HOTELMARKETING.COM

A room with a (re)view - dangers for hoteliers in unregulated online reviews

February 13, 2012 | Hotel Marketing

A single adverse hotel review can have a significant impact on a business’ revenue and goodwill, if it attracts attention and consequently prominence in whatever online forum it is published. The question for an affected business in those circumstances is what can be legally done about it.

Those in the hotel business will have been following with interest the latest developments in the referral of TripAdvisor’s UK advertising to the Advertising Standards Authority and the consequential requirement that they remove the word “trust” and “trusted” from their site in connection with hotel reviews posted in an unregulated way by members of the public (see here for example).

The Issue

Just as the issue has been enjoying attention in the national press, we have been conscious of increasing levels of concern among hotelier clients in relation to internet reviews of their businesses. Such concerns are by no means confined to any single provider of such services. These concerns encompass a perception both that their businesses are being damaged by negative reviews being placed online, and that their competitors are perhaps less scrupulous about the sources for comments on the same websites, intended to bolster business.

With a move away from travel agent bookings, and towards the undoubted benefits of being able to compare a wide variety of packages and destinations over the internet, these are concerns which, if not addressed, will become all the more pressing. They have undoubtedly been accentuated by the traditional January rush to make bookings for the summer holidays, and the fact that in the current economic climate, consumers are becoming ever more eager to ensure that their discretionary spending is being applied to experiences in which they can have confidence.

With those points in mind, a single adverse review can have a significant impact on a business’ revenue and goodwill, if it attracts attention and consequently prominence in whatever online forum it is published. The question for an affected business in those circumstances is what can be done about it.

It is perhaps unsurprising that TripAdvisor should have come in for special scrutiny in this regard. It is one of the world’s biggest travel resources featuring over 40 million reviews of hotels and restaurants a month worldwide and for many travellers the website has proved invaluable when they are choosing a hotel. By assessing the reviews placed with them TripAdvisor scores each hotel and restaurant on a percentage basis with a business’ rating changing on an on-going basis subject to the quality of the reviews that are posted online by the consumer.

Equally, the implications of the ASA’s ruling will be felt across an industry where individual feedback and recommendations have fast become the currency of choice for promotional purposes. The ruling in essence refused to rule out the possibility of such review systems being mis-used by unscrupulous competitors or vindictive private individuals, notwithstanding the relatively sophisticated systems of checks and moderation which TripAdvisor has in place. As such, any site which follows the same model, and in particular those where reviews remain permanently on a site unless withdrawn by the reviewer or proactively removed by the site owner, is by implication tarred with the same scepticism about the authenticity of its content.

“Negative” reviews

There are now many reported incidents where guests have posted negative reviews on comparison websites, and the establishments concerned have considered the review to be untrue or misleading. This is proving to be a particular concern as it is not necessary for the reviewer to have attended the hotel or the restaurant concerned to write a review, such that a review can be written by a disgruntled member or ex-member of staff, or a competing business looking to seek a competitive advantage.

It is also apparent that there is a small but growing band of so called “self appointed” reviewers that regularly contribute to these sites, notwithstanding that they have no formal training or understanding of the hospitality business and the standards required by the industry. The reviews provided by these amateur inspectors appear to be particularly damaging for the independent hotelier and restaurateur.

“Positive” reviews

Any service provider knows that generating spontaneous positive feedback is rather harder than the negative type. There is, as such, a natural self-selection on such sites in favour of negative feedback. While it cannot be condoned, it is therefore perhaps nevertheless unsurprising (particularly with the added pressures caused by the present economic environment) that some businesses have gone to the lengths of posting positive reviews on to comparison websites with the intention of raising their rating. We are aware of at least one example where five positive reviews were posted on to such a website with regard to one hotel, each review containing the same spelling mistakes and thus, in the view of our client, likely to have been posted by the same individual.

What can be done?

It is important to bear in mind that any reputable comparison site will almost certainly contain terms of use and a code of conduct which users must sign up to (probably on a “click through” basis) before they are able to post content. Demonstrable breaches of those codes of conduct have always been treated seriously, and in light of recent adverse publicity about reliability, it is to be expected that the sites will be making event greater efforts to ensure that genuine complaints are responded to efficiently and effectively.

Equally, of course, it is important to bear in mind that such allegations will need to be carefully considered, and capable of being proved to a relatively high standard, since the consequence for a hotel which is accused of posting fake “positive” reviews can be extremely detrimental. Those consequences might in turn lead to proceedings being issued against the site, which in turn may look to the party who made the original complaint, in order to substantiate their allegations. The prospect of such spiralling litigation deters many small businesses from embarking on such a high stakes course, and suggests that a more pragmatic approach is often required.

A Practical Approach

For small businesses a negative online review may prove personally upsetting and frustrating, even if it is genuinely true, after all of the hard work and effort that is put into running a business. It is inevitable that the distress and frustration will be all the greater where the review is untrue. Nevertheless, short of refusing to engage with the world of online comparisons (which for many is seen as a way to change the travel industry for the better, and in particular to bring small businesses to the attention of a worldwide audience), one approach is to engage with the reviews with a view to making them work for you.

Where a negative review or a number of reviews are posted that are factually wrong and can be shown to have caused the business an actual loss of trade, the incident/s highlighted in the reviews should be investigated and as much evidence as possible gathered to identify the reviewer/s. In the first instance the business should use its right to post a direct response to the negative review on the website as this may assist in negating the review. If a review or reviews are considered particularly damaging the site operator should then be approached in a constructive manner and asked that the review is removed. As much information should be provided to the site operator as possible to show that the review contained false information or was misleading. Our experience suggests that adopting a collaborative approach with the provider, rather than “shooting the messenger”, often yields the best results.

If at this stage the site operator is not cooperative in removing the offending review, a decision will need to be taken. In the majority of cases, embarking on further disputes will simply result in an additional drain on management time and the business’ resources, which might more effectively be devoted to positive publicity aimed at counter-acting the negative reviews.

In some cases, however, the harm will be so serious, and the risks to the business so severe, that action must be taken. As a preliminary step, the identity of the end user (i.e. the writer of the review) needs to be substantiated so that legal action against them may be considered. It may prove difficult to progress this matter if the site operator is not prepared to provide the end user’s identity or, once the user’s identity is confirmed, it is established that the user is not based in the UK.

The site operator can be asked to inform the user that legal action is being considered against them, if the operator is not prepared or is unable to divulge the end users identity and ask that the review is removed. Equally, it can be possible to obtain a court order for relatively detailed information about a user’s registration details, and even the IP address from which contributions were posted, where there is compelling evidence of genuine harm having been suffered.

However, pursuing a claim (whether in defamation or by some other route) via the UK Courts is not straightforward and should not be undertaken lightly. The legal costs for such an action could be substantial and there is no guarantee that the damages awarded by the Court, if a claim was successful would cover the costs incurred. That being so, it is always prudent to take informed, practical, advice at an early stage, so that a decision can be made that best suits the needs of the business in question, and is appropriate to the level of the harm that has been done.

Related Link: pitmans

Visit our sponsors: