Richmond Italian restaurant waging war on Yelp
richmondstandard.com
richmondstandard.com
It has the full emails back and forth between yelp and company, which are the most telling part.
Basically the company doesn't want to be on yelp, but yelp won't remove them. Now they are "buying" bad reviews, so yelp has threatened to take action and the restaurant basically says "bring it on" since that is exactly what they want.
1) The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties. 2) Knowledge of that relationship by a third party. 3) Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. 4) Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. 5) The contractual relationship is breached. 6) Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
Yelp may have a case for tortious interference against the restaurant if they are paying customers to break their Yelp terms. Yelp still sucks.
http://www.troutmansanders.com/files/upload/Tortious_Interfe...
I would agree in this case Yelp would probably not be laughed out of court. However, that's a fairly low bar and IANAL.
It is not being done behind the restaurant's back. The restaurant is paying the customers (in free pizza) to leave the feedback.
Hold on.
So let's say I run a highly-ranked software review website. I then proceed to "manipulate reviews" to force software developers advertise with me in exchange for not floating negative reviews to the top and not "filtering out" good ones.
Do I get Yelp's business model right? Ethics aside, how is this NOT the by-the-book racketeering?
It's only speculation about Angie's List, which is why I said "probably." If you look at their business model, they get money from all sides -- consumers and businesses -- which leads to inherit conflicts of interest.
Many restaurants have claimed that yelp has offered to remove negative reviews in exchange for money. Some also suspect Yelp of writing those negative reviews.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/yelp-and-the-business-...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhandy/2012/08/16/think-yelp-i...
That's why nobody takes these claims seriously. They don't hold up to even casual scrutiny, if you know anything about the site.
How dastardly.
The Poynter Institute is dedicated to journalism.
"This news website is brought to you by Chevron Richmond. We aim to provide Richmond residents with important information about what's going on in the community, and to provide a voice for Chevron Richmond on civic issues"
"I ordered that pair of running shoes, I really wanted a toaster, one star" or "The packaging was broken when I received my game, 0.5/10".
When you accumulate "reviews" like these where people are totally unable to dissociate their internal state of mind and the quality of the product at hand (and basically using the system to vent their personal frustration), the value you get out of it is basically non-existent.
Personally, I always either read all the reviews or disregard them completely when the review count is <10 or 20 on every "start driven" website, precisely because of this. May be these sites shouldn't even be showing the avg when there aren't enough reviews to be meaningful?
i.e. "was this review useful?" gets "no" for both the above reviews.
Seems to work IMO.
StackExchange solved this problem. I don't know why more sites use that approach to reviews.
The other part of the solution is a review system designed around the fact that people have different tastes. Netflix at least tries to do that. On Yelp, a great hole-in-the-wall will average three stars because those that don't like them will vote the opposite of those that love them. Three stars doesn't help either type of person.
Also, in all these review sites - how do we know if the reviewer actually used the product/service? Amazon seems to differentiate, but what about others?
It would be awesome to have a review site where 1. All reviews older than 6 months (or 1 year or whatever timeframe makes sense) are not shown by default 2. Only confirmed users of the product/service are able to review
As an example, Rotten Tomatoes critic reviews. You get a wide variety of feedback but ultimately it's a Yes or No. The result is a percentage of Yes votes and I find their movie choices to be very reliable in terms of a "quality movie".
I think this sort of model could definitely work for restaurants.. or even on Amazon for a bigger platform example. The bottom line is it forces reviewers to decide...despite whatever asinine thing they can complain about, is it a yes or no?
Pardon the all caps. Shame on you, Richmond Standard. This is just absurd for 2014.
pesenti has the link to the yelp page, which I won't replicate, but here's the Botto Bistro FAQ page, which they went to the effort to take a screen shot of and cut into pieces and upload into their content system (which had to be at least five minutes total) but couldn't be bothered to link to (at about five seconds): http://www.bottobistro.com/FAQ.html
Yelp's fundamental flaw is the fact that you can't tell real from fabricated reviews. You have to read with a skeptical eye and any overly gushing praise or overly nasty criticism of a particular business is suspect. I tend to trust the three and four star reviews over the 1's, 2's, and 5's.
Amazon at least has the advantage of identifying people who actually bought the product, and there is the option to comment on a review. It's not perfect but can be useful. Yelp's reviewers seem a bit under-vetted by comparison.
I got to talking with the bartender and he told me a story about a customer who became irate that the bar was closing early and that they were scared that she would go on Yelp and write a bad review. I laughed because I thought he was joking, thinking that nobody would ever base the decision to visit this place on a Yelp review. However he told me that the reviews matter a lot. I still doubt that he is correct about that, but it does show you the perception and fear restaurants large and small have about Yelp.
And I can understand that - if I'm going somewhere I don't know and have little time for research you just go somewhere like Trip Advisor and skim read. A couple of very negative reviews might make a real difference for smaller places which only have a couple of dozen reviews in total.
"Q. Have you heard that the customer is always right? A. Yes and we find it hilarious. A business owner who believes that deserves to deal with the monsters he has created. We don't belong to that club, but if you do...bravo!"
http://www.bottobistro.com/FAQ.html
Update: A couple people have asked for my clarification on why this is "troubling." I worked in the service industry before. I also have travelled extensively outside the U.S. in other Western countries. I have found that what differentiates the American service industry from other countries is that we do have this ingrained notion that "The Customer is Always Right." If I'm handing over my hard earned money to a business, I do expect the business to bend over backward for me. If it doesn't there are plenty of other business that are willing to. That's one of the great things about a free market - we can choose where to shop in a non-monopoly market based on how well a business treats us. Businesses that don't get that deserve to lose customers (and do). In short: You're not the only suitor for my business and I don't need to feel bad about having high expectations.
I can't speak for this place because I've never been there. However, I definitely wouldn't hold it against a restaurant that chose to treat customers with the same level of respect that the customers gave their serving staff.
If the restaurant is thriving in spite of its bad yelp reviews that suggests that it has a loyal customer base. That would suggest that they are doing something right.
Who visits Richmond, CA except for people who know someone there? It's not Las Vegas or Orlando.
Exactly. For an eye-opening view of what kind of shitty customer behavior restaurant and retail employees have to put up with on a daily basis, see the "Not Always Right" blog:
The idea that you are entitled to people being completely servile towards you because you have money is incredibly repulsive to me.
Yes. Weirdly enough I think it's even preferable if the service provider is more knowledgeable about what they're providing than me, the customer.
You're a crazy person. If I go to an argentinian beef restaurant I don't expect them to bend of backwards when I demand a salt cod dish, or to give Crazy McNotastebuds a free meal because they "had" to add salt to the dish.
> You're not the only suitor for my business and I don't need to feel bad about having high expectations.
That cuts both ways, they're obviously enjoying sufficient clientele for their limited room space and serving time, you're not the only suitor for their business and they don't need to feel bad about asshole clients.
And a 5mn discussion with the average retail slave (or support, or basically anything client-facing) is sufficient to find out that asshole and crazy clients do exist in droves, and enabling them is a stupid idea.
If you want to read what I wrote in an extreme manner, of course you can reply to it in an extreme manner. Language is ambiguous like that. I obviously didn't mean an Australian beef restaurant should serve Cod. I meant that businesses should (and most do) whatever is reasonable to do to please customers.
PS Name calling like "crazy person" never helps an argument.
I'm just reading what you wrote, nothing more and nothing less. It's not my fault if what you wrote is extreme. You're the one who agrees with "The Customer is Always Right" (note: the word here is "always", not "some times when I think they're reasonably right") and wrote "I do expect the business to bend over backward for me". Without any caveat anywhere.
> PS Name calling like "crazy person" never helps an argument.
If it's a spade, what's wrong with calling it a spade?
To put it another way, a business is equally justified in having high expectations of its customers. A successful business often requires suggesting people pursue other options. An Apple Store Genius won't replace a screen on a ten year old feature phone.
There the mantra is, the customer is almost certainly wrong and probably needs saving from themselves before they buy something that will kill them.
They spend a lot of time telling people not to buy something and telling them to buy something else. Customers are not useful when dead, no matter how happy they were when they left.
One of my hobbies is motorcycle racing/track days and I'm always flabbergasted about how lax organizers are about safety. I'm going to share this quote with them next time I head out.
As an addendum, I just thought that the service industries where the customer is always right are also the first ones where you won't notice very much when the employees get swapped with robots.
This is probably why supermarkets were some of the first to cross over.
I charged people with your opinions higher mark-up (effectively) by declining to give them discounts because I didn't like their entitled attitude. Sometimes I also threw them out because I just couldn't be bothered.
In general, they actually paid less (even not getting discounts) and took up more employee time than other customers, and we were better off without people like that.
I think the only people who actually tolerate them are large chain stores, and only because they can't be bothered trying to assess whether their drones are exercising good judgment.
In short: get lost, we don't need your money.
Ed: typos. Early morning. Blah.
I find this attitude troubling and fundamentally incompatible with the entire idea of market exchange. In an mutually-agreed exchange, there is no reason a party who is giving money is inherently more entitled to special treatment from the other party beyond the express terms of the exchange. If I am giving my "hard-earned money" in to someone in exchange for the fruits of their labor (whether that's a service or a good, and whether its the direct fruit of their personal labor or that of labor that they have purchased with their "hard-earned money"), I am no more entitled to have them bend over backward for me than the reverse.
Now, admittedly, if the service I am purchasing from them is a servant-like attitude, then, sure, I am entitled to that -- that's what I am buying. But if I want some other good or service, plus a servant-like attitude, I should expect to pay extra for the extra I'm getting. And since I value my hard-earned money -- it being hard-earned and all -- I am unlikely to wish to pay the premium that makes that worthwhile except when it does something particular to enhance the value of the base good or service that it accompanies.
* The business to do anything reasonable in its power to make me happy. Different people have different definitions of reasonable. But most reasonable people can agree that "reasonable" does not include giving me unadvertised discounts/spending unreasonable amounts of time with me/or offering me services not usually rendered.
* Service with a smile. I'm choosing you over your competitors - be nice about it.
* Don't resent the customer. My taste might not be as good as yours. I also don't work in your industry.
And for the record - I too worked in retail.
But movie reviews (a la Rotten Tomatoes) work somehow. Possibly because they aren't just flaming rants about how there was a hair in their popcorn. Maybe if the reviewing community were asked "what restaurants do you frequent and why?" and you could follow active citizen reviewers in your area it might generate more constructive feedback.
I use TripAdvisor to find local places to eat. Usually the top 1 or 2 places are good for a given type of food. Anything under that is a mixed bag.
It would be interesting to see whether Yelp decides to exercise the power to change someone's one-star review into a four-star review based on its content.
EDIT: /s
Most people would consider that blackmail. But the folks over at Yelp would probably like that kind of thinking. Ever consider applying for a job with their marketing team?
now i just use it to search and get directions. its interface is still superior for a quick lookup on my phone when i'm headed somewhere.
as soon as they require a login to use the mobile app, i'll probably stop using it.
Yeah, she's 25 now and likes to write angry Yelp reviews whenever her water glass level falls below 50%.
If they can survive with regulars thats fine for them.
I would avoid any place thats fighting any kind of reviews.
I couldn't help but think if only there was a place on the web to find out whether a business is worth the money or not.
Edit: my apologies for any snark above, I just realized that the article I was referencing was the one posted by jedberg.
http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2014/09/17/richmond-res...
I've also noticed some cities are way more into it than others, making it more reliable. Everyone in Halifax, NS depends on it, but when I visit my home Little Rock, AR, it's worthless, even though Little Rock is technically a larger city.
I've had great experiences without reviews or guides, and also with places that aren't supposed to be good.
McDonalds is really popular, but I don't eat there.
1. Searches google for a restaurant name 2. Checks the number of stars Yelp gives it in the Google result
or
1. Searches "dinner" on yelp 2. Clicks on the highest rated Yelp pages
For a popular restaurant with a fan following the Botto pizza strategy might work. Generally speaking, ignoring your customer's needs and wants is a fast path to complacency. And hopefully you're all aware that:
COMPLACENCY WILL BE THE ARCHITECTURE OF YOUR DOWNFALL.
Internalize that statement. While Botto's is cool today, adaptation is the key to long term success.
Inevitably after serving each of their loyal customers many times over, the customers will have a bad meal here or there. With an attitude of "The customer is not always right", disagreements will leave customers disenchanted one by one, and slowly these loyal customers will become less loyal. Or another good Italian pizza place will open up. Or the italian food wants of the neighborhood will change. Or Yelp's powerhold on connecting diners to restaurants will grow stronger.
Option 2: take advice from random HN commenter.
How to choose, how to choose...
Yeah, I guess you're right that thinking is too hard and we should simply listen to a population with a sample size of 1.