Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck

Restauranteurs Say Yelp Uses Extortion To Ply Ad Sales 202

Readers Mike Van Pelt and EricThegreen point out a story in the East Bay Express alleging that online restaurant review site Yelp is doing more than providing a nice interface for foodies to share their impressions of restaurants. Instead, says the article, representatives from the site have called restaurants in the Bay area to solicit advertising, but with an interesting twist: the ad sales reps let restaurant owners know that, if they buy advertising at around $300 a month, Yelp can "do something" about prominently displayed negative reviews of their restaurants. If the claims are true, it sure lowers my opinion of Yelp, which I'd thought of as one of the good guys (and a useful site). I wonder how many other online review sites might be doing something similar.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Restauranteurs Say Yelp Uses Extortion To Ply Ad Sales

Comments Filter:
  • by PapaBoojum ( 232247 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @02:17PM (#26919501)

    A friend who manages a restaurant in Watertown MA asked me what Yelp was... She was contacted by someone claiming to be from Yelp with the same pitch.

    I knew of Yelp, and used to trust the reviews. But I had already lost respect for them when they obviously sold my e-mail addy, despite claims of confidentiality and my opting out of their mailings.

  • by sdaug ( 681230 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @02:29PM (#26919659)

    Or rather, it's only extortion if Yelp itself is generating the negative reviews.

    If you RTFA, you'll see that Yelp employees do write reviews, including negative reviews.

  • Re:Disappointing (Score:5, Informative)

    by humina ( 603463 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @02:35PM (#26919731)

    It looks like the CEO has posted his response to the piece. It appears to be quite well documented and researched. Possibly more so than the original article:

    http://officialblog.yelp.com/2009/02/kathleen-richards-east-bay-express.html [yelp.com]

  • by kabocox ( 199019 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @02:42PM (#26919841)

    I live in Texarkana AR. I eat mostly in Texarkana, TX. The Bowie County has this nice report http://www.txkusa.org/health/Food-Report.pdf [txkusa.org]
    It lists: Establishment, Address, Date of Inspection, Type of Inspection, and Score. My wife and I check it every time we consider trying something new. We first look 'em up. If they don't have an A; we don't eat there.

    I just wish Miller County had the same thing. Heck, it would be nice if there was an easy federal health website that it was trivial to search for this info. Heck, it would be nice to have those GPS units be able to poll for that info when you are "out of town." Just so you are sure to pick a clean place to eat.

  • True (Score:2, Informative)

    by paimin ( 656338 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @02:52PM (#26919993)

    Absolutely true. I personally know a restaurant owner in San Francisco that complains about these suggestive calls.

    Yelp = crap.

  • Re:risky? (Score:5, Informative)

    by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposer@a[ ].mit.edu ['lum' in gap]> on Thursday February 19, 2009 @03:07PM (#26920253) Homepage

    If you want the technical legal terminology, the question is whether Yelp is a "conduit", "distributor", or "primary publisher". Primary publishers are strictly liable, conduits are not liable at all, and distributors are liable under certain circumstances. The risk to Yelp is that by removing negative reviews they control content and become a primary publisher. It seems very likely, though, that few Slashdot readers know these terms but that most understand what a "common carrier" is in telecommunications and in the extended sense.

  • by Bryan-10021 ( 223345 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @04:29PM (#26921335)

    The LA Times had this "scoop" a week ago. This is old news!

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus11-2009feb11,0,6849007.column [latimes.com]

  • Re:Disappointing (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 19, 2009 @04:37PM (#26921463)

    Dude, chill.

    We're talking about restaurant reviews here. Don't jump into full Wikipedia-defense DefCon 5.

    No cross-referencing of information is required, just a quick visit to the cafe, bistro, or bar in question and you'll know whether Yelp is honest or not.

    And by-the-way, they're not. I've read bad reviews that were later pulled, and tried out the restaurant only to discover that the reviews weren't pulled because the food/service got better. I've also written bad reviews that were later pulled. I don't use the site anymore, since (much like the vaunted Wikipedia) it seems the content can't be trusted.

  • by sampson7 ( 536545 ) on Thursday February 19, 2009 @04:46PM (#26921557)

    The basic elements of common carrier status are:

    (1) A business operating under a license issued by the government;

    (2) The business offers to provide non-discriminatory service to the public; and

    (3) The service provided is considered a "public convenience and necessity".

    According to Wikipedia (my Black's is at home):

    "A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority. Common carriers typically transport persons or goods according to defined and published routes, time schedules and rate tables upon the approval of regulators."

    Common carrier is also often used in the telecom sector to describe a similar service, whereby the cell phone company (for example) offers you access to the publicly owned radio spectrum according to a rate schedule.

    In short -- nothing about Yelp relates in any way to common carrier status.

    Please don't use technical terms you don't understand in posts without doing some research first. I don't go around flining technical jargon about compiling techniques, why do people insist on trying to use (or should I say misuse) tecnical legal terms???

  • Re:risky? (Score:3, Informative)

    by PitaBred ( 632671 ) <slashdot&pitabred,dyndns,org> on Thursday February 19, 2009 @04:54PM (#26921663) Homepage
    I think you were actually thinking about Section 230 protections [eff.org], not common carrier.
  • Re:Disappointing (Score:3, Informative)

    by FredFredrickson ( 1177871 ) * on Friday February 20, 2009 @11:24AM (#26929641) Homepage Journal
    I agree. I have customers who misquote me all the time when I'm giving them a pitch of sorts. If they don't like the way things turned out, they always lie about what I said.

    Of course, where I work, our phone system is recorded (and disclosed as such). I usually apologize for the misunderstanding and offer to have the customer come to my office and review the phone logs with me if they truely believe that I've changed a price or my story. They usually back down at that point.

    The problem is, people get angry, and often times it's their own ignorance that sets them up... "What? I never approved $200! That's ridiculous!"

    They'll spend a fair amount of time griping to friends and family about how we agreed on a different price, and that those guys are up to no good. It's easy to twist the facts when you're defensive. Especially when they think it's a my-word-against-his ordeal.

    But the recording always says differently.

To program is to be.

Working...