Thanks To The Web, Everybody's A Potential Critic -- So Treat Them Well
from the business-101 dept
The rise of blogs and user-generated content sites has turned every customer of a business into a potential critic with a big platform. Word of mouth still serves as a huge boon or burden to a company; but like so many other things, the internet has made its spread much more efficient. Many consumers check out all sorts of businesses and restaurants online before they visit them, and while professional reviews still matter, blogs and sites that aggregate user reviews are growing increasingly powerful. The question for businesses is how to respond to and capitalize on this trend. Some try to bury criticism or attack critics, but some are pointing out, the best way to keep potential customers from finding out you don't treat customers well is simply to treat them all well to begin with. Professional restaurant critics typically strive to maintain their anonymity, and restaurants strive to find out what they look like to they be sure to put their best foot forward when they visit. But as more people put stock in what fellow non-professional critics have to say about restaurants and other sorts of businesses, it means they'll have to raise their game for everybody. After all, you may figure out what the Times reviewer looks like, but you're going to have a hard time keeping track of all the "normal people" reviewers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
the answer is hell no!!! in business, all customers are not equal. this is why you have systems to help determine which customers you want to keep, and which you want to completely get rid of.
the problem with the current state of "review" systems is that they are anonymous, and that anyone can hid behind them. if i'm the owner of a restaurant, and there's a review site that mentions my business, i'm going to do what i can to state that the public has no idea who the people are who are the actual reviewers... they could be my employees, they could be employees of my competition.. no one knows, or is even trying to implement this kind of system.
the strength of the nytimes reviews is that you know that the reviewer is supposed to be vetted by the magazine/newspaper.... it has some semblance of legitimacy, even if it is not always apparent. if a reviewer screwed up, wrote something that was blatantly wrong, there was/could be a retraction... the systems based on crowd reviews have none of these kinds of checks/balances...
if the systems started to tie the reviewer to some kind of id, so we'd 'know' who the reviewer is.. we could all have a much better feel as to the legitimacy of the process, and the people in the process...
peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To a certain extent, the crowd is the checks and balances. Sure, there are always customers you can't satisfy no matter what you do and they usually have big mouths, but guess what? Your competitors also have those kind of customers. If the crowd is large enough, the playing field is still even. The same holds true for disgruntled employees/former employees. Restaurant reviews are highly subjective anyway, even when done by 'professionals'. I once read a review of my favorite restaurant that complained because it was not in a posh part of town and the portions were too big. WTF? Heaven forbid a restaurant would save money on rent and offer more value to their customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Professional vs. Normal critics
For the most part a pro critic is in it for the money and attention and the cool factor of swaying the opinions of postential customers. But on the other hand that pro critic has much more experience in critiquing theaters, resturaunts, or whatever.
You have a better chance of relating to the opinion of a normal critic since she/he is an average joe/jane customer like you. But in exchange you take the chance of reading a positive review that was planted by the restraunt owner or a negative review that was planted by the competition.
Experienced reviever vs. like mined reviewer. Arrogant review vs. planted review. You just have to think about which one(s) you want to go by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cynical
Less than three paragraphs of review means no real thought by the reviewer, so I usually bypass those.
Now I have got something probably useful.
This works for anything -- restaurants, tech products, vendors, movies, or whatever -- although your milage may vary, results not guaranteed, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I say this because now - before I even consider buying something as pricey as a car the very first thing I do is check eopinions.com and read REAL people's opinion on it. I really don't care what 'paid' professionals think. I want to know what the everyday guy thinks about a product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm doing it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]