One Customer Review Site Is Playing With Fire. And All Retailers Could Get Burned

Written by Evan Schuman
April 8th, 2010

One of the biggest reversals in the last few years has been retail acceptance of posting customer reviews. Retailers have moved from a state of fear to one of wonderment, asking why consumer opinions hadn’t been accepted years ago.

At a Wharton conference last month, General Manager/Senior VP Steve Nave said that the impact of customer reviews has been one of his biggest surprises. “The amount of trust [that customers show to each other] is amazing,” Nave said.

It’s for that reason that recent actions from a site specializing in consumer reviews are so baffling. The site, Yelp, has championed the power of customer reviews and it reports some 31 million consumers visiting its site last month. But Yelp then gave vendor advertisers the capability to select which reviews would lead certain pages and it also selectively—and secretly, in the sense that it didn’t flag it to its visitors—removed various reviews.

The “amazing” trust that Wal-Mart’s Senior VP spoke of is solely based on, well, trust. User-to-user reviews are extremely powerful marketing tools because they help sell lots of products. Even a sustained whiff of hanky-panky could be enough to kill the proverbial HREF goose that laid the golden margin.

This week, Yelp, pressured by various lawsuits filed by unhappy vendors, slightly softened its policies.

“We’re adding the ability to see reviews filtered by our review filter and we’re discontinuing the ‘Favorite Review’ feature that’s part of our advertising package,” said Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman. “Why? Because while Yelp has seen tremendous growth in just a few years, we’re still new to a lot of people. Despite our best efforts to educate consumers and the small business community, myths about Yelp have persisted. We’ve said all along we believe these incorrect notions stem from the combination of the filter and this advertising feature–and we’re practicing what we preach. Lifting the veil on our review filter and doing away with ‘Favorite Review’ will make it even clearer that displayed reviews on Yelp are completely independent of advertising–or any sort of manipulation.”

A nice gesture, but where was that sensitive thinking months ago, when the programs were launched? For a site that is entirely based on user trust, Yelp needs to stay light years away from even the slightest hint of vendor influence.

There’s a history here. When Costco became one of the last major chains to accept customer reviews, it did so acknowledging that perception was king. And then incident after incident—from a relentless Belkin employee who repeatedly posted favorable reviews of his own products to Amazon, which had its own series of bogus and slanted reviews—undermined the necessary consumer confidence.

Will Yelp’s site visitors forgive and forget? Can it regain trust? Of much greater concern, will incidents like this start killing the influence of legitimate reviews at E-tail sites everywhere?

It’s a very frustrating situation. If a chain plays this one absolutely straight, there’s no way to tell. Indeed, it’s not only a matter of playing it straight. If clever vendor marketers try and game the system, there are relatively few things a chain can do about it. That chain’s reputation is on the line, and unethical vendors that it has virtually no control over can destroy its standing. Sure, if a bogus review is discovered it can be removed. But the task of discovering it is quite difficult.


One Comment | Read One Customer Review Site Is Playing With Fire. And All Retailers Could Get Burned

  1. Gregory (@piplzchoice) Says:

    All mediated Reputation systems are always opened for attacks as there is a judgment involved, that affects economic interests of people involved. Authors are complaining about Amazon customer reviews algorithms, doctors are launching legal attacks against their patients for sharing their experiences, and there is Yelp. IMO the problem is business models that use advertising to monetize Reputation Services. Did you hear anybody complaining about Consumer Reports?

    I keep saying that mixing Customer Reviews with Advertising is a bad business model. That is why we at are trying to avoid it as a plaque. It is very hard to claim being “unbiased” when your livelihood depends on “generosity” of reviewed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.