About-Face on BedandBreakfast.com Policy
Written by Jay Karen on July 10, 2010 – 9:39 pmOk, so I have to confess about something. Everyone who knows me and PAII also knows that you would be hard-pressed to find someone more out front than moi with regard to representing the B&B industry’s interest on most matters – especially the phenomenon of online consumer reviews. Two years ago I engaged our industry in the discussion and began “lobbying” various entities (i.e. TripAdvisor, Yelp, etc) for changes I felt were needed. At the same time, I brought up a criticism to BedandBreakfast.com’s top brass, Eric Goldreyer and John Banczak, about their review policies. We were actually having drinks in the historic Driskill Hotel in Austin, just blocks from their office, having pretty lengthy and serious discussion about many matters.
My criticism at the time was this: I did not particularly like the fact that they required a guest to furnish proof of stay when wanting to post a negative review about a B&B, but didn’t necessarily require it of those wanting to write a positive review. While I realize this was an “innkeeper friendly” policy, and noted that they aimed to please innkeepers, but felt in the long run it might be a disservice. My concern was two fold. First, I felt it in someway violated the “spirit” of Web 2.0. Why treat one guest differently than another? Web 2.0 is supposed to be this great “democratization” of web content, right? But I was also concerned that their site would be filled almost exclusively with positive reviews, because it was more difficult to post a negative review. Who was going to spend time digging up a receipt or other form of proof of stay? If guests browsing the site only saw positive reviews everywhere, when they anticipated encountering a spectrum of reviews, they might not consider the review portion of BedandBreakfast.com very legitimate.
After a couple of years of hindsight and speaking or emailing with hundreds of innkeepers on the topic of online reviews, I think requiring proof of stay when wanting to post a negative review is a good policy, simply because the damage that a false negative review can cause is too detrimental. I think the online review phenomenon is certainly a net-positive for our industry – no question about it. But when transgressions can be prevented, they should be prevented. Innkeepers work too hard to fall victim to fraudulent, false reviews. Maybe I was thinking as much as a consumer as an industry representative…concerned that I wouldn’t see negative reviews that might have made it to the site if it weren’t for a restrictive procedure.
I understand the challenges that TripAdvisor would face if they started requiring proof of stay for any negative reviews, since there are over 50,000 hotels and 19,000 B&Bs on their site. They would have to add a heck of a lot of staff to verify the negative reviewers; and even then the system would not be foolproof. A challenge, indeed.
Maybe what the NFL is doing at www.nfl.com is a happy medium. If the buyer actually bought the product (i.e. a Philadelphia Eagles jersey) from their site, then the site indicates the reviewer is a “Verified Buyer.” People can still review an NFL product, but if they didn’t buy through NFL, then the “Verified Buyer” badge is omitted. I like this, because as a consumer I can choose to read only the Verified Buyer reviews…or all of them. The verification adds legitimacy to those reviews, and that’s a good thing.
In the end, the B&B has everything to lose and the reviewer has nothing to lose. So, it’s a good thing to offer some protections to those who have everything to lose.
Tags: BedandBreakfast.com, Online Reviews, Reputation Management, TripAdvisor
Posted in Online Review Sites, Online Reviews, Reputation Management, TripAdvisor, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »
Jay Karen, President & CEO of the
July 10, 2010 at 10:35 pm...
Still not sure why I should pay for advertising space and not write all the copy. Reviews are legitimate on review sites. Paid-listing sites are for advertising. The only thing I want to PAY to have on my site, from guests, is testimonials. Imagine forking over six or seven HUNDRED dollars and working at your advertising/marketing and then having someone’s sour grapes posted on your PAID AD! Nonsense. Reviews have no business on bedandbreakfast.com. I realize that Goldreyer salivated at the notion of capitalizing on a TripAdvisor-like income stream, but that doesn’t justify rewriting paid advertisements to include outside reviews. [Please note that I have never had a bad review on bedandbreakfast.com and don't anticipate having one. The power play is what I find objectionable.]
July 11, 2010 at 7:12 am...
Hi Sandee. I understand your sentiment – I do. Why pay for the opportunity for someone to slam you? Doesn’t sit well in the ole gut department. But, here’s my take, and maybe Mr. Goldreyer will come out of retirement to comment too. BB.com saw the writing on the wall – travelers wanted to read reviews about B&Bs where they might stay. The growing trend could not be denied, and this was, what, four years ago? Look at it now! I’d say it’s no trend – it’s a flat-out reality. If BB.com wanted to maintain or improve their high level of traffic to their site and your pages (and thus make a listing with them even more valuable — they are in business, after all), they had to give B&B travelers what the wanted. Their strategic decision turned from being 100% an advertising site to a (mostly) advertising site and part consumer-generated content (CGC) site. They’re a blend, and they figured they had to be. Otherwise, TripAdvisor would be the ONLY game in town (our town – the B&B industry) where consumers can read and write reviews. Their reviews, along with TripAdvisor’s, feed the aggregated reviews seen on your Google Local listing – or is it Google Places listing now? Either way, I think it was more of a “need to stay competitive and relevant” move than a “power play.”
July 11, 2010 at 2:24 pm...
I think all the receipt-requirement does at this point is keep the guest from putting the review on BB.com. It certainly does not stop them from putting it everywhere else they want, including their own blog posts that then show up in searches for the property name.
If we’re posting complaints about how the site works how about the advertising that shows up leading guests away from the area they searched for? Or the advertising that shows up on the inn’s paid for ‘advertising page’ as Sandee calls it?
Or allowing B&B’s that are over an hour away to post their listing on a particular town’s page?
Or listing what kind of membership the B&B has by putting ‘platinum’, ‘gold’ and ’silver’ on the listing subtly implying that those who are paying more for their listing are ‘better’ properties than those who choose to pay less? The guest certainly doesn’t know what those designations mean and if they then see ‘Diamond’ listing the assumption is that the higher payment levels mean the service and quality of the stay will also be better.
Sorry, Jay, I ramble…
(And I know I can drop my BB.com membership anytime I want if I don’t like their rules.)
July 12, 2010 at 11:49 am...
I’m intrigued by the “Verified Buyer” suggestion you make. I don’t understand how it saves TripAdvisor manpower. In other words, what would need to be done to “verify” the buyer, prior to a review being posted?
Since online reviews have become the norm, we might as well improve the process – thanks for this topic!