I'm convinced that customer review websites will be absolutely critical to the success of all businesses. That's why the front page story in the San Francisco Chronicle about a San Francisco
chiropractor suing a former patient over negative reviews published on Yelp, a popular website that rates companies, is so fascinating.
The Chronicle reports that Christopher Norberg posted his first Yelp review in November 2007 after visiting Steven Biegel at the Advanced Chiropractic Center on Valencia Street. In his six-paragraph review, Norberg criticized Biegel's billing practices and said the chiropractor was being dishonest with insurance companies.
The story details how Norberg and Biegel exchanged emails about the complaint. And, when Norberg refused to take down or edit his commentary, Biegel decided to sue for libel and invasion of privacy. Biegel's business has been hurt by the reviews, said his attorney, Eric Nordskog of San Francisco. "Although negative reviews are fine, there are certain statements that are false statements of fact," he said. "He accuses Biegel of dishonesty and of committing insurance fraud, which is a crime in California."
If Norberg's comments are false or exaggerated. I can certainly see why Biegel would be frustrated enough to undertake legal proceedings. However, even if Biegel wins a lawsuit, he might end up hurting his business. Based on the hundreds of comments that the story has already received on the Chronicle's website alone, many are siding with the Norberg for reasons of free speech.
In the words of Andy Sernovitz, my friend and word of mouth marketing pundit, when it comes to bad online customer reviews, "the solution to pollution is dilution." That is, Biegel would be much better served laying out reasons why Norberg claims aren't true without suing him. And to counteract the negative weight of Norberg's review, Biegel should ask his satisfied patients to go to Yelp and share their perceptions of his practice. These steps would be much easier and less controversial than a lawsuit which has an uncertain outcome both in terms of the judgement and how the public will perceive it.
Comments