Slashdot Mirror
Restauranteurs Say Yelp Uses Extortion To Ply Ad Sales
Readers Mike Van Pelt and EricThegreen point out a story in the East Bay Express alleging that online restaurant review site Yelp is doing more than providing a nice interface for foodies to share their impressions of restaurants. Instead, says the article, representatives from the site have called restaurants in the Bay area to solicit advertising, but with an interesting twist: the ad sales reps let restaurant owners know that, if they buy advertising at around $300 a month, Yelp can "do something" about prominently displayed negative reviews of their restaurants. If the claims are true, it sure lowers my opinion of Yelp, which I'd thought of as one of the good guys (and a useful site). I wonder how many other online review sites might be doing something similar.
If Yelp removes negative reviews for a fee, it seems to me that they have given up their common carrier status and have made themselves liable for errors in the reviews they leave up. Restaurants that receive negative reviews could sue Yelp for libel if they can demonstrate errors in the reviews.
Maybe you don't like to look at ads. Maybe you wants them to go away. Let's say you become a member. I would not be at all surprised if you found yourself +1 Insightful in the very near future. Think about it. Let me know.
What they're allegedly doing is scummy, but not extortion. Or rather, it's only extortion if Yelp itself is generating the negative reviews. Accepting cash to remove legitimate negative reviews is just slimy.
Their advertising side dominates their editorial side, just like the respectable old media guys. Web 2.0 made good, I think I'm tearing up...
Yelp succumbed to greed a long time ago, when they implemented Facebook's Beacon.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Unfortunately, "community based" is something of a farce when there is an owner standing in the background and counting the money. Just because the crowdserfs are doing the work, doesn't make an institution "community based".
...should not surprise a single person that understands business
And people wonder why the economy's in the toilet.
Free Martian Whores!
Well, two developments had to take place for this to be a dominant practice. You identified one of them, which was two businesses selling similar products. The other is a general public which is far too eager to believe what they hear, read, or see on TV. You could think of that as the great enabler of most of the rest of our problems, including this one.
There's this idea that sites like this one or news agencies and others (this is a very general principle) exist to confirm sources and vet stories and information for you. That is, the idea that because they are established, they must therefore be better or higher-quality or more truthful. There is some truth to that, although it's more of a half-truth. Then there's this accompanying idea that therefore, you should not test and confirm information on your own. If you don't like being deceived or used as an unwitting tool in this type of alleged extortion, nothing could be farther from the truth.
I think the real issue is that most people have no idea how to perform critical thinking or how to cross-reference information or how to judge the authenticity of a source of information. They also don't seem skilled at recognizing propaganda techniques (such as bandwagon appeal, "Big Lie", appeals to emotion, etc.) when they are found in advertising and the media in general. Remedy that one shortcoming and all of these myriad instances and iterations will take care of themselves.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
that is one way to look at it.
another way to look at it is that the community adds content that is of direct benefit to the community. the private entity (be it individual or corporation) that takes risks (purchasing equipment, signing contracts for hosting, etc.) has the right to make a living and profit. if you don't like it start a wiki and solicit donations for your hosting, that is a lot harder than getting business loans based on ad revenue streams.
Well, yes and no.
1. That some businesses would want to slander (or libel) the competition, yeah, that probably goes all the way back to the dawn of time. Which is why most countries have various numbers of laws to contain the phenomenon.
2. There's still something distasteful about being the guy who tries to cash in on that with a "if you don't pay 300 a month, we'll show bad reviews of you at the top." That's no longer even about competition, it's a plain old protection racket. It's not just a betrayal of the public's trust, it's really trying to blackmail someone with a threat to their public image and reputation.
We're in an age where someone's reputation is probably the most important asset of their business. I wouldn't be surprised if some restaurants would lose less money if you threw a molotov through their windows, than if you convince half the town to not even give them a try. Doubly so since you can insure agains the former, but there's no insurance I know of against just not getting customers. So basically I see no fundamental moral difference between, basically:
- "Nice restaurant you have there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it. It's a rough neighbourhood, you know? Lots of evil people out there. Some vandals could tear the place down one night. But we're nice people. If you pay us 300$ a month for our efforts, we could keep an eye out that it doesn't happen."
- "Nice reputation your restaurant has. It would be a shame if anything happened to it. It's a tough world, you know? Lots of evil people out there. Some bastards could plaster the reviews page with really nasty stuff. But we're nice people. If you pay us 300$ a month for our efforts, we could keep an eye out that it doesn't happen."
Both essentially threaten you with a bigger loss unless you pay the protection fee.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
This better fits the description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
And, considering that it is/was practiced by our pals in the Big Music Industry . . . doesn't make it any more palatable.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
an easy federal health website
Because we all know that if the government is involved, bribes and money and bias don't have any affect anymore. :)
If I understand everything correctly, it looks like advertisers get to choose one review as a "sponsored review" and this is shown as the first result. Couldn't this be what the sales people are talking about when they offer to change the order of reviews so that lower reviews are moved down?
I could easily see "For $300 you can choose one review to appear at the top" becoming "For $300 we will make your bad reviews go away". To me, it sounds like a game of telephone combined 'investigative journalism' and angry restaurant managers.
When your experience at a store, restaurant, or other service is bad enough to cause you to explicitly avoid them, telling the owner lets them know that there's a problem. They might have been unaware that their employees were rude, or that service was poor, or that the food is uncompelling or overpriced. This allows them to know WHY they're losing customers, rather than wondering why they continue to do poorly. This could conceivably lead to the restaurant's service/food/attitude improving, thereby improving the experience of all future customers (and potentially yourself, if you ever go back).
Sure, sometimes the owner is a jerk, and already endorses the establishment's bad behavior. You're then just informing him that you are no longer part of his customer demographic; the chance of restaurant improvement is much much smaller in this case, and I can understand the "why bother?" perspective in this case.
If you're EVER unhappy about an experience anywhere, it's often fruitful (or at least cathartic ;)) to tell the owner that you had a poor experience. Even if it's something like, "We love your restaurant, but service was especially poor this past Friday night." Being polite is bound to be morefruitful than telling them off, as in almost all communications, of course.
...it seems like some sales droid was being overly pushy and overstating the facts, which is SOP for a salesmen...
Ah, the good old "overzealous staffer" defense. That supposed salesman is acting on behalf of the company. The company is responsible for making sure that nobody gets "overzealous", and is culpable when somebody does.
You mean a site that thrives on geeks having too much free time on their hands, and money from showing them ads, survived an event where masses of geeks lost their jobs?
Shocking, I tell ya. Shocking! ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.