Fake Amazon Reviews at Work and why YouTube Reviews make more sense

If you are reading reviews on Amazon and you see certain combinations of words, it usually means the review you are reading is probably fake. Amazon is especially guilty of this. Over 90% of the reviews you see on Amazon are fake. Some products that might be the only reviews even shown. Just 100% fake reviews, with not a single genuine one.

It is a problem that is plaguing the advertising world, as well as shopping/commerce. You can see them on Google, Yelp and other websites too... But Amazon is the biggest culprit.

And for my purposes I am going to use fake book reviews as an example.

If someone writes:

"Wow. I honestly couldn't put this book down!"

That means they didn't actually read the book and don't know what to write.

"This guy is a really good storyteller."

Notice how it doesn't tell you anything about the book? It is just short and completely bogus.

"I just ended up wanting to read more."

or

"Wow. This book should be made into a movie!"

Again. Nothing about the plot or the characters. The person writing doesn't know what to write because they didn't actually read the book.

So what should a real book review look like?

"I really liked the characters and the plot. I didn't care so much for the one character, Mordechai, he was a real jerk, but I suppose he is meant to be. I am not sure if I will buy the next book in the series. I really don't like it when books end on cliffhangers, but I did really enjoy the book so maybe I will after all. Four stars out of five!"

Yep. Notice the difference?

The reader actually complains about the book, even though they still liked it. That is when you know the review is definitely genuine. They also didn't give it a perfect 5 star rating. If it was a 5 star rating and they had no complaints, the chances are much higher that the book review is fake.

"This book caught me off guard at first because the main character is Muslim, but after the fight scene in chapter two it really picked up the pace and I enjoyed myself. I did think that some of the characters were overly complicated, and wishy-washy, but they also have their good points. Kudos to the author for making a superhero book that feels realistic, but without making the superhero rich like Batman. If you like movies like Unbreakable or Red Dawn then you will probably enjoy this book."

Pop culture references, hmm? Complaints about the character being wishy-washy and too complicated, but also praising the book for its realism. That is a good way to spot a real book review. (The book in question is "The Girl in the Red Hoodie" by Charles Moffat.)

Speaking of Charles Moffat, you should check out his YouTube channel where he posts fantasy book reviews.

Which brings us to the next topic...

Why YouTube Reviews Make More Sense

Amazon, Yelp and Google reviews are very often fake. We get that. Capitalism is so rife with fake reviews these days that for every real review there are 9 fake ones. This is because the people selling their products NEED reviews in order to get sales. Even if they're fake, a fake review is better than no reviews when your goal is to make money.

But on YouTube it is a lot harder to fake a product review or a book review.

In the example of books you actually need to READ the book in order to do it. You can't just say:

"Hello! It's Bob here and I want to talk today about Stephen King's book "The Shining". I, uh... Uh, um... I didn't actually read it so I just watched the movie version instead."

Yeah...

That isn't going to work. Trying to make a fake book review for something you didn't actually read will be pretty obvious within the first minute of making the video and trying to talk about it.

Physically reading the book is important, and video reviews like those you find on YouTube means they cannot be faked. At least not easily. There is a huge measure of authenticity when you watch a video review where the author starts talking about the character, the plot, and while there is the chance for spoilers, they can't really fake it in the normal sense.

Someone would have to go through a lot of effort to fake a book review for something they didn't actually read. Possibly by watching the movie version. But since many books don't have a movie version I suppose someone could also read a synopsis of a book (sometimes available via Wikipedia) and then fake it using that so they at least know something about the characters and the plot.

Plus at the very least the person needs to BUY the physical book so they can show it to the audience. I suppose they could read an ebook version, but when you're making a video you want something physical like the actual book that you can show in your hands.

In Charles Moffat's case he will also often compare different books to one another, so you're not just looking at one book, but also getting an idea of other books which are similar to it. Like in the video below in which he compares the Witcher series by Sapkowski to similar books by Charles Saunders and others.

The point I am trying to get at is that maybe this is what Google, Amazon and Yelp should be doing... Video reviews!

If everyone doing a product review or a book review had to post a video of themselves with the actual product then it would be far more useful to people looking to buy said product or book.

It would be way more honest and Amazon would finally shed their reputation for having so many fake reviews. Video is the perfect way to fix this problem.

And notice also, for privacy reasons, that Charles Moffat doesn't actually show his face in the above videos. Just his hands/arms and the books he is talking about. So if you do it right there is no privacy issues to worry about if people don't want to show their face when making a review.

Advertise on the Male Brain at Work for $15 per Post

Wait, did you read that correctly?

Yes, just $15 USD to get a blog post on Male Brain at Work.

It isn't a lot, but it is affordable. It is a small blog but growing.

You can advertise your books, your business, your website, films, whatever* you want to.

* No casinos or gambling, no adult stuff, and nothing illegal.

Email lilithgallery@gmail.com to inquire about advertising your guest post on our site.

New Domain Name - MaleBrainatWork.com

The Male Brain at Work now has its own Domain Name: MaleBrainatWork.com

CANCELLED - See update further below.

Previously the site was hosted on http://malebrainatwork.blogspot.com, but with the popularity of the website I have decided it deserves its own domain name. Hence the change.

Just how popular is the Male Brain at Work? Well, we recently surpassed 771,000 hits. I figured it was long past due the website had its own domain name.

Please help promote/advertise the Male Brain at Work by linking to the new domain name, posting the link on Twitter, Facebook and other sites! :)

UPDATE: I eventually dropped the Domain Name. It wasn't worth it. Maybe someday it will be worth it again, but right now there isn't enough advertising revenue to justify the domain name.

9 Funny Signs in Businesses

Proof that having a sense of humour (and a dirty mind) is sometimes good for business.

Banned Condom Commercial

Wow. I can't imagine why the condom commercial further below was banned. I guess it was too over the top. :p

Definitely funny however.

To me advertisements like this prove that there is a market for mature channels that allow traditional style advertising (like insurance ads, car ads, beer commercials, etc) but with a mature theme.

Of course I could also argue that we now have the internet, netflix, video streaming, etc and that advertising censors don't apply online - and therefore making ads like this still have value because you can simply promote it online and mavens (people like me who post funny/interesting stuff for free) will promote it for free.

But whatever. It is effective advertising.

Offensive Fiat boob job commercial

What is interesting about the following car ad is how it is both offensive, but also accurately depicts what a typical man would think and how he would react in such a situation.

Which makes me think that most women would be utterly offended if they knew what men really thought on a regular basis.

Superbowl Commercials at Work

ENTERTAINMENT - Seriously, don't actually watch these at work. You could be fired for the "gratuitous skin" that is typical of Superbowl commercials. Amusing though they are, its not recommended.

















All commercials aside, nothing beats the amount of skin shown in Benny Benassi's music video "Satisfaction".

The Old Spice Guy at Work

FASHION - What woman (or man for that matter) doesn't like the Old Spice Guy in the following ads?











The last one is part of an Old Spice campaign on YouTube (there's hundreds of these small videos in response to twitter and Facebook comments) in an effort to create buzz. Frankly its working. Smart advertising = Good advertising.

Playboy and Profits at Work

SEX - Playboy Magazine, a hallmark of men's magazines since 1953 isn't just about busty young women with typical dimensions of 36-24-36, Patrick Nagel artwork or cartoons... its also about politically and socially motivated articles, thought provoking ones. When Hugh Hefner started the magazine in the 1950s he wanted to change the world, but he needed to lure men in so they would (hopefully) read the articles in addition to gazing wistfully at the photos within.

In 1971 Playboy went public, becoming a publicly trading company on the stock market. At the height of the magazine's popularity in 1972 they sold 7.2 million copies of one issue.

As Hugh Hefner got older (he is now 84) his control over the company dwindled and the editorial articles started to change their direction. In recent years this has begun to bother him and he now wants control of his company back.

Announced this week is a $123 million USD offer to buy back all A and B class shares at $5.50 each, a premium of 30% more than they're actually worth right now and values Playboy at $185 million USD total. (Hefner currently owns only 33% of the company.)

In recent years Playboy's profits have been down anyway, largely due to internet competition. After all why go through the embarrassment of buying a magazine and then telling people "I read it for the articles!" when you could get the same photographs and thought-provoking articles on the internet?

Thus Playboy Enterprises Inc. has been slashing jobs in recent years and combining units. Profits are so low the company has lost more than $200 million in the last 2 years and had to reduce the guaranteed number of copies they would sell (the rate base to advertisers) to 1.5 million from its previous 2.6 million.

From 1989 to 2009 it was Christie Hefner (daughter of the founder) who had been serving as the CEO. Last year she was replaced by Scott Flanders who wanted to turn the company more into a brand management company (selling the logos of Playboy Bunny and other icons to movies and other entertainment venues). While that would certainly help boost Playboy's popularity and their profit numbers, it is doubtful it would be enough.

During the first 3 months of 2010 sales dropped 48% and revenue dropped 30%. Scott Flanders was downsizing the company and the slashing of jobs meant cuts to the editorials too.

So will Playboy (which includes cable TV channels) be sold back to Hugh Hefner who will hopefully pump new life into the aging icon? Possibly. At this point the company is a sinking ship.

My advice to Hugh Hefner: Buy it back, bring back the thought-provoking articles that made Playboy "The New Yorker" of men's magazines, and make the website "free" and subsidized by advertising instead of the current rate of $7.95/month if you sign up for a year. As websites go Playboy.com has become incredibly underrated... you can read all the articles, movies reviews, celebrity interviews, etc for free... but there's no archive of old articles and they're competing with other internet companies on the basis of porn, but still trying to promote themselves as a general men's magazine with lots of articles.

My point is the website would be more popular and more profitable if it was completely free and supported by advertising instead (and frankly Hugh Hefner is rich enough already). If Hefner claims complete ownership the company will cease to be about the profits. He can go back to his roots, luring in men and hopefully getting them to read something that will provoke their brains.

I also think part of Playboy's problem is that the women shown within are so ridiculously unattainable that most men now dismiss the magazine because they know its unrealistic. The women in Playboy are so... sterile and perfect they're just not real any more. The Playboy ideal of beauty has become so unattainable that its become a turn off.

See Also
Playboy at Work

Sarah Jessica Parker's Ugliness at Work

ENTERTAINMENT - What is ugly? What do we consider ugly? Is there a line that is crossed that becomes ugliness?

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but you could argue so is ugliness.

So what then is Sarah Jessica Parker, one of the four stars of Sex and the City?

Is she ugly or beautiful?

Some people argue that she is hot. Others say she is ugly. Some even go so far as to say Sarah Jessica Parker looks like a horse. (And there is definitely some similarities.)

Obviously she's not "drop dead gorgeous". Perhaps on the skinny side of average would be more accurate. The wart (or whatever that thing is) on her chin isn't helping either. She could easily play the Wicked Witch of the West with ease.

I must admit she seems to have a two-face problem... sometimes she looks good, other times pretty disgusting. Its a bit like the Seinfeld episode with the woman who keeps going back and forth between beautiful and ugly depending on the lighting conditions.



There's also the episode of The Office where they argue whether Hillary Swank is hot or not. Evidently Hillary Swank also suffers from two-facedness.

I think in this case its a matter of makeup. Sarah Jessica Parker has become very reliant on makeup to make her look presentable. Not necessarily beautiful, because her face is so long and angular that you'd really have to like that look in the first place to appreciate her face.

Or do you?

Many of us have no doubt seen the Dove commercial by now which demonstrates the combined effects of hair/makeup, lighting and photoshop:



So in the case of Sarah Jessica Parker it is clear that makeup is her friend, but it really can do only so much for her. If anything she would be better off putting on an extra 20 lbs so her cheeks don't look so gaunt.

She does have a rather long face so in that respect she is undoubtably horse like.

But what if you like horses? They're a handsome beast. Majestic... it just doesn't work on the face of a woman that well. The long face, the droopy nose, that gauntness of her cheeks, that wart on her chin.

She's also super skinny and short. See Stuck Up Little Bitches at Work. You'll pardon me if I prefer a woman who has more meat, muscle and a healthy dose of body fat.

But for fans of Sex and the City however perhaps it is because she's imperfect that some fans like her so much. Her character is spunky, thoughtful and well acted. Nobody can say Sarah Jessica Parker can't act. She's an excellent actress.

But she's not beautiful. She's average. Just like the majority of us. And while our perceptions of beauty are continually distorted in the 21st century (no thanks to photoshop, Hollywood and the beauty industry) she's also more real.

Its the same reason why the beauty industry no longer hires models for their commercials as much as they used to... the focus these days is on hiring funny actresses based on their popularity. Its a two-prong effect: #1. Actresses look realistic and they're easier to work with on a commercial set because they have acting experience. So even though they're acting its perceived as being more real because its not an airbrushed supermodel. #2. The product benefits from the actress's popularity.

Take "Angela" from the popular TV show The Office: She isn't particularly attractive. She's just a skinny blonde known more for her hair and sour disposition... and yet here she is in Clairol Nice 'n Easy commercials.



Then there's the heroin chic look... skinny and gaunt Carre Otis used to look or any number of other so-called supermodels which the fashion industry claims is beautiful, but in reality they're 10 lbs away from being a skeletal corpse.

Call me a traditionalist but I'd prefer the Marilyn Monroe or Pam Grier look.

The Naked Wine Show at Work

ENTERTAINMENT/SEX - I met today the host of The Naked Wine Show. She does 1 minute reviews of various wine bottles from around the world... in the buff, and is quite eloquent about it.

It reminded me of various other posts in which I've talked about advertising and sexuality (not necessarily on this particular blog).

The idea of doing reviews, news, tech talk or whatever in the nude is nothing new. Naked News has been doing this sort of thing for years now. (I personally prefer the Toronto Star and CBC News for my news, but to each their own.)

I've also noticed that this seems to be a largely Canadian idea. The Naked Wine Show is produced by a Canadian wine company... and so is Naked News, which is produced by 'Egalaxy Multimedia Inc.', which is based in Toronto, Canada.

So does this mean Canadians are more prone to advertising with a dose of sexuality tossed in? Or are we just more liberally minded? Not sure. There are quite a few examples of sex in advertising from all over the world.

Admittedly such a show will cater largely to men, but its also pretty savvy advertising because wine sales amongst men in going up lately so that is a market that can be exploited (or should I say sexploited?) as it continues to grow.

Don't expect to see a lot of nudity on The Naked Wine Show however. All the good bits are tastefully covered. Totally unlike William Adolphe Bouguereau's 1884 painting "Bacchus and the Nymphs". You can see more images of the wine god Bacchus at:

Achilles to Zephyr: An Alphabetical Listing of Greek & Roman Art.

Conclusions? Sexuality and wine have often gone hand in hand, only the media has changed. Take Edouard Manet's "The Bar at the Folies-Bergère" for example. Wine has long been the romantic drink of choice... unlike gin which is known as 'Panty Peeler' according to The Kids in the Hall clip 'The Relationship Lawyers'.



I personally have a particularly good memory of wine and sex... it was in 2005 when I was living in Seoul in South Korea. The company I was working for gave me a gift basket of wine around the time of a holiday. One of the wine bottles was a special gold wine, which had gold flakes in it. It was REALLY good and according to the Koreans drinking flakes of gold is good for your health. (The Koreans aren't the only ones either, there is also an European company, Gold Cuvee, that makes a similar wine with 22 carat flakes.) My girlfriend at the time and myself ended up drinking it in bed together, spilling quite a bit of it on each other on purpose and having fun kissing with wine in our mouths. Such joy!

And many other people probably have similar memories of drinking and sex... so again its really not much of a surprise to see sexuality used to sell wine. Its definitely way better than telemarketing or spam... and way tastier to enjoy wine with someone special!

See Also:
Advertising in America
Advertising Sexploitation
The Ugly Side of Beauty
Canada a Haven for Spam

Tiny Hamburgers at Work

Have you seen the new Burger King commercial with their tiny little burgers called "BK Burger Shots".



For $1.39 each, they're gone in less than 2 bites. (That is approx. $.70 per bite.)

In theory you could chew slowly and try to enjoy them, but that would defeat the purpose of fast food wouldn't it?

The point I am making is what a FUNDAMENTAL waste of money. Sure, $1.39 may not seem like a lot, but when you consider other items on the menu at fast food restaurants why would you pick the little tiny burgers when you could pick something else?

As a man, and behalf of all meat-loving men who appreciate a good burger, I'd have to say when I'm going to plunk down cash for something to eat I usually go for the meal that gives me the "most meat for my buck". Why the heck would I buy a bunch of little tiny burgers? Shouldn't I be looking for a big-freaking-sirloin burger?

Lets take A&W for example. A&W has its new Sirloin Uncle Burger available, and its roughly the same size as the Papa Burger (which has two smaller patties, but roughly the same amount of meat).

Women, if you're reading this, yes, you read correctly. We men use considerable brain power trying to determine which burger is the BIGGEST, and sometimes which one contains the most protein (juicy sirloin or jumbo burger, so difficult to decide).

Its not just burgers either. When I am grocery shopping and lets say I am comparing Chunky soups, I buy the can with the highest % of protein content. Chunky Steak and Potato has 7 grams per 250 mL while Chunky Sirloin Burger has 8 grams per 250 mL.

It is my opinion that that BK Burger Shots are actually aimed at anorexic women who are worried about their weight. Just my opinion. Which is funny because they wouldn't be caught dead eating at Burger King.

That and children. That is right. Its a kiddie burger being marketed to adults.

To any of you men out there who eat those tiny burgers, you should be ashamed of yourself for falling for lame advertising.