Slashdot Mirror
Hotel Charges Guests $500 For Bad Online Reviews
njnnja (2833511) writes In an incredibly misguided attempt to reduce the quantity of bad reviews (such as these), the Union Street Guest House, a hotel about 2 hours outside of New York City, had instituted a policy to charge groups such as wedding parties $500 for each bad review posted online. The policy has been removed from their webpage but the wayback machine has archived the policy. "If you have booked the Inn for a wedding or other type of event anywhere in the region and given us a deposit of any kind for guests to stay at USGH there will be a $500 fine that will be deducted from your deposit for every negative review of USGH placed on any internet site by anyone in your party and/or attending your wedding or event If you stay here to attend a wedding anywhere in the area and leave us a negative review on any internet site you agree to a $500. fine for each negative review."
How much will the class action lawsuit cost them, when they're brought to court for deceitful contracts?
Maybe she could have warned them what happens when you try to bury the truth.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
"In an effort to reduce the amount of people to enjoy our service, we will start charging extra when you don't want others to come enjoy our service". Well played.
It looks like "the market" is going to take care of these jokers. You should probably find a better example to make your point.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Except, they didn't actually charge anyone, they just threatened it.
As usual, a good breakdown at Fatwallet:
http://www.fatwallet.com/forum...
They've been spammed with bad reviews, Streisand effect and all...
When I looked last night there were more than 700 reviews. When I look now, there are only 100.
The real story here is Yelp deleting negative reviews for this crappy hotel.
They'd actually retracted this policy before this post even went live, likely a ploy for publicity.
Everything is porn to somebody.
I know that you can enter into a contract with a company essentially saying "I won't post a negative review online." That would be sleazy but legal. How legal would it be, however, to have a person sign a contract that binds a third party into not posting a negative review under penalty of the signing party (not the bad review posting party) being fined? I don't know about you, but if I throw an event, I'm not usually in total control of my guests once they leave the event. If a guest leaves the party/wedding/ete, goes home, and posts a negative review of the hotel, how would that be under the control of the person who hosted the event/signed the contract?
I wonder if they ever tried implementing this policy and, if so, how many lawyers fired off letters warning the hotel to back down or else.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I'd be so tempted to write a positive review that damns them with faint praise. "I was delighted to discover that the toilets on the first floor do flush adequately, and that the water stops rising eventually and goes back down!" Or "the cheap fake strawberry air freshener reminds me of my best year in college."
well.... I don't like to get into the label game of whether I am or am not a libertarian, I do have many such symptahies though.
That said.... there is respected....and there is respected.
On its face, it is hard to argue with such terms without also arguing with other kinds of NDAs which, while I tend to not be a fan of, I am not really dead set against either. In fact, I can only find one reason split that hair, but I do think its a decent reason.... bad reviews are a form of consumer protection and so they are actually asking you to cover up their quality so as to reduce other people's ability to make an informed decision. As such, I would generally be ok with saying.
That said, I should also point out that one has generally already paid by the time one writes a bad review. If they wanted to charge you, they would have to do it after the fact.
As such, I would say, I am ok with them having this policy and not ok with the force of the state being used to enforce its terms. So feel free to charge me $500, I am not going to pay, and i will never come to your establishment again, you can grow old and die thinking I owe you $500 for all I care. Enjoy your policy.
Hows that for libertarian?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Don't they realize that a policy like this is more likely to SCARE potential customers away than to help their reputation?
Do these idiots think this through at all before coming up with crap like this?
"...t ok with the force of the state being used to enforce its terms."
as long as you are ok with the state not enforcing me to pay.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
without posting anything bad. For instance:
- This hotel definitely has 8 rooms, and all of them have beds.
- The hotel's owner is very dedicated to ensuring your bill is correct when you leave.
- Checkout time is strictly enforced, so you're sure to find your room empty when you arrive.
- Staying at this hotel is much better than camping on a landfill.
- This hotel is much less expensive than the George V, and much more comfortable than a Texas motel.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
How stupid can places get?
Zeroth Law of Stupidity: There is no upper bound on the amount of stupidity that can exist within any particular individual. First Law of Stupidity: We always underestimate the number of stupid people, even after the First Law of Stupidity is applied/accounted for. Does that answer your question?
I saw it on Consumerist first: NY Hotel Fines Brides And Grooms $500 For Each Negative Review Posted By Their Wedding Guests by Ashlee Kieler
The state can go ahead and force me to pay, my credit card company however is going to ream them if they try to charge me. I'm sure they'd like to be able to continue to accept major credit cards.
They take the $500 from your refundable deposit. They don't invoice you for the $500.
Yelp reviews
well.... I don't like to get into the label game of whether I am or am not a libertarian, I do have many such symptahies though.
That said.... there is respected....and there is respected.
On its face, it is hard to argue with such terms without also arguing with other kinds of NDAs which, while I tend to not be a fan of, I am not really dead set against either.
...
As such, I would say, I am ok with them having this policy and not ok with the force of the state being used to enforce its terms. So feel free to charge me $500, I am not going to pay, and i will never come to your establishment again, you can grow old and die thinking I owe you $500 for all I care. Enjoy your policy.
Hows that for libertarian?
so you would agree to such terms, and then screw over your contract partner after the fact by refusing to comply with the terms you just agreed to and have no problem with?
Sounds just like a Libertarian to me.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
I cant see any compelling reason you should not be able to agree to a non-disparagement clause, assuming it's clearly presented ahead of time and you knowingly agreed to it in return for compensation. Devils advocate, of course, is to point out that it's not really clear that this was the case - the 'policy' may not have been clearly presented ahead of time and knowingly agreed to by guests and I saw no mention of compensation. So if it ever went to court there would be room for invalidation.
Regardless, it looks like the market is taking care of it fine, without even needing a court to review the 'contract' - the very fact that this business tried to impose such a policy is set to cost them a pretty good slice of profits, and the public nature of the reaction is helping to discourage any other businesses that might try the same thing.
You were saying?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Contracts that you voluntarily enter into to keep your yapper shit meet Supreme Court approval. Normally it would be "don't badmouth our mutual financial endeavor", not over a product purchase.
The wisdom of such in a situation like this is something else. Other uses of free speech to lambaste them seem to be working fine.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Contracts that you voluntarily enter into to keep your yapper shit meet Supreme Court approval..
Perhaps. However, signing a contract on someone else's behalf is questionable at best, and that seems to be the case here - the hotel is putting the contract signers on the hook for the actions of people who did not sign said contract.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
So don't post the review until you've received your deposit back. Problem solved.
Of course you can also argue that a "bad" review is different from a "fair" review, even if the fair review described goods and service that other people may not want to pay for.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Union Street Guest House SUCKS!! You're welcome.
You can dance if you want to.
This is the suit where Kleargear fined a couple $3,500 for leaving a bad review and ruined their credit etc etc. Looks like they (Kleargear) didnt even show up to court. Wonder why.
Palmer vs Kleargear
But that makes my monitor harder to clean!
Take it easy there, Hit Girl!
Dark Reflection
I hated paying the $500, but it was totally to BURN them with my review!
Dark Reflection
A good review can be just as effective: "I really loved the cold soup, the dirty sheets, and the rude staff attitude - it made me feel just like home."
Yeah, pretty sure those wouldn't hold up.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This guy posted on Yelp last year that the hotel fined his friends for his review:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/union-street-guest-house-hudson?hrid=_p-R59VY-c19Nmxt4r9X9w
I hereby notify all B&Bs and motels: I charge $500 for a good review.
$500 for a bad review is pretty terrible until you learn that good reviews are $200 each.
The real issue is people putting ridiculous amounts of stock into online reviews that are easily manipulated both by the vendor of a given service or a minority of disgruntled and hyper-critical customers. With groups like Yelp or Angie's List, it gets especially messy, because they don't use a verification system for reviewers and on both sides there are paid armies of the people who can't hack it as (lame sack of shite) SEO consultants trying to grift a buck manipulating reviews positive for their clients and negative for nearby competitors.
This gets even worse when we consider the nasty culture of anti-confrontation where people instead of bringing an issue appropriately to management and getting it fixed, just spout vitriol and become oversensitive over minutia.
Sure, lots of bad service exists in the various service and product industries. The simple fix is to clearly ask for what you want and then not pay (demand a credit / refund) when things are not made right. Too bad the majority of people willing to go to such lengths are usually the self-absorbed assholes who have unreasonable requests and expectations.
Either is despicable, paying for good reviews as well as intimidating those that want to leave bad ones.
Earn your good reviews and deal with the bad ones. Welcome to the free market. For a change, the demand side finally can fulfill its duty in a free market: Make an informed decision.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
C'mon, they're maybe bad but they're not the RIAA, they can't make you pay even if you don't need their service.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I had my wedding reception catered at the Union Street Guest House last Saturday.
The Union Street Guest House required me to sign an agreement stating that I would forfeit a $500 fine to them if I post a negative review of their establishment.
Rather than lose $500, let me just say that I had my wedding reception catered at the Union Street Guest House last Saturday.
So if you don't leave a positive review they keep your money. That's extortion, and very very illegal.
that they charge me 500$ if I complain.
I would suggest that you make sure you get your money's worth.
Say you had a legit bad experience there- so you wait the week or so until they return your deposit to unleash your torrent of critical reviews, or start burning through the deposit while you're still there.
If your experience there was so bad that you can't wait a week to post the review you should probably be talking to a lawyer first anyway.
A business trying to restrict users' free speech, or users empowering the various review sites out there that seek to become "gatekeepers of reputation."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If you've never stayed there, you can post a bad review for free? Because I have a special review I've been saving for years for just such an occasion!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'm on my way to yelp to post a review of them right now.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Second Law: We're apparently counting in zero-indexed binary so this law doesn't exist.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Yelp automagically pulls (hides behind the curtain) reviews it deems are not representative. Supposedly the extremes like "5 star" and "1 star" reviews. But not for the cases I've looked at.
And Yelp doesn't allow you to down-mod reviews. Just 3 versions of "I got high reading that review".
Odds that Yelp goes under in 2014? 2015?
I come here for the love
Have you ever considered a new wife?
(Posting anonymously because some stuck up people think women are some kind of sacred beings and sexist jokes on them are some kind of blasphemy.)
you're not signing a contract on someone else's behalf - if a bad review is posted then you (the party to the contract) will be fined, not a third party. The only thing here that's a twist is you could be fined based on the actions of someone else in your group. This makes sense when you hold an event there that may involve urinating etc, but normally, once everybody has gone home the liability stops in the butt.
if you read more Ts and Cs on their site it says that they have lots of flexibility in when to return your deposit, because they need to wait for any damages to be inspected, any checks to clear, any chargebacks to occur, and all sorts of nonsene. I could see them holding on to people's deposits for years and years and years.
Unfortunately that doesn't sound that bad. If you rent a car and your friend trashes it, you're still on the line for the actions of your friend...
This hotel is stupid and they deserve what they're getting, but it's not signing a contract on someone else's behalf, it's signing a contract saying you are responsible for what they do. In many circumstances that's perfectly reasonable.
"As such, I would say, I am ok with them having this policy and not ok with the force of the state being used to enforce its terms. So feel free to charge me $500, I am not going to pay..."
Two quick things:
1. From the TFA, the policy seemed to apply to those who had put down a deposit with them that they were saying the fee would be deducted from (for larger parties, think a wedding). eg, various sized groups going for say a wedding etc. in order to have that group of rooms there'll be a security deposit and such.
2. Don't know what happens if they charge your card and you've signed the agreement.
So in a world where men who make terrible husbands exist, and women who make terrible wives exist, you're just going to put all your money down on one side of the table all the time, every time, when you know nothing of either side in any given particular case.
You're sexist.
Gotcha.
Ah yes. The good old 'We were just joking' defence. AKA 'The smiley at the end of the insult'.
Dear guests of Union Street Guest House,
Yesterday Union Street Guest House went viral for all the wrong reasons. News articles, blog posts and social media posts were published about our policy to charge wedding parties a $500 fee for every negative review.
Quite frankly, I’m embarrassed. This indeed was a policy of the Union Street Guest House. It was originally intended as a joke and never something I told employees to enforce. However, since it was listed on our website it did represent an official policy. I now realize this joke was made in poor taste and not at all funny. This is no longer a policy of Union Street Guest House and we have taken it off of our website.
I’ve also read the reviews from guests saying we tried to enforce the negative reviews policy on them and for that I apologize. It was never my intention for anyone to pay this fine. The instances where an attempt was made to collect the fees were a breakdown in communication between my staff and me, and for that I accept full responsibility.
Including the fine for negative reviews as part of our policy was a mistake. That’s not the type of business that we run. It was a case of a joke gone very, very bad. The internet, social media and review sites are very powerful platforms and this situation has taught me valuable lessons about them. Feedback from our guests is very important to us. I admit that at times it can be tough to see a negative review and I could do a better job of taking that criticism in stride. We value each and every one of you and want to hear about your experience with Union Street Guest House, even if it’s a negative experience. Your reviews give us an opportunity to improve our service and make the Union Street Guest House experience better for everyone.
I’m a novice when it comes to the internet and digital communication. My background is in music and hospitality. That’s by no means an excuse, but a realization that I need to learn and continually educate myself on technologies that affect my business. I vow to do that moving forward to avoid mistakes like this in the future.
All of the team here at Union Street Guest House invites you to come visit us in Hudson, New York, and give us a chance to show you who we really are – a group dedicated to making your stay in the beautiful Hudson area a positive and memorable one.
Please also accept my offer of a 10% discount on a visit to Union Street Guest House within the next three months as further apology. Just mention this letter. And I encourage you to leave a review about your experience (positive or negative) after your stay.
I hope we see you in Hudson in the future.
Best,
Chris Wagoner
Owner
Union Street Guest House
Please also accept my offer of a 10% discount on a visit to Union Street Guest House within the next three months as further apology. Just mention this letter. And I encourage you to leave a review about your experience (positive or negative) after your stay.
Not what I want to see. After all... if it's so bad you had to have a 'fine for negative review policy', why the heck would I want to stay there in response to this?
The only way you will win me over is if you show that YOU RETURNED any fines you collected from any guests or past guests under this policy, PLUS a 100% bonus for their troubles.
Perhaps. However, signing a contract on someone else's behalf is questionable at best, and that seems to be the case here - the hotel is putting the contract signers on the hook for the actions of people who did not sign said contract.
This happens all the time. Companies sign non-disclosure agreements. If an employee violates the terms of the NDA, then the company is liable.
To help protect themselves, the company's lawyers draft their own NDA and make the employee sign it, so if an employee discloses information that the company's NDA says cannot be disclosed, then the Company is still liable, but the Employee is liable to indemnify the company from all the liability.
Similarly.... you can sign a contract where you will be liable if a 3rd party doesn't do something. Before you sign that contract, you better make sure you get that 3rd party to sign a contract with you to indemnify you in case they do that thing, otherwise you will still bear all the liability!
Burn the fucking place to the ground.
they'll be a little bit of laughs and chatter, but it doesn't sound like the Hotel's hurting for business, and by tomorrow /. will have forgotten all this. Heck, can you name me the hotel without scrolling up to the summary and reading (no fair if you've got a 4k monitor and don't need to scroll)?
If anything they probably backed down because they'd just find themselves getting a tonne of credit card disputes, which you're allowed to do because of a Gov't imposed requirement written into a law...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How does Union Street get itself out of this PR nightmare? I recommend they invest in a real-time mobile feedback system so that they can react to and ideally fix any guest complaints on the spot before the guests leave and go squawking on social media. There are a couple of good feedback platforms out there such as Osurv (http://osurv.com/). Successful hotels understand that it’s ultimately cheaper to please your current customers than to pay the high acquisition costs of acquiring new ones.
My favorite thing about this is how many of the yelp reviewers think that yelp removing their reviews is a violation of their first amendment rights.
Getting bad reviews should not be a business model.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
I really loved the COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT they have committed by stealing the images they use on their web site. See here:
Their site and the source
We can only take people's word for what wedding they are attending, therefore we are not responsible for guests booking under different names or choosing to attend another event. We will not question guests about their intentions after a reservation is made.
So, even if a person not in your wedding party leaves a bad review, you may get dinged for it if that person was mean enough to say he belonged to you when he checked in...
Could have been worse. He could have said "Oh, who shall rid me of those troublesome negative reviewers!" :)
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
This makes sense when you hold an event there that may involve urinating etc, but normally, once everybody has gone home the liability stops in the butt.
As long as it doesn't happen in his mouth...
Well, yeah. Didn't you know that women are always right and men are always wrong? Heck, all men are rapists anyways. We'd be better off without that entire gender. But until then, we'll tolerate men at best.
And if you do not believe this, you are a neanderthal savage.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Mod parent up please. If a lawyer gets involved it could get interesting/funny/streisandy.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I don't think you understand how liability works...
Liability for what? A bad instead of salty taste?
liability for one of your guests writing a bad review! the only bad part of the contract is the undefined length of the contract. otherwise it's like pissing in a bucket then dumping it into the wind. get it?
Sounds like an excellent reason not to go there.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Hey, this has the same run-on form as the last posting by AC. Could it be the same guy? Interesting how some people leave a rhetorical signature.
Then you don't have to worry about anything.
Then you don't have to worry about anything...
News more recent than this has suggested the $500 fee was a "joke" and that there are many fictitious reviews from non-visiting people. I am not affiliated with this hotel in any way. Just want to state this article is now biased based on current information.
> 2. Don't know what happens if they charge your card and you've signed the agreement.
I call them up and let them know that if they don't remove the charge they are going to find out just how effective this policy is at getting them notoriety. Pretty sure I have a lot less to lose in the court of public opinion than they do.
I mean, depending on how you want to call it, you may or may not call the customer a victim in this scenario but...the real victim is the public who are being denied honest opinions; I have no qualms about letting the public know what one group of scammers is trying to pull over on them.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
If the owner was a senior hitman for the (New York?) Mafia, you may have had a poi &£$£%$&%* < NO CARRIER >
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"