ram,

deting

But don’t you think that the Chiropractor should have taken a different approach in the first place? How about contacting the individual and resolving the issue with some positive work.

Obviously if he’s done something wrong, you can’t go down that route other than refunding his bill and hoping he keeps his mouth shut.

In the end Steven Biegel better hope he gets enough from the settlement to start a new career!

I have been convinced to do business based on reviews before. Not only did I run into many problems with him, I found out he had inside connections to delete any reviews that would damage his business. Like Nate says, I am now very careful with sites that has no negative reviews.

On more than one instance I have seen people re-post an explanation and their renewed satisfaction with the experience after contacting them in an informative and empathetic tone.

2. Might be worth a thought to make them sign a waiver agreeing not to post in exchange for services, where applicable. At least then you have that out if it makes it to court.

3. The customer is always right. Now more than ever you need to be treating your customers right. Someone at PubCon said it best, “These problems are easier to prevent than they are to fix.”

Tighten up departmental communications; make sure the sales reps understand your online message and visa versa. Be consistent in your communications and services. In the rare occasion someone blasts you just to be malicious; it’s that much easier to expose them as the only person that seems to have a problem with your services. Counter it with content regarding your attempts to satisfy the customer, a link to the $2k testimonials you have that say otherwise and a link to your BBB profile that states “Company made attempt to settle but customer declined to respond.”

The consumer has an obligation to stick to the facts of the experience and to have made reasonable attempts to work it out with the business owners. Likewise the business owner in this case is unlikely to find the lawsuit to be a winning strategy. He would have been better off to respond with a reasoned refutation of the untruths in the review and an offer to make it right –to the extent possible — for the client.

The legal action will make it a much larger story that it would otherwise have been and give the complaint against him much wider airing than it otherwise would have gotten.

As someone who has told the unpleasant truth about a few local businesses on Yelp, I will certainly watch this case.

The best way to handle it would have been to go to Yelp and post a response, clearly outlining the facts about the interaction with the client and how the misunderstanding could/would be handled.

From there you can just let people make up their own minds. People aren’t stupid, they can tell which person is telling the truth. If the doctor handled it in this way it would have been very positive exposure for him.

With the lawsuit, he’s clearly on a no win path.

As long as there is nothing inappropriate in the review, I see no problem with them.

From the main story page I think this statement is of particular relevance:

“When people try to pull down unflattering material, it has the absolute opposite effect” of what they intend, he said. “It’s very difficult to silence speakers on the Internet – it’s a culture of people who don’t like those kinds of attempts.”

The facts are that there are some people more vocal and willing to defend their views than others online, and it looks like Mr Biegel has just so happened to find one of these more vocal people in Mr Norberg.

In response to one of your questions Bryan, if a negative review is considered libel then we’re defeating what is one of the strengths of online, which is about allowing your customers and users to tell other about their experiences, good or bad.

However, I feel that every customer has the right to post negative reviews in any public forum if they are telling the truth about an experience they had.