Customer Service Policies

[Scott5114]

And I totally get it when a business selling to other businesses (B2B), doesn't want to sell to a specific customer.

But I don't get it at all for a service business that is founded and built on relationships with their customers.

So if you were to come to my city and cheat at blackjack, you "wouldn't get it" if you got kicked out?

[Rothman]

And I totally get it when a business selling to other businesses (B2B), doesn't want to sell to a specific customer.

But I don't get it at all for a service business that is founded and built on relationships with their customers.

So if you were to come to my city and cheat at blackjack, you "wouldn't get it" if you got kicked out?

Never understood how card counting was cheating, but thought they use a gazillion decks now or whatnot.

...

Of course, my casino visits have been very infrequent over the years...

[webny99]

And I totally get it when a business selling to other businesses (B2B), doesn't want to sell to a specific customer.

But I don't get it at all for a service business that is founded and built on relationships with their customers.

So if you were to come to my city and cheat at blackjack, you "wouldn't get it" if you got kicked out?

I don't know much of anything about blackjack but I would consider cheating at anything to be a much greater offense than leaving a poor review.. and also one that has very obvious consequences if you get caught.

I mean really, applying the concept of being "caught" to reviews is laughable. Newark Airport has almost 10,000 one star reviews. I wonder how many of those people are spending their days in fear of lifetime relegation to LaGuardia.

[CtrlAltDel]

It seems like the idea you're trying to convey is retrospective as opposed to prospective.

Is that a problem?

Of course not, I was just attempting to clarify your thoughts, since your discussion of nouns and verbs was inaccurate.

Either way, your dedication to explaining why you are not wrong is extraordinary.

Of course it was wrong to be late for the appointment. I couldn't be in two places at once, so tough choices had to be made. But I have long since moved on from that, and you may have noticed that the current discussion isn't even about that anyways.

I have.

[SEWIGuy]

Strong-arming them through online reviews doesn't help.

See, I just fundamentally disagree that leaving a poor review is "strong-arming" in any context. A single review (especially one without an explanation for the public to read that could influence their decision to do business with that company) simply doesn't affect the business in any meaningful way.

And I knew that. I did it anyways because I figured throwing it in the average would make the average slightly more accurate for others. And it did exactly that, even after changing it to three stars.

But you were in the wrong. You violated their policy and then complained when they enforced it. 

And it's cute that you think there is "accuracy" in on line reviews.

[webny99]

You're using the noun version of purpose in both cases.

That's not how grammar works.  In the phrase "the purpose of an individual review", the word "purpose" is indisputably a noun.  The only verb in your sentence is the verb phrase "can vary".

You're both right, of course. It made sense when I started writing, but by the time I'd finished, my usage of the second one had morphed back into a noun, and I never came back to double check myself. But that was never important to the distinction I was making, which was:

1) Purpose (the reason for existence) of Google reviews vs.
2) Purpose (intention or objective) of an individual review.


Here is the revised post:

The overall purpose of Google reviews  has been well established here. Reviews are generally informative and beneficial to the general public in the aggregate, but typically hold very little future value to the reviewer themselves, because in most cases, the reviewer has already visited the business - so they have no reason to care about the business's rating, unless they either love the business so much they want their rating to go up, or hate the business so much they want their rating to go down.

As such, the purpose of an individual review can vary wildly from one review to the next. That purpose is typically - but not always - centered around information sharing - because of course everyone wants to share their experiences. But sometimes businesses offer incentives for reviews too, so someone may place a positive review to earn something they want, or, like in my case, place a negative review in hopes of getting something they want.

You are of course welcome to disagree with the *premise* of using a review for a certain purpose, or simply disagree with using a review for any self-serving purpose that doesn't explicitly benefit the general public (any rating posted without content typically doesn't benefit the public much, except as an aggregation tool, and even then, you can bet those reviews have been heavily incentivized or even "bought" by the business, especially if there's a large number of them). But ultimately, the reviewer themself is the only one who can define the "intention or objective" of a particular review.

[webny99]

And it's cute that you think there is "accuracy" in on line reviews.

Riddle me this: if you accept the premise that online reviews are inaccurate, why is it such a big deal that my review was (in your view) inaccurate?

The only possible conclusion is that you appreciate and accept that everyone else can leave inaccurate reviews all they want, but my reviews must always be the gold standard of perfection.

And that's fine. I appreciate being held to a high standard. But I won't continue arguing about it if there's going to be a double standard.

[webny99]

Moving on...

I was also amazed at the number of people who registered but didn't attend and then wanted a refund because "it's not my fault I had a family emergency/had to work late/had car trouble/etc."  I'm sorry about that, but it's not our fault either.  You don't think you should have to pay for the dinner we reserved and paid for at your direction; why do you think WE should have to absorb the cost?

If you don't mind me asking, what sort of size was the event? I ask because if it was small (say 20-30 people or less) you're obviously taking a loss to refund no-shows. But if it was a large event (say 100+ people), a certain number of no-shows are probably expected, so maybe that could have been factored into the cost of the event, either by ordering less food to account for them or just accepting a certain percentage of no shows as part of the cost.

One night when I was getting ready to leave, my AGM tells me that this woman wants to talk to me, and I knew she had left over an hour ago so was wondering what was up. Turns out she hadn't finished all of the Brussels sprouts that she ordered and took them to go. But, she had put the container in a bag with some fabric samples that she had borrowed from some company, and the box leaked and got all over the samples. She was expecting me to reimburse her several hundreds of dollars because she made a bad decision. I refused on principle, and obviously wasn't going to make an exception since she wasn't a great guest. She kept threatening to get me fired, etc. because I wouldn't budge. Thankfully, she never returned.

Wow. Had she spent hundreds of dollars at the restaurant or was she expecting reimbursement for the carpet samples? Putting perishable food in a purse is a terrible idea, so it seems kind of absurd to involve the restaurant in that situation. I can maybe see a "bad packaging" argument, but even that is a big stretch, because what kind of food packaging is immune from being bounced around in a purse long enough? Thanks for sharing, that is just bizarre all around.

The most obscene example I have of this:  I knew someone who started going to a restaurant, where she would sit at the bar and study.  She would get...a water.  The owner finally told her not to come back. She was pissed, but the place wasn't making a damn dime from her.

This is one where I can see both sides. It kind of depends on the nature of the restaurant, the image they want to portray, and whether or not her presence was a disruption. There are some places, like Starbucks, that welcome and invite people to come and work and even have extra seating just for that purpose. Sure they're expecting them to buy something, but I don't think they'd kick them out if they weren't. A crowded bar where she's constantly taking a seat from a profitable customer during a busy time is obviously a different story.

[kphoger]

I just fundamentally disagree that leaving a poor review is "strong-arming" in any context.

How can you say that with a straight face, when your stated purpose in leaving the poor review was to "see if anything came of it", and when you later explicitly defined the "anything" as "getting something [you wanted]"?

You left your poor review for the intended purpose of getting the business owner to give you what you wanted.  That's strong-arming them.

I dumped a one star review on Google and figured I'd see if anything came of it.

like in my case, place a negative review in hopes of getting something they want.

I couldn't be in two places at once, so tough choices had to be made.

It's not really a "tough choice" to make, if you expect to have no repercussions for your decision.  You wanted to have your cake and eat it too, then threw a Google review hissy-fit when they said no.

I accept that loyalty is conceptual and pretty much impossible to assign a numeric value to, so how about a repeat customer? The specific number of visits just doesn't make any practical difference here anyways.

The specific number of visits absolutely makes a difference.  The expectation of special treatment because you're a repeat/loyal customer should be judged as either reasonable or unreasonable based on the extent to which you are in fact a repeat/loyal customer, and the number of times you've patronized the business is a large part of that definition.  If you had been going there monthly for ten years solid, then you'd have much more right to expect them to bend over backwards for you.

Telling someone "you are not welcome here" should be extremely rare and require a level of offense that is in a different stratosphere than "left a poor review", regardless of the context of the review or even the content of the review unless it was something veritably false.

Why should any review, ever, be evaluated "regardless of the context ... or even the content"?  That makes no sense to me.

You were a customer who made it publicly known to all the world that the business was awful, then you expected special treatment from them because of your loyalty.  That's precisely the sort of customer a business might want to make unwelcome.

[JayhawkCO]

One night when I was getting ready to leave, my AGM tells me that this woman wants to talk to me, and I knew she had left over an hour ago so was wondering what was up. Turns out she hadn't finished all of the Brussels sprouts that she ordered and took them to go. But, she had put the container in a bag with some fabric samples that she had borrowed from some company, and the box leaked and got all over the samples. She was expecting me to reimburse her several hundreds of dollars because she made a bad decision. I refused on principle, and obviously wasn't going to make an exception since she wasn't a great guest. She kept threatening to get me fired, etc. because I wouldn't budge. Thankfully, she never returned.

Wow. Had she spent hundreds of dollars at the restaurant or was she expecting reimbursement for the carpet samples? Putting perishable food in a purse is a terrible idea, so it seems kind of absurd to involve the restaurant in that situation. I can maybe see a "bad packaging" argument, but even that is a big stretch, because what kind of food packaging is immune from being bounced around in a purse long enough? Thanks for sharing, that is just bizarre all around.

Her tab was $60 or so, which was normal for her 3-4 hour adventures at the restaurant. (For scale, a normal party of two that were in and out in two hours was around $150-$160 on average.) I'd take the "bad packaging" argument had she not seen how the food was packaged before placing it in her bag.

I also had a woman once complain that she was given brown avocados on her to-go salad when she came back two hours after we gave it two her. I politely explained oxidation.

[SEWIGuy]

And it's cute that you think there is "accuracy" in on line reviews.

Riddle me this: if you accept the premise that online reviews are inaccurate, why is it such a big deal that my review was (in your view) inaccurate?

The only possible conclusion is that you appreciate and accept that everyone else can leave inaccurate reviews all they want, but my reviews must always be the gold standard of perfection.

And that's fine. I appreciate being held to a high standard. But I won't continue arguing about it if there's going to be a double standard.

I have never left a review in my life.

[JayhawkCO]

And it's cute that you think there is "accuracy" in on line reviews.

Riddle me this: if you accept the premise that online reviews are inaccurate, why is it such a big deal that my review was (in your view) inaccurate?

The only possible conclusion is that you appreciate and accept that everyone else can leave inaccurate reviews all they want, but my reviews must always be the gold standard of perfection.

And that's fine. I appreciate being held to a high standard. But I won't continue arguing about it if there's going to be a double standard.

I have never left a review in my life.

Well if you start, they'd be more accurate. 

[webny99]

I couldn't be in two places at once, so tough choices had to be made.

It's not really a "tough choice" to make, if you expect to have no repercussions for your decision.  You wanted to have your cake and eat it too

Having my cake and eating it too would have been finishing my work and being on time to my appointment. That ended up not being possible, hence why the "choice" (be on time to the appointment but leave work unfinished, or finish work and be late to the appointment) had to be made. And of course there were going to be repercussions either way.

You left your poor review for the intended purpose of getting the business owner to give you what you wanted.  That's strong-arming them.

No, it's not. In fact, it doesn't come close. It's not using force or violence, and it didn't inherently have any impact on them or their business at all. Responding to a poor review was their choice. They were by no means required or obligated to respond in any manner. Whether I wanted them to respond is completely irrelevant. There was zero obligation on their part.


But if you want to talk about what might actually be strong-arming, sure: telling a customer they are not welcome for an appointment they have already booked because they left a poor review comes pretty close to strong-arming, because I absolutely had to respond: if I didn't respond, I would have had to book a new appointment and find a new barber, the day before a holiday weekend, potentially upending my schedule for the next 24-48 hours, and also risk not getting my hair cut when I needed it by. Or, you know, I could delete my poor review, despite being increasingly certain that it was valid after all. If you don't think there's an element of "force" on the business owner's part here, think a little more carefully.

Telling someone "you are not welcome here" should be extremely rare and require a level of offense that is in a different stratosphere than "left a poor review", regardless of the context of the review or even the content of the review unless it was something veritably false.

Why should any review, ever, be evaluated "regardless of the context ... or even the content"?  That makes no sense to me.

I didn't mean that they should be evaluated regardless of the context or content. I meant that there is no context in which a review would rise to the level of banning a customer, with only very limited exceptions (such as falsehoods or threats).

[kphoger]

Having my cake and eating it too would have been finishing my work and being on time to my appointment.

Having your cake and eating it too would be missing your appointment and not being out any money.  After they charged you for the missed appointment, a charge which you had already "very reluctantly accepted", you left a one-star review in response.  You clearly expected to be able to leave work late (eating your cake) and also keep all your money (having your cake).

No, it's not. In fact, it doesn't come close. It's not using force or violence, and it didn't inherently have any impact on them or their business at all.

Do you honestly believe that a lower Google rating doesn't negatively affect a business?

telling a customer they are not welcome for an appointment they have already booked because they left a poor review comes pretty close to strong-arming,

I already said I think they were wrong to do that, if only tentatively.

But on the other hand, you had already publicly shamed them as a one-star business just because they didn't refund your money when you missed your appointment—and even though they had managed to book you a new appointment the very next morning.  That is to say, they had conducted normal business in everything leading up to that point, and your response was to leave a one-star review.  Why would they expect any better from you in the future?

I absolutely had to respond: if I didn't respond, I would have had to book a new appointment and find a new barber, the day before a holiday weekend, potentially upending my schedule for the next 24-48 hours, and also risk not getting my hair cut when I needed it by. Or, you know, I could delete my poor review, despite being increasingly certain that it was valid after all. If you don't think there's an element of "force" on the business owner's part here, think a little more carefully.

It sounds like you had several options, one of which was to accept the loss and not get your hair cut till later on.  Obviously you didn't like that option, but it was an option.

[Scott5114]

Never understood how card counting was cheating, but thought they use a gazillion decks now or whatnot.

Technically, it's not. But the casino has the right to refuse service to anyone like any other business...and if you're counting you're not a profitable customer.

I don't know much of anything about blackjack but I would consider cheating at anything to be a much greater offense than leaving a poor review.. and also one that has very obvious consequences if you get caught.

Either way, you're negatively impacting the business's profitability, and the business has the right to take steps to ensure that you do not continue to do so.

[kphoger]

I meant that there is no context in which a review would rise to the level of banning a customer, with only very limited exceptions (such as falsehoods or threats).

Look at it this way:  you are only one customer, but your one-star review might turn away two potential new customers.  You are now a net loss to them.  Why should they be obligated to keep doing business with a customer who is a net loss to them?

[webny99]

Having your cake and eating it too would be missing your appointment and not being out any money.  After they charged you for the missed appointment, a charge which you had already "very reluctantly accepted", you left a one-star review in response.  You clearly expected to be able to leave work late (eating your cake) and also keep all your money (having your cake).

Slight correction... I expected to be late to my appointment and not be out any additional money over and above the cost of the haircut. The possibility of paying for the service without receiving anything never occurred to me beforehand (you could argue it should have, but it didn't). Had I predicted this outcome, I obviously would have adjusted my schedule earlier in the day, or just not answered the phone and showed up in hopes that they could fit me in somehow.

Do you honestly believe that a lower Google rating doesn't negatively affect a business?

I honestly believe that a single review's contribution to their Google rating does not negatively affect them in any meaningful way, especially when it is just a "rating" with no "review".

you had already publicly shamed them as a one-star business

you were a customer who made it publicly known to all the world that the business was awful,

you are only one customer, but your one-star review might turn away two potential new customers.

You're falling into the same trap that the business owner did. You're blowing the poor review WAY out of proportion relative to its true value. It's one review of hundreds, and I didn't even say anything negative about the business. In the grand scheme of things, that one review hardly budged their rating. And a single low rating with no explanation is certainly not going to cost them any new customers. If anything, potential customers will write it off and skip right past it to the reviews with stories or detailed explanations of the services offered. That one review is a hair's breadth away from being entirely meaningless, and to say otherwise is a major overreaction.

The argument that I am automatically a "net loss" as a customer because I left a poor rating is so far removed from reality that it's beyond comprehension. That's also assuming that I had no past or future net positive value to them - which is also so far removed from reality that it's beyond comprehension. They were profitable on my first four visits, and would have certainly retained me as a customer and continued to be profitable on future visits had they not overreacted to the review.

[kphoger]

Slight correction... I expected to be late to my appointment and not be out any additional money over and above the cost of the haircut.

You weren't, were you?  You described the no-show fee as "full price" and "almost $30".  Isn't that the cost of a haircut?  Or is it more than the cost of a haircut?

The fact that you scheduled a new appointment the next day doesn't negate the fact that you missed your appointment on Friday.  They charged you the cost of a haircut, and you made a new appointment.

And yes, being late to an appointment is missing the appointment.

The possibility of paying for the service without receiving anything never occurred to me beforehand (you could argue it should have, but it didn't).

I suppose it should have occurred to you.  But then, you didn't even know they had a way of getting the money from you.

I honestly believe that a single review's contribution to their Google rating does not negatively affect them in any meaningful way, especially when it is just a "rating" with no "review" ... You're falling into the same trap that the business owner did. You're blowing the poor review WAY out of proportion relative to its true value. It's one review of hundreds, and I didn't even say anything negative about the business. In the grand scheme of things, that one review hardly budged their rating. And a single low rating with no explanation is certainly not going to cost them any new customers. If anything, potential customers will write it off and skip right past it to the reviews with stories or detailed explanations of the services offered. That one review is a hair's breadth away from being entirely meaningless, and to say otherwise is a major overreaction.

Hardly.  Personally, when I look at Google reviews, I sort them by "most recent".  If I had been looking for a barber shortly after you left that one-star review, then I certainly would have taken your rating into account when deciding where to go.  I do of course give more consideration to bad ratings with comments than to bad ratings with no comments, but I do give both consideration—especially when they're recent.

[webny99]

You described the no-show fee as "full price" and "almost $30".  Isn't that the cost of a haircut?  Or is it more than the cost of a haircut?

It's exactly the cost of a haircut, but 100% of it was "additional money over and above the cost of the haircut" because I still had to pay the money I was expecting to pay when I actually got my hair cut the following day.

being late to an appointment is missing the appointment.

As currently worded, I disagree. If I had been less than say 7 or 8 minutes late, I would have been in the chair getting my hair cut before they even called. If I had been just a minute or two late, they probably wouldn't have even noticed. I may have even had to wait for the barber.

If you added the word "time" to the end of this statement, then I would agree.

[jeffandnicole]

So if you were to come to my city and cheat at blackjack, you "wouldn't get it" if you got kicked out?

Have some fun and split 10s on occasion.  That'll throw them off.

Never understood how card counting was cheating, but thought they use a gazillion decks now or whatnot.

They use a continuous shuffle machine now, so regardless the number of decks they can immediately input the cards just played.

The most obscene example I have of this:  I knew someone who started going to a restaurant, where she would sit at the bar and study.  She would get...a water.  The owner finally told her not to come back. She was pissed, but the place wasn't making a damn dime from her.

This is one where I can see both sides. It kind of depends on the nature of the restaurant, the image they want to portray, and whether or not her presence was a disruption. There are some places, like Starbucks, that welcome and invite people to come and work and even have extra seating just for that purpose. Sure they're expecting them to buy something, but I don't think they'd kick them out if they weren't. A crowded bar where she's constantly taking a seat from a profitable customer during a busy time is obviously a different story.

Re: Starbucks.  No more.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/starbucks-open-door-policy-reversal-purchase-now-required/

As far as any other place goes: They're in business to sell stuff.  There's no 2 sides to it. If you're a *loyal* customer and stop by once to study, sure, the staff who knows you well probably won't say a thing.  Start doing it on a regular basis, and, oops, suddenly that staff loyalty becomes a bit frayed when they see themselves babysitting someone no longer buying stuff from the business.

[Scott5114]

Have some fun and split 10s on occasion.  That'll throw them off.

Maybe at El Cortez... Anywhere else, that's too expensive for me to have much fun with. 

They use a continuous shuffle machine now, so regardless the number of decks they can immediately input the cards just played.

Depends on the table. A decent number of players refuse to play on a continuous-shuffler table (not even necessarily because they're counting, some just perceive that they lose more), so casinos are forced to spread a few games with a traditional shoe. Your casual players don't know the difference, but the regulars that are there blowing money every week are what keep the lights on so you have to accommodate for them. Some casinos still even run pitch games (one or two decks, dealt manually). Usually these type of games will have lower limits or the dreaded 6:5 payout to try and discourage you from playing them.

Personally I prefer shoe games just because the break at the end of the shoe for a shuffle adds some rhythm to the game that's missing on a continuous shuffler table.

[SEWIGuy]

No, it's not. In fact, it doesn't come close. It's not using force or violence, and it didn't inherently have any impact on them or their business at all. Responding to a poor review was their choice. They were by no means required or obligated to respond in any manner. Whether I wanted them to respond is completely irrelevant. There was zero obligation on their part.


But if you want to talk about what might actually be strong-arming, sure: telling a customer they are not welcome for an appointment they have already booked because they left a poor review comes pretty close to strong-arming, because I absolutely had to respond: if I didn't respond, I would have had to book a new appointment and find a new barber, the day before a holiday weekend, potentially upending my schedule for the next 24-48 hours, and also risk not getting my hair cut when I needed it by. Or, you know, I could delete my poor review, despite being increasingly certain that it was valid after all. If you don't think there's an element of "force" on the business owner's part here, think a little more carefully.

Honestly you sound like a customer that I wouldn't want to deal with either.

[jeffandnicole]

Have some fun and split 10s on occasion.  That'll throw them off.

Maybe at El Cortez... Anywhere else, that's too expensive for me to have much fun with. 

They use a continuous shuffle machine now, so regardless the number of decks they can immediately input the cards just played.

Depends on the table. A decent number of players refuse to play on a continuous-shuffler table (not even necessarily because they're counting, some just perceive that they lose more), so casinos are forced to spread a few games with a traditional shoe. Your casual players don't know the difference, but the regulars that are there blowing money every week are what keep the lights on so you have to accommodate for them. Some casinos still even run pitch games (one or two decks, dealt manually). Usually these type of games will have lower limits or the dreaded 6:5 payout to try and discourage you from playing them.

Personally I prefer shoe games just because the break at the end of the shoe for a shuffle adds some rhythm to the game that's missing on a continuous shuffler table.

I was going to Vegas when they were 'testing' 6:5 BJ.  Now from what I gather it's almost impossible to find a 3:2 table for less than $25 or $50 most places on the Strip.

[Scott5114]

I was going to Vegas when they were 'testing' 6:5 BJ.  Now from what I gather it's almost impossible to find a 3:2 table for less than $25 or $50 most places on the Strip.

You can't find a table at all for less than $25 on the Strip. Gotta go to Fremont for that. (And even the $25 tables are 6:5.)

[webny99]

No, it's not. In fact, it doesn't come close. It's not using force or violence, and it didn't inherently have any impact on them or their business at all. Responding to a poor review was their choice. They were by no means required or obligated to respond in any manner. Whether I wanted them to respond is completely irrelevant. There was zero obligation on their part.


But if you want to talk about what might actually be strong-arming, sure: telling a customer they are not welcome for an appointment they have already booked because they left a poor review comes pretty close to strong-arming, because I absolutely had to respond: if I didn't respond, I would have had to book a new appointment and find a new barber, the day before a holiday weekend, potentially upending my schedule for the next 24-48 hours, and also risk not getting my hair cut when I needed it by. Or, you know, I could delete my poor review, despite being increasingly certain that it was valid after all. If you don't think there's an element of "force" on the business owner's part here, think a little more carefully.

Honestly you sound like a customer that I wouldn't want to deal with either.

Yeah, you already made that clear.

But we will forgive you for repeating yourself because at least we can now chuckle about the certified Most Whopping Non-Sequitur Of All Time™.