I'm sorry you're getting downvoted, but to explain why I think this opinion isn't popular, look at Amazon. There's an entire sub-economy of exchange for reviews with unspoken rules. Choose about any product and you'll likely find the phrasing "I received a discount in exchange for my unbiased review of this product" or "I receive a demo version of this product in exchange for my unbiased review", or some other similar disclaimer.
There's nothing technically wrong with what's happening there, since there is no formal arrangement of good review = free product, but it's perfectly understood without a single word being said that if your reviews are too critical, you will not be receiving discounts/demo items in exchange for an unbiased review any more.
Your idea isn't quite the same if I understand it since the restaurant isn't enticing people in with the promise of a discount for reviews, but it's hard to say that you're not being influenced for favor when receiving something like that. It's why I believe it's a journalistic ethical standard to refuse gifts/outings from businesses and individuals as it may compromise journalistic integrity. Whether or not that's actually followed or just a super-ideal is another matter entirely
Gets free meal, writes a guaranteed positive review when the food was good. He, the restaurant and other customers win.
Gets free meal, writes a positive review when the food was bad. He and the restaurant win, but other customers get a false review.
Gets free meal, doesn't write a review. He's taken advantage of restaurant's good will.
Gets free meal, writes an honest review that's neutral or negative. He's taken advantage of restaurant's good will, but other customers get a real review.
Yeah I know - pretty much any restaurant can get by with providing a single free meal, but this is about the principle. And shame on the restaurant for attempting to inflate their reviews.
I'm unsure if I'm playing devil's advocate or not, but should that not be allowed? That seems more about getting over the bias that people who are content with something are generally less inclined to leave a review than somebody who is unhappy with something. If you get something and it's complete crap, I doubt a $10 gift certificate is going to convince you to go write a positive review of it. If anything, that'll probably end up motivating you to write a negative review, with further mention of it.
Yes I didn't mean that the disclosure was the problem. It's the incentivised reviews that are the problem because you really can't give an honest opinion even if you want to. You didn't pay for the item like a normal reviewer and you have an implicit incentive to give a good review so you aren't reviewing from the same point of view as the reviews people actually want.
It's the same reason many companies have policies that employees can't accept gifts. In theory they could have a rule "you can accept gives but don't let it affect your decisions", but people aren't robots. You can't turn that off.
If the food and service is good what incentive is there to write a review at all? It's additional work and time for nothing. I never write positive reviews for that reason. For negative reviews it's completely opposite. So completely "honest" unedited review system would always skew very negative, because only negative reviewers have any incentive to write a review.
I wonder if the review would have been allowed if it was focused on the actual product and then mentioned that the company pays for reviews. What if the product is great and people are giving it 5 star reviews because it's great, and not just the $10?
Some companies will provide the product "for free" but then -- and here's the kicker -- require the product to be returned or they'll charge you for it. I can realistically see an unbiased review coming from that process, but not one where the reviewer gets to keep the product for free.
So you get free stuff, and you poison the environment of reviews for the rest of us.
I wish we could figure out some incentive for people -- both individually and corporately -- to behave less selfishly, but it seems to be a hard problem.
Imagine leaving a bad review for a restaurant because it was raining outside or your Uber took you to the wrong restaurant. That's basically what you're doing when you're giving a review on "the purchasing experience" on Amazon.
Everyone on earth knows that it might rain during your dinner, just like everyone on earth knows that packages get lost sometimes or the UPS driver might drop your TV. It's not useful or fair to the product's company or restaurant to leave these kind of reviews.
They are right. If you haven't actually visited the establishment and used its services, you shouldn't be able to review it. Same with products reviews on Amazon or app reviews on phone app stores.
I don’t see what’s so bad about this. Just because 99% of businesses do it doesn’t make it ok. Encouraging happy people to leave reviews and discouraging upset people means the reviews aren’t accurate, and you turn them from a useful tool for getting outside opinions into a marketing tool that just benefits businesses at the expense of their customers.
I don’t see this as being any different from, say, getting a passing inspection from the health department by manipulating them away from the room where you keep all the cockroaches and rat feces.
How in the world will this new policy be enforced? I see only one possible outcome:
The reviewers who used to begin their review with "I received this product at a discount in exchange for a fair and honest review" will now begin their review with "I totally paid full price for this product and am a legit reviewer without paid-for bias."
I agree. If a company can't handle that reaction, I don't want to do business with them, so I'm at least grateful they made this public so people like me who don't want to deal with businesses like theirs are aware that a bad review may lead to insults and being prevented from using their product.
As I've indicated elsewhere: this event also means I can't trust any of the reviews of their products, because it's clear they are happy to punish customers who leave bad reviews, and at least some proportion of customers will be aware of this when leaving reviews.
Im curious how you felt this was "manipulation". No one said "if you have something good to say, leave a review", which is common in retail, but moreso, it was just "go leave a review". Yes, the company is proud of its reviews, and yes, obviously there will be skoff over bad reveiws. How is any of this manipulation?
> Nobody asked for a review of that place(unless they were specifically invited to that which is rarely the case)
I agree with a lot of what you've said - but you don't need the seller's permission to review a car or a video game or a washing machine or a hotel room.
'Invited' reviewers are basically all shills, who know they'll never get invited again or gifted free review units if their review is anything less than glowing.
The bias is that many of these people are serial reviewers that have been selected because of their willingness to leave positive reviews. They jeopardize their participation if they leave a negative review.
The quid pro quo is simple: leave positive reviews in exchange for more free stuff.
There's nothing technically wrong with what's happening there, since there is no formal arrangement of good review = free product, but it's perfectly understood without a single word being said that if your reviews are too critical, you will not be receiving discounts/demo items in exchange for an unbiased review any more.
Your idea isn't quite the same if I understand it since the restaurant isn't enticing people in with the promise of a discount for reviews, but it's hard to say that you're not being influenced for favor when receiving something like that. It's why I believe it's a journalistic ethical standard to refuse gifts/outings from businesses and individuals as it may compromise journalistic integrity. Whether or not that's actually followed or just a super-ideal is another matter entirely
reply