New York Guest House Burns Own Reputation To The Ground By Trying To Charge Customers $500 For Bad Reviews

Failures

from the not-so-much-a-T&C-page-as-it-is-a-suicide-note dept

Mon, Aug 4th 2014 2:58pm — Tim Cushing

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.

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).

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.

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...

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.

According to Page Six, there's also a bit of an edge to its voice in its handling of earlier negative reviews:

For any bad reviews that do make it online, the innkeepers aggressively post “mean spirited nonsense,” and “she made all of this up.”

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.”

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.

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

54 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DannyB (profile), 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:06pm

Does it work the other way?
If they are going to FINE me $500 for writing a negative review,

will they PAY me $500 to write a positive review?

Probably.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:28pm

So I hear a hotel might be on the market soon, it seems the old owners managed to put themselves out of business trying to protect a reputation they didn't actually have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Monty Brewster (profile), 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:29pm

My 5 Star yelp review as Sara W.
recently posted on Yelp 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 thread ]
streetlight (profile), 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:35pm

Too many words where two would do it:
Streisand effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:45pm

I am sorry, I do not get it. If a guest house can fine you why can you not fine the guest house?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scote, 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:46pm

"If businesses haven't figured out that attempting to suppress bad reviews almost invariably only results in more bad reviews,"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:47pm

If a guest house can fine you why can you noot fine the guest house?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:48pm

Are questions allowed as comments?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:48pm

Are questions allowed as comments
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:49pm

Can one ask questions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:51pm

Can one ask questions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:52pm

There is a reason...
...it is called the hospitality industry.

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:53pm

What is in the filter that is locking out simple questions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:53pm

How now brown cow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 3:57pm

Why does everything go to moderator?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 4:01pm

Re:
You appear to have the patience of an 'I want it now' toddler. When did you learn to type?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 4 Aug 2014 @ 4:10pm

"This hotel was the best place I've even stayed! I only found 2-3 semen stains on the sheets, rather than the dozen or so I've found at other hotels. The food was so good that I only got sick once and the rats were much smaller and less numerous than the last place I stayed. The only thing keeping this from being a perfect experience was that through my own stupidity, I managed to misplace my Rolex watch, wallet, laptop and camera. I'm sure the hotel will send them to me as soon as they turn up. 5 out of 5 stars!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rand McNally, 4 Aug 2014 @ 4:18pm

F'em.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 4 Aug 2014 @ 4:27pm

Re:
Maybe because you've posted nine times on this one article, in the span of only 12 minutes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JP Jones (profile), 4 Aug 2014 @ 4:51pm

Re:
Do you have any objective data on that?

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 thread ]
Scote, 4 Aug 2014 @ 5:34pm

Yeah, actually, it does.
"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."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 6:07pm

So how long will it be after the hubbub dies down before they reinstate their $500 charge for bad publicity? I mean that alone is enough to earn them plenty of bad reviews but add to it the unlikelyhood of getting a refund should things happen in your life unplanned doesn't sound like a place I would ever want to do business with. I can't imagine who might want to.

If the terms are this bad, then it is a reflection on the owner. Enough said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 6:10pm

Sounds like the owners graduated with honors from the Amy's Bakery school of customer service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy%27s_Baking_Company
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SolkeshNaranek (profile), 4 Aug 2014 @ 6:20pm

Change of heart - due to Internet backlash
Amid backlash, hotel rescinds $500 fines for “negative” online reviews

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 thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 7:00pm

Re: Change of heart - due to Internet backlash
Hmmm. There is a possibility that they are trying to set expectations. If this is an historic building, the rooms may not qualify with what seasoned travelers expect for modern day rooms. I am not familiar with the property (an industry term for a specific hotel), but I have seen situations where, in older historically correct businesses, the bathroom is down the hall and other 'atrocities'.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 7:09pm

Welcome to the Thin Skin Inn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 7:33pm

Re:
Are you for real, or just like being a douche on the Internet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 7:43pm

Re: Yeah, actually, it does.
"If businesses haven't figured out that attempting to suppress bad reviews almost invariably only results in more bad reviews,"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 7:49pm

Re:
The answer is, they can not "fine" you. I think it has something to do with jurisdiction or something. btw, ianal.

In addition, I doubt they can legally charge you more if they do not like you communicating factual experiences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2014 @ 8:21pm

Re: Re:
Actually, they can put the charge through, and point to their 'policy' as justification.

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 thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 4 Aug 2014 @ 8:57pm

Fining the guest house.
A sound plan if you can get its credit card or get it to pay you a deposit.

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 thread ]
David, 5 Aug 2014 @ 12:04am

Interesting clause:
"If there are any unused rooms you forfeit your entire deposit."

Uh what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 5 Aug 2014 @ 12:09am

Re:
'The Thin Skin Inn: Where you will enjoy your stay, and comment as such, or else.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 5 Aug 2014 @ 1:16am

Re: Change of heart - due to Internet backlash
If they're expecting me to explain things to my friends and family, that's time and effort I'm going to have to spend. I want to be compensated for that financially. Why should I take time out of my day to explain things about the guest house, when it should be the guest house doing it?
Silly me, I thought I was the one paying them to render me a service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Antsan (profile), 5 Aug 2014 @ 3:02am

Re: Re: Re:
I am pretty sure in Germany this part of the policy wouldn't be valid. At least here you can't just write everything you want into a policy and I guess it won't be much different in the USA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 5 Aug 2014 @ 6:21am

the one that got me...
...was how THEY were bitching that someone bitched about not having ice during a 105 degree day !
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 thread ]
DannyB (profile), 5 Aug 2014 @ 6:50am

Re: My 5 Star yelp review as Sara W.
> invited a couple of very critical friends over to celibate my new fortune

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 thread ]
Baron von Robber, 5 Aug 2014 @ 7:29am

The owner must be Basil Faulty
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2014 @ 8:00am

This was just an advertising stunt , Next week they start the brand new reality tv show "Americas Worst Hotels & Inns "
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick, 5 Aug 2014 @ 8:21am

Re: My 5 Star yelp review as Sara W.
Sounds like a John Candy movie I once saw.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 Aug 2014 @ 9:41am

Re: Yeah, actually, it does.
Since I'm feeling pedantic today, I'll just point out that the presence or lack of a comprehensive study doesn't affect the truth of the assertion one way or another. The assertion is either true or not, regardless of studies.

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 thread ]
cKarlGo (profile), 5 Aug 2014 @ 9:54am

Attitude change demanded!
The floggings will continue until the reviews improve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 Aug 2014 @ 10:12am

Re:
Because the inclusion of terms like this is becoming increasingly common, I have started actually reading the paperwork and objecting when I see such terms. I will not sign away my right to free speech just so I can stay at a particular guest house, see a particular dentist or doctor, etc. I have walked away from a few business because of this sort of thing.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2014 @ 10:55am

Re: Re: Yeah, actually, it does.
I will only add that the Scientific Method rarely proves anything to be true. Usually it prove things to be false and those things that cannot be proven false do not become facts but rather are transformed into theories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2014 @ 11:16am

Re: Re: Re:
There is a reason companies hate chargebacks from CC's and it's not just that they don't get paid. The merchant provider usually charges them around $50 for every chargeback that is processed on top of them not getting the money for the original charge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don Von, 5 Aug 2014 @ 11:35am

Give good service you won't have to worry
This place obviously knows that it is terrible and is just trying to prevent anyone else from finding out. Reviews are just peoples opinions and trying to repress them violates our constitutional right to free speech.

I would never support such an organization and hope no one else will either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 Aug 2014 @ 12:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Yeah, actually, it does.
pedantic^2

My hat is tipped to you, sir.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 Aug 2014 @ 1:05pm

Re: Re:
"The answer is, they can not "fine" you."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2014 @ 1:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, actually, it does.
At least you are spelling pedantic correctly now. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 6 Aug 2014 @ 8:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, actually, it does.
I lern reel gud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jmsbkk, 7 Aug 2014 @ 10:34pm

Unhospitable hospitality
Hospitality bullying or worse here. And consider my case.....
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 thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 8 Aug 2014 @ 12:12am

Enforcement
> 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.

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 thread ]
Ace, 13 Aug 2014 @ 8:14pm

Photo of Turd and "reviews"
Check out some "reviews" after the social media bomb went off. Priceless.

http://neer-do-well-hall-of-infamey.blogspot.ca/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
emporio armani horloge, 23 Oct 2014 @ 11:00pm

http://www.armanihorlogenederland.nl/
Thanks for sharing!
[ link to this | view in thread ]