New York Guest House Burns Own Reputation To The Ground By Trying To Charge Customers $500 For Bad Reviews
from the not-so-much-a-T&C-page-as-it-is-a-suicide-note dept
The Union Street Guest House in Hudson, New York, joins the small group of businesses who have attempted to levy fees against customers who leave negative reviews. It's an exclusive group that no business should want to be a part of, one that includes the infamous and possibly French geek gadget re-shipper KlearGear.
Page Six was the first to report on this customer-unfriendly clause residing in the rental terms and conditions:
If you stay here to attend a wedding and leave us a negative review on any internet site you agree to a $500. fine for each negative review.Not only is the clause incredibly stupid and openly antagonistic, but it holds renters responsible for the actions of anyone in their party, including guests whose experience may have been drastically different than the renting party's. It even tells renters to spread the news that no negative reviews should be posted, which should be enough to tell potential customers to rent elsewhere.
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 (this is due to the fact that your guests may not understand what we offer and we expect you to explain that to them).
Now, the Union Street Guest House has all the negative reviews it will ever need. As soon as this started spreading around the internet, it's Yelp page quickly filled up with negative reviews, forcing the business to offer this "explanation" on its Facebook page.
The policy regarding wedding fines was put on our site as a tongue-in-cheek response to a wedding many years ago. It was meant to be taken down long ago and certainly was never enforced.Oh. Well, LOL… I guess. I'm not sure the "it was all a joke" defense is going to undo the damage done by its decision to insert this language into its rental terms, no matter what the original impetus. This also doesn't explain why a lousy joke was allowed to be part of the official policies for nearly two years (it appeared sometime between August and October 2012). It's gone now, but there's still an edge to USGH's voice in the amended terms, which indicates the Guest House is in no hurry to hand out refunds, return deposits or deal with chargebacks.
CANCEL AT YOUR OWN RISK, WE DO NOT ACCEPT ALL CANCELLATION REQUESTS...According to Page Six, there's also a bit of an edge to its voice in its handling of earlier negative reviews:
If you file for a charge-back (request a refund directly from your amex or bank card) or file a complaint to any 3rd party organization during that time you are responsible for any fees associated with it and doing so will only hold up the refund process...
The deposit will not be refunded until we feel that everything is 100% resolved (we reserve the right to refund at any time). If you hold the entire Inn you are responsible for every room. There are no "releasing" rooms prior. If there are any unused rooms you forfeit your entire deposit. All chargebacks and any other fees related to any charges from anyone in your party (that they have not paid) will be deducted from your deposit.
For any bad reviews that do make it online, the innkeepers aggressively post “mean spirited nonsense,” and “she made all of this up.”It would seem obvious that there are better places to spend your money, especially since the chance of you receiving your deposit seem incredibly slim. The most objectionable part of the terms has been removed, but only because it went completely public. At no time during the last two years did the Guest House take down this clause, which seems to indicate that it wasn't the inside joke it's now pretending it was.
In response to a review complaining of rude treatment over a bucket of ice, the proprietors shot back: “I know you guys wanted to hang out and get drunk for 2 days and that is fine. I was really really sorry that you showed up in the summer when it was 105 degrees . . . I was so so so sorry that our ice maker and fridge were not working and not accessible.”
I don't know why this lesson even needs to be learned at this point. If businesses haven't figured out that attempting to suppress bad reviews almost invariably only results in more bad reviews, this sort of stupidity and inevitable backlash should be viewed as nothing more than culling the herd. If you'd rather try to silence unhappy customers than address the problems in your own business, you deserve to have your reputation torched to the ground. But don't blame the internet. This fire was started by the Union Street Guest House itself.
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
Filed Under: bad reviews, fines, reputation, reviews, threats
Companies: union street guest house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Does it work the other way?
will they PAY me $500 to write a positive review?
Probably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My 5 Star yelp review as Sara W.
Finally a Good and Honest Review of Union Street Guest House
"A few weeks ago I inherited $300,000,000 from an uncle I did not know I had. Apparently he wanted me to learn the value of money before I got the money. The catch was I had to spend $30,000,000 in one month and have nothing to show for it. No assets of any kind at the end of the month. If I was successful I would get the rest of the money.
Long story short I stayed my first night of the month in the union Street Guest House and invited a couple of very critical friends over to celibate my new fortune. I had not read the fine print of my stay and I guess my guest were a bit critical about this place in some reviews. We had a great time, but I think people were too filled up on lobster and champagne to write good reviews. Anyways, I now have won the rest of my inheritance from the extra charges. The problem I have now is how I will make it through the rest of the month with all $30 mil spent and nothing to show for it or live off the rest of the time until I get my $300 mil. 5 out of 5 would stay again, but I guess I'm rich enough to afford it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 5 Star yelp review as Sara W.
That doesn't sound like a very fun way to celebrate.
A more fun way to celebrate would be like the opposite of that word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 5 Star yelp review as Sara W.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too many words where two would do it:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fining the guest house.
In this case, they're taking your money because they can and make you surrender it before staying there. To fine them, you'd have to first convince them that you need a deposit.
Maybe as their supplier or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you have any objective data on that? Data that compares all business with written, or unwritten, policies of suppressing bad reviews by various means? I doubt anybody has any sound study one way or the other.
The oppressive policy apparently worked for at least two years. While it is great that a groundswell of publicity has caused it to backfire, I wouldn't be surprised if such policies work more often than they fail, because there are only a limited number of stories that go viral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He linked an example, and TD has reported on numerous other examples. It's far more likely that for the past two years hardly anyone has even noticed the issue.
As a matter of fact, if you check out their Yelp page, amongst the hundreds of 1 star and joke 5 star reviews submitted today, you can go back and see the FIRST review from 4/7/2010 was a 1 star review, and there are other bad reviews (11/27/2012, 1/1/2013, 11/21/2013, 4/2/2014). Only one of them mentions getting threatened with $500. So if the policy "worked" why did 5 out of 13 reviews give it one star prior to the article pointing out the $500 charge?
So no, nobody has done a comprehensive study on review surpression, but that doesn't make the conclusion any less true based on the examples we have seen. When you have data indicating supression of bad reviews causes negative backlash, and no data indicating otherwise, it's kind of silly to establish the burden of proof based on theoretical "lost bad reviews" (*cough* similar to "lost sales *cough*).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, actually, it does.
Yes, actually, it does. Anecdotes don't prove trends. For that you need science, and sound methodology. Tim may well be right, but with just anecdotes, he's speculating, as are we all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, actually, it does.
Surely it might, just might, result in at least one good review. Really, that could happen. Why not? Stop laughing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, actually, it does.
What the lack of a comprehensive study does affect is whether or not the assertion can be proven true -- but a thing can be true without being proven true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yeah, actually, it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yeah, actually, it does.
My hat is tipped to you, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, actually, it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, actually, it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In addition, I doubt they can legally charge you more if they do not like you communicating factual experiences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then one gets into the issue of people denying charges on their cards, the credit card company getting involved, and the merchant agreement (how the retailer gets paid) become at risk as well.
There are a number of folks in the chain who can arbitrarily impose their point of view.
But it is a really stupid move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course they can. You've signed a contract giving them that power. Such terms are enforceable and not entirely rare for certain types of contracts. I've signed many contracts that included performance clauses such that if I didn't come through I'd get fined. So have you: if you have a bank account, you've agreed to a long list of things that the bank can fine you for: bouncing checks, etc.
They may not call it a fine (I've never seen that exact word used -- it's usually a "penalty" or "fee") but that what it is nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a reason...
There is nothing hospitable about this policy, ergo, there must be nothing hospitable about your establishment.
How's that for a review USGH?
Longtime practitioner of hospitable environments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the terms are this bad, then it is a reflection on the owner. Enough said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hope that as people become more aware of this sort of trickery, they will start paying more attention to what they're signing and sticking up for their own rights. If that starts happening, we'll see these terms die a silent death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy%27s_Baking_Company
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change of heart - due to Internet backlash
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/amid-backlash-hotel-rescinds-500-fines-for-negativ e-online-reviews/
From the article:
In the face of the backlash, the company quickly amended its policy, which as of now reads:
Please know that despite the fact that wedding couples love Hudson and our Inn, your friends and families may not. This is due to the fact that your guests may not understand what we offer—therefore we expect you to explain that to them.
This is an improvement over "don’t give us negative reviews or we’ll fine you," but it remains oddly stilted—there’s still a weird threatening undertone to how the hotel "expect[s] you to explain" the inn’s "vintage" condition to other members of your party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change of heart - due to Internet backlash
There are better ways to set expectations, like significant marketing materials that get sent to the planners, and all guest as they book their rooms.
The way they are trying, ain't gonna work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change of heart - due to Internet backlash
Silly me, I thought I was the one paying them to render me a service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting clause:
Uh what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the one that got me...
yeah, how unreasonable is that: you go to a place SPECIFICALLY to celebrate/drink, and on a stifling hot day they don't have ice ?
i don't care WHAT the reason is, if you are a hotelier, you fucking run down to the min-a-mart or whatever and start carting bags of ice back to the hotel...
what kind of lame shit is that: 'oh, our ice machine is broken, and we're in the middle of NYC, so, no way we kind find any other source of ice...'
what a joke...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attitude change demanded!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give good service you won't have to worry
I would never support such an organization and hope no one else will either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unhospitable hospitality
I am currently in hiding for fear of returning home after experiencing an intense period of threats and intimidation from a major US international hospitality corporation. This is the result of long-term attempts to publicize: the company's wide-ranging violations of international / local rules, regulations and laws; the breaking of company codes; most importantly, the fact that this hospitality specialist is knowingly operating at least one seriously illegal hotel.
For further information:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/202/898/687/starwoodgate-the-cover-up-stop-corruption-and -greed-in-the-worldwide-hospitality-industry/
What has caused the hospitality industry to become so inhospitable? Arrogance? Insecure or egotistical CEOs? Greed? Corruption?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enforcement
> a negative review on any internet site you agree
> to a $500. fine for each negative review.
I've never understood how these people even think they can enforce this sort of thing. If I stayed there and really wanted to post a negative review, I'd just get my wife or son or next door neighbor to do it for me.
"My friend stayed at the Union Street Guest House last weekend, and you wouldn't believe what happened to him..."
The person posting the review isn't the person who stayed at the inn and agreed to the contract, so they have no recourse against him. Such a simple way around these things, it's a wonder why they even bother even if there was no such thing as the Streisand Effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Photo of Turd and "reviews"
http://neer-do-well-hall-of-infamey.blogspot.ca/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.armanihorlogenederland.nl/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]