Electronic conversations on Internet discussion groups can reflect positively or negatively on a business without the managers or employees even knowing what is happening, said Richard Widdows, professor and chair of the Department of Consumer and Textile Sciences at Ohio State's College of Human Ecology.

Widdows and his wife, Kealoha Widdows, an economist at Wabash College in Crawfordsville, Ind., recently analyzed customers relations on the Internet in an article for the journal Customer Relationship Management.

The Widdows examined the practical, ethical and legal issues of companies' involvement in electronic discussion groups. They call those groups the "twilight zone" for consumer affairs because most groups are not controlled by anybody -- anyone with access to a computer and modem can post a message saying anything about anyone. By entering this new territory, companies can build loyalty, but also can become more vulnerable to criticism.

Companies should at least monitor discussion groups so they know what's being said about them, Widdows said. A company can begin tackling the more than 50,000 discussion groups by using a search engine, such as Hotbot or Dejanews, and conducting a search for their company or products' names. It should soon become apparent which groups the company should scout, he said.

If the company or its products are mentioned in a discussion group, any response would depend on the message's content, Widdows said. The couple came up with four possibilities. Messages could be:

• Accurate and complimentary of the product. In this case, there is no need for company involvement in the discussion.

• Accurate but critical of the product. In this case, a consumer has a legitimate complaint against the company and is telling a large audience about it. Widdows suggested the company contact the individual and offer to correct the problem, and then post its own message on the discussion group about how it is attempting to come to a resolution.

  "I would try to get it from a public forum to a personal contact," Widdows said. "If you can turn that person around, they'll become an advocate for you."

• Inaccurate and critical of the product. This is the "worst of all worlds" from a consumer affairs point of view, Widdows said. The situation could even be a case of sabotage by someone with a grudge against the company. The company should intervene, but with the "greatest diplomacy."

• Inaccurate but complimentary of the product. Here's where an ethical dilemma lies, Widdows said. It is tempting for companies to leave the situation alone and let the favorable impression remain uncorrected, even though it's inaccurate. Widdows advises against that approach. Not only could someone else jump into the discussion and correct the original post, making the situation worse, but failing to be honest could have an effect on internal morale, he said.

Another risk of entering the "twilight zone" of electronic discussion groups is the chance to become involved in a "dragged-out fight with 'flamers,'" Widdows said. In the Internet world, "flamers" intentionally make statements designed to elicit an angry response, resulting in a "flame war." Becoming involved in such discussions is a no-win situation, he said.

"One of the things about the Internet community is that it can get very temperamental," Widdows said. "If you upset one person, a whole other group of people are likely to get upset. That might not happen if the person has a reputation within the group as being a troublemaker, but those sorts of things are hard to know unless you've been part of the group for awhile."

Next year, Widdows plans to work with colleague Loren Geistfeld in getting students involved in monitoring consumer communications on the Web. They hope to involve Columbus-area companies in this effort. Also, they plan to conduct additional studies on customer relations over the Internet.

Written by Martha Filipic