressing the subsidy dispute will continue between the two sides despite Friday’s vote.

Ten member states including France, Italy and Poland supported imposing the tariffs of up to 35.3 percent, coming on top of existing duties of 10 percent, several European diplomats told AFP.

Only five including Germany and Hungary voted against while 12 abstained including Sweden and Spain. Madrid initially supported tariffs before reversing course to call on Brussels to “reconsider” its decision.

Although the tariffs did not win support from a majority of states, the opposition was not enough to block them—which would have required at least 15 states representing 65 percent of the bloc’s population.

That leaves the choice on moving ahead in the hands of the European Commission—in charge of trade policy for the bloc—which said it had “obtained the necessary support for the adoption of tariffs”.

After the vote, China’s commerce ministry urged EU states to “return to the right track” by resolving trade frictions through dialogue.

“China firmly opposes the EU’s unfair, non-compliant and unreasonable protectionist practices in this case,” it said in a statement shared by state broadcaster CCTV.

‘Fatal signal’

The EU duties have pitted France and Germany against each other, with Paris arguing they are necessary to level the playing field for EU carmakers against Chinese counterparts.

Germany, renowned for its strong auto industry and its key manufacturers including BMW, Volkswagen and Mercedes heavily invested in China, urged the commission not to go ahead.

The vote’s results demonstrate how the EU’s biggest trade investigation in years has ruffled feathers, with the bloc’s biggest economy vehemently against the duties.

“The EU Commission should not trigger a trade war despite the vote in favor” of the tariffs, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner said. “We need a negotiated solution.”

Berlin has strong arguments on its side: Beijing has threatened to hit back hard and has already opened probes into European brandy, dairy and pork products imported into China.

“We will face all types of retaliation from China, that’s for sure,” one diplomat said.

China tried in vain to stop the duties coming into force through dialogue, but talks have so far failed to produce an agreement that satisfies the EU.

Any duties could be lifted later if China addresses the EU’s concerns.

Carmakers divided

French and German automakers are likewise divided over the duties.

German auto giant Volkswagen said they “are the wrong approach” while BMW said the vote was “a fatal signal for the European automotive industry”.

Both manufacturers urged more talks to prevent a trade conflict.

Meanwhile, US-French-Italian auto group Stellantis said it “takes note” of the vote, repeating its commitment to “free and fair competition”, echoing similar cautious comments made by the umbrella group, the European Automobile Manufacturers Association.

The extra duties also apply, at various rates, to vehicles made in China by foreign groups such as Tesla—which faces a tariff of 7.8 percent.

Chinese car giant Geely—one of the country’s largest sellers of EVs—said Friday’s decision was “not constructive and may hinder EU-China economic and trade relations, ultimately harming European companies and consumer interests”.

EU’s tightrope

Brussels says it aims to protect European carmakers in a critical industry that provides jobs to around 14 million people across the European Union but does not benefit from massive state subsidies like in China.

Canada and the United States have in recent months imposed much higher tariffs of 100 percent on Chinese electric car imports.

Trade tensions between China and the EU are not limited to electric cars, with Brussels also investigating Chinese subsidies for solar panels and wind turbines.

The bloc faces a difficult task as it tries to foster its clean tech industry and invest in the green transition without sparking a painful trade war with China.

© 2024 AFP

An international and interdisciplinary group of researchers has compiled a proposal for a new paradigm for economic performance and sustainability, promoting cooperation and ethical behavior as key drivers of economic success.

A team of researchers led by Associate Professor Jan Pfister from the University of Turku has introduced a forward-thinking approach to performance management, offering a vision for how businesses and organizations can achieve both economic success and sustainability.

In their publication in Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, the researchers introduce the “prosocial market economy” as a model designed to embed cooperation, ethical behavior, and sustainability into organizational practices.

This research reconsiders the focus on self-interest and short-term gains that dominate traditional economic frameworks. Instead, it argues that organizations fostering prosocial behaviors—those that prioritize collaboration and collective well-being—are more likely to succeed over time. The proposed prosocial market economy highlights ethical responsibility as a key driver of both superior performance and long-term sustainability.

One of the key insights of the research is a new framework for success; the researchers explain why and how organizations emphasizing cooperation and ethical behavior outperform those driven solely by self-interest.

Drawing on evolutionary theory and insights from Nobel Prize-winning economist Elinor Ostrom, the study suggests that integrating the core design principles of prosocial groups into performance measurement and management practice fosters economic success. The study also highlights the role of sustainability: the prosocial market economy envisions businesses that can achieve economic success while contributing positively to environmental sustainability and social well-being.

“In the context of global challenges such as climate change, inequality, and resource depletion, this new model offers an alternative to traditional economic paradigms that prioritize short-term profits. The prosocial market economy provides a framework where business success and ethical responsibility coexist, helping companies address today’s complex demands while ensuring long-term viability and positive social impact,” explains Pfister.

This interdisciplinary research brought together experts from several institutions in Finland, the United Kingdom, U.S. and United Arab Emirates, and various fields, including accounting, management, and evolutionary biology.

The collaboration underscores the importance of integrating behavioral science and management studies to foster a more sustainable and cooperative economic system.

From theory to practice

The prosocial market economy offers practical tools for organizations across industries, both in the private and public sectors, providing business leaders with principles to design prosocial teams and foster collective success.

According to Pfister, “Our research clarifies why and how prosocial groups—those that prioritize shared success over individual gain—outperform groups driven purely by self-interest. This has profound implications for how we measure and manage performance, and how we cultivate organizational behavior that protects and nurtures a sustainable future.”

With increasing pressure from consumers, policymakers, and investors to embrace sustainable practices, this research moves beyond the conventional Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) debate, which often relies on external measurements.

The prosocial market economy focuses on transforming organizational cultures from within, embedding sustainability and cooperation into core values. This inside-out approach helps businesses foster genuine, lasting sustainability, avoiding greenwashing and the hypocrisy of superficial ESG compliance.

The prosocial market economy offers a pathway for organizations to be both economically successful and environmentally and socially responsible.