The era of user generated content is, of course, well upon us. And the one thing that users generate more than almost anything else is criticism.  So it make sense that we learn how to deal with it effectively. And yet, the way criticism is given, and the way it is received is still a cause of much discomfort on the web.

Giving criticism is easier than receiving it, and yet even here I have noticed the South African blogosphere struggle. I know from my own experience that I have no problem criticising – sometimes rather aggressively, I admit – corporations, or people I do not personally know. And yet, I am very loathe to hand out criticism, of any kind, to my online friends and acquaintances, whether in public or in private.

I suspect that the reason we struggle to criticise those we know is because few of us can be trusted to handle criticism well.  Most of us get very defensive, with the minimum of provocation. Witness these two comments (which really made me laugh) as an example, taken from an iMod blog post:

Reader in a comment : “Hi. I have also blogged about this at http://xyz”

Author: “Oi Walter, you trying to hijack my thread? ;)”

Reader: “Dont be silly - why would I try do that? just adding my 2 cents worth.If you think I am hi jacking your thread - and its not of benefit to the cause please delete my comment.”

Ironically, it is essential to receive constructive criticism at all stages of a business’ lifecycle, even if your business is simply your personal brand. So by withholding it from those of our friends who need it the most, we are in fact causing them more harm than good.

The situation actually gets worse before it gets better. because not only do we not criticise each other effectively, but we also tend to do the opposite, which I’ll formally refer to as “ass-kissing”. A friend or colleague launches a new feature on his website that he is sooo proud of, and we all trip over each other to congratulate him, and to tell him “It rocks” or that he’s “a genius” or “wow, awesome, dude!”. Whereas, in fact, maybe the new feature is not really all that hot at all. Maybe, in fact, it is quite awful.

I guess it is a two sided game: we have to be able to receive criticism before it is given to us. And certainly not everybody does. Witness some of these examples of how differently criticism was handled:

• QVC
  Donn Edwards wrote a blog post that was critical of the way in which QVC (Quality Vacation Club)lured him to a timeshare presentation with the promise of a prize. Instead of ignoring the blog post, with the hope that it would go away, the QVC CEO decided to sue with a vengeance (for anything between R450,000 to R1,500,000 depending on the mood of the lawyer).  The result has been so much negative online discussion regarding QVC, that they got themselves into a mess they will never come out of. Or at least not for a very long time.

• Blog Survey
  I (and some others) wrote a very critical post about the original botched result of the SA Blog survey. Although the parties in question did not appreciate my view point, or my tone, they both reacted with utter professionalism and acted on some of my criticism. Specifically, I had private communication with Amanda Reekie (whose company did the survey analysis), where she made it very clear that she was committed to righting all wrongs, and would welcome as much criticism as it took to get there. How mature. I certainly learnt a lot from the way she handled her crisis, and I commend her for it.

• Google story
  When Entelligence issued a press release saying that basically they were screwed over by Google with respect to their Yellow Pages account, I wrote a story on the matter for Thought Leader titled “Google does evil”, and outlined the story from Enteligence’s point of view. I was ripped apart by journalist friends who, in an email thread, made it very clear that such allegations cannot be made based on a one sided press release. I stuck my ground, defended myself throughout the day, alleging that as a blogger I had the right to draw my own conclusions, and was not bound by the same limitations as a newspaper journalist. Yet as the day wore on, I actually took the time to think about their points, and ended up amending the post. And I do think that was the right thing to do, although it took a lot of people a lot of emails to get me to see that. I hope I listen more often!

• Web assessments
  A big part of my services as a web strategist is a site assessment review, which is a thorough analysis of a client’s website. Before I take on the project though, I have a long conversation with my clients to make sure that they understand that I am going to be truthful, and therefore invariably harsh. I always say that if they think their website is close to perfection, and will not stand to hear anything but, then I am not the person to deliver this particular task.  The funny thing is, that every one of my clients thus far has absolutely, and completely declared themselves open to criticism. And they paid good money to receive it. And almost every single one was taken aback and become defensive about the points I made. (Although, in the long run, I think it is safe to say that most of them will admit I was right, or at least “righter” than them. That’s because an outsider who does not have emotional involvement with a project can be more objective about it.)

So, my hope for us online colleagues for 2009?

• That we become more open to, and welcoming of, criticism.
• That when we do criticise, we tone down our displeasure (this is what I need to work on!)
• That we do not blindly support our colleagues, but that our praise is sincere and heartfelt. That we voice loudly our objections when they are justified.
• That we think for ourselves and shed our sheep-mentality of following the opinion of the crowd.
• But that, if after listening to others’ criticism we still maintain our original point of view, we have the power of our convictions to defend it.

And that we have  a rocking 2009, of course!