Most Awkward Consumer Trend of 2008: Feedback Bribery
One of the interesting customer service trends of 2008 has been corporate pandering to customers who leave negative feedback on Amazon.com or company sites. Here's a look at the past year in bribery!
It all started with TheCellShop.net, who was willing to give you $5 in credit if you left a 10/10 review (they later claimed it was a typo, and that all reviews, be they good or bad, would receive the $5 credit).
MyGearStore, a seller on Amazon.com, made the first real step into feedback bribery by offering a partial refund if a customer increased his otherwise neutral review of their product. After that, the rest seemed entirely based on negative feedback alone: Camenta Camera, Allen's Green Beans, and Eforcity all revealed their nefarious bribing souls. And it's not over yet, folks; at the cusp of the new year, a new (and more prominent) player walks into the world of the feedback bribe: Ritz Camera!
Reader Dan writes:
Several weeks ago, my girlfriend orders a digital frame from on Amazon to give as a Christmas present. The order is completed via Amazon to Ritz Camera. She gets a confirmation from both parties, and assumes everything is ok. A week later, she gets an email from Ritz saying that the frame she ordered is not in stock and would not be shipped. She immediately calls up customer service, explains what happened, and is told that in fact, the frame IS available. The CSR processes another order for the frame and a confirmation email follows shortly. Four days after that interaction, another email stating (surprise!) the frame is unavailable and wont be shipped. She again calls, this time they do say that it is out of stock and even worse, the model is discontinued. She says she wants a comperable frame for a comperable price (side note: frame was $50 and brand name - Kodak). They offer her a $100 off brand frame. Needless to say, she does not order the new frame and leaves the situation upset.
His girlfriend, mad as hell, reviews the order as follows:
"Seller waited more than a week to notify me that the item was not in stock. When I called customer service, they said that the item was in fact available and processed another order. Four days later, the company notified me again that the item was not available and refused to assist with the situation. Customer service was by far the worst I have ever experience. Will never order here again."
And Ritz's response:
Dear Melissa,
Thank you for providing an opportunity to be of assistance.
This is with regard to your order number 2229816.
We understand that you are quiet upset as the order was canceled. We just need another chance so that we can reinstate your confidence in us by providing a good customer service and excellent online shopping experience. We believe we will get it from your side.
We request you to remove the negative feedback posted on Amazon and we will be more than happy to offer a $20.00 Gift Certificate to you.
Your attention in this matter would be highly appreciated. We believe that you will contact us at the earliest.
Please feel free to contact us for further assistance.
Sincerely,
Brenda Jones,
Customer Service,
www.RitzCamera.com.
Aren't bribes supposed to be hush-hush? All subtlety and perception? I figured they were on the right track with "We believe we will get it from your side" (imagine that being said in a thick European accent by a man wearing a pinstripe suit) but they lose their cool when they spill it out on the table in the next line.
So what can we learn, Consumerists? Well, if one thing is to be sure, it is always to make sure to leave feedback where possible. It could actually end up being pretty lucrative for you! Of course, if it was a really interesting experience, I know of a website who might be interested in hearing about it...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam porta mauris ut purus adipiscing tincidunt ut in tortor. Duis diam justo, posuere sed semper sed, pretium nec odio.
Post a comment
Comments:
Awesomely timely post. I was just perusing Ritz Camera for a birthday gift for my mom, the photographer.
I cruised over here for a second, saw this post, and immediately closed my Ritz browser window.
Inventory and Supply Chain issues are one thing, but this bribery email is beyond the pale. (Grammar and "power of positive thinking"/jedi mind tricks tone notwithstanding.)
Note to Ritz: Once you've screwed up to the extent that you've lost a customer, it's too late to try to wiggle out of it. You had your chance through the appropriate CSR channels.
In fact, in this case, you've alienated another customer who didn't yet have a chance to click the "Process Order" button.
This is not bribery. Bribery requires that the person being influenced be "an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty". Leaving feedback is the equivalent of sending a letter to provide feedback on your experiences. I would hope that the Consumerist would recognize that a good company would try to make the situation right by offering something in return. The consumer's ability to remove or alter the negative feedback is a big bargaining chip in the consumer's corner.
It sounds like something that two guys named "Vinnie" might say.
@fantomesq: A good company would offer something in return, but acknowledge that they made a mistake in the first place, not try to cover it up.
Call me crazy, but I don't shop at electronics stores that are named for crackers that are marketed to poor people.
Annyways, that "bribery" has got to be against Amazon's ToS, no?
Didn't the same thing happen over Spore's DRM?
Remove the negative feedback,take the gift card, then post your experience somewhere else. Blog, forum, consumerist! Simple enough.
If you give me 100 Consumerist Credits, this comment about your article will get "a lot" more positive.
@mustng67:
Why not just repost the negative feedback after you've used the giftcard?
I'm sure that some of us here would really love to see Ritz attempt to enforce their 'terms and conditions of feedback bribery'
@Sanspants: Well that wasn't really bribery as they're putting it - but its what I thought the article was initially about as well.
Melissa should have added that Ritz offered the off-brand frame in her post. They didn't "refuse" to fix the issue, she just rejected their (crappy) offer.
Brenda's email is really bad. "...will contact us at the earliest." Earlieset what? Week? Day?
Feedback whoring is quite common and it's not exclusive to Amazon. Ever buy something from eBay and gotten a reminder from the seller to leave positive feedback if you had a good experience?
Feedback on Amazon is way more powerful than eBay though because it's about the product AND the seller. You browse to a product and see its feedback, but you can also click the seller link and see their feedback.
Another thing is that you can actually leave a review on a product even if you've never purchased it. And guess what? If only one seller offers it, your review reflects badly on them as well.
• Melissa's assertion that Ritz "...refused to assist with the situation. " is untrue. They did offer to rectify it. She just thought the offer sucked. Melissa is entitled to her opinion, but it does not logically conclude that Ritz refused to do *anything.*
• Errors happen, it's in how a company deals with them that sets the company apart. When Melissa called the first time, that's when Ritz needed to go "above and beyond." They didn't. Shame on them for that.
• Brenda Jones is not offering to fix the situation. She is offering Melissa $20 to lie. How does that reinstate confidence? I'm dying to know.
I woulda taken the $100 frame for $50, all other things being equal. It's not like brand name really matters with LCDs. But, after all this, I think we'd all agree that Ritz gets no more of our money.
FAIL RITZ FAIL
Unfortunately companies have to do this stuff because one poor Amazon review can kill their sales. Amazon in particular has no vetting process so reviews are filled with shills posting fake positive reviews, competitors posting fake negative reviews, and zero quality control over the "truthiness" in these reviews. There are thousands of "reviews" on Amazon from people who freely admit they don't even own the product or have ever seen it. But somehow they still feel qualified to write a review. Unfortunately Amazon lumps everyone together into a 5-star system which can be completely gamed.
@fantomesq: A good company would have made this right prior to it resulting in negative feedback.
BTW, I have a dictionary too and it mentions nothing about "bribery" requiring a connection to "public or legal duty". We all know what a bribe is, and m-w.com's 2nd defintion, "something that serves to induce or influence" appears quite (quiet?) apt.
@Rey:
Bribery's a legal term... my definition comes from Black's Law Dictionary. Any other usage is sloppy and inaccurate. Consumerist's headlines have been a little sensationalistic lately. Legal accuracy is important when making public accusations
add Thingfling.com to that list. after buying from them received emails urging me to leave review and rating at rate site.
Wow... "quiet upset." If they can't use the correct grammar to persuade me, I wouldn't even think about it, lol.
That's not uncommon, nor all that unethical. Lots of companies encourage you to leave feedback in various forms/locations. But, I'd agree that it gets a bit creepy at times.
What's different in the Ritz case detailed here (and others like it) is that the vendor is encouraging you to leave a potentially dishonest review and offering a cash reward to do so.
@Rey: a good company would compensate you to hope to gain further business and trust. WITHOUT asking you to remove negative feedback.
The feedback submission was the beginning of a negotiation and submitting it gave the OP a substantial bargaining chip on her side. The retailer responded by offering $20 in exchange for removing the feedback which the OP could do if she was now satisfied by the result. She chose to reject the offer as she was free to do.
She was not asked to lie. Lying would be a request to change her feedback to something more positive. Removing the feedback after a situation is rectified was always an option on her plate and a growing consumer power in the online world.
Online reviews are subject to the same vagaries as any other. Is this different than hotels that give Frommers and Fodor's reviewers free stays (some to get in the book), and restaurants giving away free meals.
Get real.
2 good sources for travel are the Insiders Guides and Unofficial guides for travel. They have no relationships with any vendors, and when I have asked businesses if they are proud of their recommendation, they usually don't even know about it.
@mustng67:
Well, one of the points most of us are ranting about here is a matter of ethics. If she plays along, which she's certainly entitled to do, that changes the story a bit.
Okay, I can see your point, too. It seems like an area for grey matter. DOes the right price, in theory, actually change the consumer's opinion, or is it the price to just change what they are willing to say? Hmmm....
A little money sent my way might compel me to write a better review than I normally would. It's all part of the experience anyway, like a rebate offer. Though, would I still get the money if I said the reason I gave a 10/10 is because they paid me to? Perhaps not.
Too bad she declined a $100 frame over a $50 mistake. I'd like to be in her shoes if that's the worst customer service she has ever experienced.
@fantomesq: "Bribery" is a common English word that can be used quiet accurately and unsloppily outside of a legal context. The word "damage" can be found in a Dungeons and Dragons glossary, but no-one would suggest that it only be used in the context of bashing a half-elf over the head with a +2 bardiche.
Which company CSR did she speak with? Amazon or Ritz. I was confused on that point.
@fantomesq: Oh come off it. It's an internet blog, and "feedback bribery" is a coined internet term. Stop taking the internet so seriously.
Also this is hilarious. It reminds me of how obsessive eBayers are about feedback.
@Wit: I forgive spelling errors that are easily explained, I.E. it was a correctly spelled word, but not the right word, and spell check won't pick that up. Also, my dyslexia sometimes shows through in my spelling. It also shows me that they don't use a form letter, and address each concern, which is nice.
You guys are all assuming they were offering her that $100 frame for $50. It doesn't say that in the original post. It says they offered her a $100 off-brand frame. But we don't know if they were offering it at 50 bucks or 100. It reads like it was at 100 dollars.
But, yeah, shame on Ritz.
@fantomesq: Which makes it totally useless to anyone basing a purchase decision on what they think is an honest review? You're right, it is business as usual but that doesn't make it right or even OK.
@Rey: as shady as this is, Ritz usually has good deals and they hire some knowledgeable and helpful people in their brick and mortar stores.
I've noticed supply issues like the OP pointed out at a number of their stores. One of their managers explained to me that most of the models of at least the cameras are at the end of their product cycle and new models are due out in January. Due to bad planning on Ritz's behalf they didn't stock up enough of the old models to meet the demand. Its unfortunate and understandable there.
What is bad though is Ritz's web half acting poorly, being misinformed or lying and then attempting to bribe off bad press.
Also in my experience the prices are the same in store as online. Plus if they have it at another store they will overnight to your store free of charge to you.
@fantomesq: Go back to law school! Legal definitions are long and confusing. They intend to offer indisputable clarity but instead obfuscate the matter further. If any law suit is brought up in this matter it would be laughed out of the court room.
I hope your professors don't read this blog
This will work out poorly for consumers. Right now, feedback serves as an honest (not necessarily fair, but reasonably unbiased) measure of a company. But once companies just start bribing everybody, it acts as a subsidy for people who complain and reduces public information about the company. Free markets only work when there is good information available.
Not to nitpick, but ... oh, hell. This is nitpicking. I admit it.
When did it become common to put the dollar sign after the number, i.e. "50$"? That's akin to nails on a chalkboard for me.
@fantomesq: ...except that Amazon and eBay both explicitly forbid this practice in their merchant agreements. It's not illegal, but it's against the TOS's of the sites.
Amazon still makes it hard to use their feedback, since it is not possible to sort by rating. Sure, a reseller may have negative ratings but you will have to page through all ratings to pick them out. I emailed Amazon about this, and they said: "I am sorry to say that currently we do not have the option to view the negative ratings alone for the sellers."
Beyond lame.
@deadandy: I'll go one further re: eBay. I had the seller e-mail me that he was going to leave me negative feedback if I didn't leave him positive feedback. Then, when I left him negative feedback because of that, and only that, he sent me another message that if I removed it, he would remove the one he left for me.
Doesn't this defeat the purpose of a feedback system?
T.
The second Ritz CS agent misread their imperfect inventory system.
The OP's girlfriend probably has never had this happen before. Sorry if they can't replace your DISCONTINUED item with one of better quality. I wish tech specs were included so that a good comparison of a comparable product could be made. I am willing to guess that $100 off a different frame would have gotten her just as good of a deal or even a bigger size.
It is sorta bogus that they are asking to remove the feedback.
@MichaelLC: Arguably, a crappy counteroffer is tantamount to refusing to fix the issue. And we don't have a transcript of their conversation: maybe they did explicitly refuse to fix the issue.
@lotussix: I misread the offer. I read it as "$100 off another brand name frame" instead of what it really said. Still bogus that they asked to remove, I think that the compensatory offer was probably not satisfactory.
@chrisjames: Maybe I'm missing something, but I assume they offered her the $100 frame in exchange for a hundred dollars, not for free. Which would explain why she declined the offer.
That email she got from Ritz looked like one of those Nigerian email scams. You'd think they'd use a form letter that was pre-approved and grammar checked.