Editorial: Online gripes fact of life for restaurants

The owner of Molten took to Facebook to hit back at diners who wrote a scathing review of his Mt Eden establishment on the Zomato website. Photo / Supplied

Opinion

Critics have always aroused ire, but at least today’s proprietors can answer the diners who anger them.

For centuries, the creators of books and music and, more recently, films have placed themselves at the mercy of reviewers. They knew a good critique would be the making of them and that strong criticism could mean little or no interest in their work.

Consequently, the relationship between creator and reviewer has always been fraught. Now, equally understandably, a similar relationship has developed over customer reviews of restaurants, hotels and the like.

That has been apparent this week in the furore which erupted after a restaurant owner took to Facebook to hit back at diners who wrote a scathing review of his Mt Eden establishment on the Zomato website.

Other restaurateurs were happy to offer support. One described such websites as "parasites" on the food industry, and suggested it was almost as if those people who put reviews on Zomato were "trying to destroy your business". Another said the websites simply gave people a platform on which to "have a rant online".

Such battlelines will be nothing new to those who have followed the fortunes of travel website Tripadvisor during its 15 years of existence. Reviews of accommodation providers on it have attracted countless complaints.

Some were valid. Take, for example, the unscrupulous hoteliers who placed bad reviews of neighbouring competitors. And those who offered discounts to guests who would write glowing endorsements.

In a similar vein, the website was hijacked by people who threatened to write a bad review if they did not get something off their bill.

The fraudulence of some of the reviews has brought Tripadvisor to the attention of regulators such as Britain's Advertising Standards Authority. It has also brought legal action from owners who believed they lost business because of unfair reviews.

By and large, courts have tended to rule that website operators deserve broad protection from lawsuits over customer reviews.

That has left those on the receiving end feeling largely powerless. Their grievance is heightened by the fact that whereas, generally, media reviews of books, films and music are done by people with some knowledge of the subject, customers at a restaurant may not know much about what they are eating, let alone the nuances of its preparation. Some might feel ill at ease dining in a high-class establishment. Their reviews will, therefore, be tainted by the mere fact of journeying beyond their realm of experience and expertise.

Clearly, however, such shortcomings have not deterred people from visiting such websites.

Tripadvisor is said to be used by 300 million people a month. If they did not find the reviews helpful, they would not keep coming back.

Most people are astute enough to take advantage of the site's strengths and understand its weaknesses. They look for establishments that provide consistently good service. One bad review among a multitude of good ones probably says more about the reviewer than the hotel or restaurant.

Restaurateurs can rail against Zomato. But as much as they might deplore it, it has to be an added aspect of the management of their business. They must use their right to respond on the website to address any criticism quickly, effectively and respectfully. At least they can console themselves that they have a right of reply, unlike the composers, authors and filmmakers of years gone by.