{{ searchResult.published_at | date:'d MMMM yyyy' }}

Loading ...
Loading ...

Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.

No_results

That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching “”.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.

Logo_distressed

Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.

Local review site Yelp has been accused of playing favorites before, but now the ratings arbiter is going to have to defend itself in court. A class action suit has been filed against Yelp charging that the company engages in unfair business practices.

Regardless of how it turns out, this isn't good news for the listings site.

Yelp allows businesses that pay for advertising on its site to give positive reviews better placement on their profiles. More than once, the company has been accused of pressuring businesses to pay for memberships and unfavorably weighting the listings of businesses that do not advertize with the site. That is similar to the charges here. 

According to TechCrunch:

"A veterinary hospital in Long Beach, CA, is said to have requested that Yelp remove a negative review from the website, which was allegedly refused by the San Francisco startup, after which its sales representatives repeatedly contacted the hospital demanding payments of roughly $300 per month in exchange for hiding or deleting the review."

The Yelp founders are insistent that the suit is spurious, responding:

"The allegations are demonstrably false, since many businesses that advertise on Yelp have both negative and positive reviews. These businesses realize that both kinds of feedback provide authenticity and value. Running a good business is hard; filing a lawsuit is easy. While we haven’t seen the suit in question, we will dispute it aggressively."

Even if the case is dismissed, this not particularly good for Yelp. The company has been fighting charges like this online and in the media for some time, and rumors of Yelp interfering with profiles on its site are likely to continue.

That's for two reasons. First, Yelp leaves the ranking of its reviews to an undisclosed algorithm that no one really understands. Coupled with Yelp's policy on advertisers modifying their listings, that gives companies plenty of room to proscribe a motive for Yelp to interfere with their listings.

In a sprawling piece called "You've Been Yelped" earlier this month, Inc Magazine outlined the various ways that businesses are upset with and about Yelp, including this one:

"Some business owners have reported seeing their Yelp ratings fall after they declined to buy advertising."

That's what's going on here. By accepting money from businesses in return for giving them some control over their profiles, Yelp has given credence to the suspicion that Yelp reviews aren't entirely non-partial.

For a startup still searching for a longterm business model, giving companies control over their profiles seems a great way to bring in some revenue. As Inc. notes, advertisers pay Yelp between $300 to $500 a month and a " typical Yelp salesperson generates at least $8,000 in monthly billings."

But this income model is causing more than its share of problems for Yelp — including discrediting the value of Yelp's listings. For a company that is dealing with increased competition — from stalwarts like Google to even younger companies like FourSquare — that could end up being a very big problem.

Image: InternetDefamationBlog

Meghan Keane

Published 25 February, 2010 by Meghan Keane

Based in New York, Meghan Keane is US Editor of Econsultancy. You can follow her on Twitter: @keanesian.

721 more posts from this author

Comments (1)

Avatar-blank-50x50

selina howells

This affects all user generated reviews in my view, not just Yelp. User reviews is a new business model, people are seeing all sorts of ways of making something out of the model, and not always fairly.

The review ratings of major retailers for example are absolutely dreadful, far worse than can be fair. It does not help that there's no independent editor responsible for checking content is factually correct and to give both sides of a story when there's a falling out. 

I telephoned a small seller I had bought off on eBay when goods did not arrive. It was Royal Mail that was at fault but I was really shocked by how scared she was of getting a negative review. Even though her service and product was faultless her thinking immediately was to avoid the possibility of a negative review by offered a full refund. That's not good for business.

This experience made me simply stop giving any feedback ever as I felt that I might be giving legitimacy to a nefarious business model.

over 6 years ago

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Daily_pulse_signup_wide

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Daily Pulse newsletter. Each weekday, you ll receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.