After the hurricane Sandy hit New York last week, many photos circulated online. However, many of these photos were fake. They were retweeted on Twitter, shared on Facebook and liked on Instagram, in some cases tens of thousands of times. The photos are either old photos from other hurricanes, completely manipulated photos or old manipulated photos. One example is a photo of a shark swimming through the streets of New Jersey:

It turns out, that the shark has been “photoshopped” into the picture. This is just one out of many – for other photos, click here 

It can be very hard to determine whether photos are true or false. This is an example of how easy it has become to create false content, for example by using tools as Photoshop.

I think this problem becomes especially relevant, to techniques for encouraging users to create content, such as “Flipping the funnel”. This might be an effective way of encouraging conversations and user generated content, but it is also subject to one of the major disadvantages of UGC which my example illustrates – loss of control, people can create almost anything. Companies can’t control what content users create, and how they converse about the brand. Due to this lack of control, you can’t totally prevent untrue content to circulate. Some people advocating user generated content, seem to pay very little or no attention to how to deal with false content or even prevent it. I think you need to think about how to minimize motivation to create false content, and stimulate motivation to create truthful content. You could monitor and remove false content yourself, or even help customers filter out and report false content.

Now, the photo below is supposed to be the original photo. But is it true? – I really don’t know. The photo looks incredible and could just be another “photoshop production”.

.

.

…what do YOU think?

 .

.

.

To finish this of, there are also stories of problems the other way around, where companies pretend to be a user, and then create fake content such as positive reviews on their own products. This adds another layer of complexity to the debate about trust in UGC. Indeed it is a complex issue, and sometimes it is almost impossible to tell the loyals from the lyers.