Friday, August 17, 2007
Banning Anyone Who Reviews Your Shop Online Isn't Likely To Generate Much Business. We all know that sometimes customer reviews online can be a bit harsh, but it's something that companies need to learn to deal with. Some take proactive approaches by responding to the complaints with their own side of the story or by apologizing and promising that changes will be made to avoid similar problems in the future. However, one cafe owner has taken things to a different level, apparently putting a sign in the window of the cafe, saying that users of popular online review site Yelp are not allowed as customers. This is effectively saying that the shop owner has no interest in what its customers think of it, has no interest in improving the quality of service and doesn't seem to realize that this will only encourage anyone who has a bad experience to go to Yelp and post about it. In fact, putting this sign in the window seems likely to damage the reputation of the cafe a lot more than any bad review on Yelp. [Techdirt]
Not a good business move, I think. How is this business planning on enforcing this? 12:16:19 PM
|
|
SF Chronicle's Stages Of Google Grief Lead To Suggestion For Google To Just Buy Newspapers. First off, before someone brings it up in the comments, I'll point out that the following post refers to the views of various columnists at the SF Chronicle, rather than any sort of discussion among those who have any real impact on the SF Chronicle's strategy. However, it is quite amusing to see the "stages of Google grief" showing up on the editorial pages of the struggling San Francisco newspaper who has had to rid itself of hundreds of reporters lately. Back in March, columnist David Lazarus (who apparently is no longer at the paper) vented his frustration about the internet by suggesting that newspapers get rid of free content entirely, with the goal of blocking off so-called moochers like Google News (despite the fact that, yes, Google News actually sends the Chronicle more readers). Then, in May came the bizarre suggestion on the SF Chron editorial pages that Google had a social or moral obligation to simply hand money over to newspapers. That got lots of people laughing, so now, yet another columnist at the Chron has adjusted the thinking to suggest that rather than just hand over money, Google should buy some newspapers, but then just leave them alone, noting that Google would probably make for a better newspaper boss than Rupert Murdoch. This seems to be sort of the full circle Google of thinking here. First, denial that Google is an opportunity to actually drive more business to newspapers. Then, anger at Google and a plan to block it off. Then there's the bargaining/begging phase where they suggest Google simply owes them money. Next comes depression (represented by all the layoffs) and finally acceptance that Google as a buyer could be the savior for newspapers. [Techdirt]
More papers will be going through the 7 stages of Google grief. I would imagine most would rather Google buy them than Murdoch. 12:11:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|