RSS
Latest Company To Discover The Streisand Effect: Casey Movers
from the how-not-to-internet dept
Earlier this year, I was at a conference where there was an entire presentation on The Streisand Effect. Considering I first came up with the term and have chronicled it over the years (and had already been asked to speak on a different topic at the conference), I offered to help out with that session -- and got back no response. I went to the session to watch, and it was a really fun session, which didn't need any help from me at all. It was done by Conrad Saam, who works for Urban Spoon (and previously Avvo) and had a ton of great examples of the Streisand Effect and the impact on online reputation management. One element of online reputation management that he'd discussed, which I hadn't paid as much attention to, was the basics on how to deal with online reviews -- with a specific focus on Yelp. There were some dos and donts... and two key things not to do were (1) threaten people who write negative reviews and (2) post fake positive reviews.
Phil Buckley has a story of a Massachusetts-based moving company, called Casey Movers, which appears to have violated both of those rules, starting with a legal threat to Buckley's wife concerning a negative review she had written about Casey Movers 18 months ago, after her parents had a very bad experience with the company. It first took the company over a year to even notice the review and then post a weak defense of its practices. It didn't respond to any of the specific complaints about unprofessional behavior or broken promises. It only focused on the amount that the company had been willing to pay for damages, and gave a somewhat "technical" response about how this was what the "insurance option" she chose provided -- and even could be read as scolding her for not choosing the more expensive insurance option.
And yet... five months later (18 months after the original complaint went up), the same guy who wrote that bizarre defense sends a threat letter saying that the company is prepared to sue for libel if the review isn't removed:
Of course, rather than having the intended effect, it just made Buckley furious (and quite reasonably so). Buckley had no interest in removing the review, but rather than just telling Casey Movers to pound sand, he started investigating. He found a variety of other negative reviews... but also a large number of reviews that had significant circumstantial evidence that the company was likely posting fake positive reviews (or had hired a company to do so). It's fun to watch the investigation progress, so it's worth reading the whole thing, but here's a snippet:
For a while, Casey Movers and the main representative of the company involved in all of this, Matthew Overstreet, basically ignored Buckley. But as his story kept getting more attention, Overstreet finally reached out to Buckley -- and again just kept focusing on the "insurance coverage," a relatively minor issue (made even more minor following the ridiculous threat of a libel lawsuit). Eventually, Overstreet called Buckley on Wednesday night and seemed to indicate that there wasn't any interest in actually suing, though he refused to promise not to sue Buckley's wife.
Either way, the whole story is yet another fun one to include in the long list of companies who get on the wrong side of the Streisand Effect. Going beyond that, it really shows how a bogus legal threat can lead to not just backlash and attention, but also much deeper investigations into whoever originated the threat -- and that might turn up other questionable activity, such as posting likely fake positive reviews to try to counter the real negative reviews. Oops.
Phil Buckley has a story of a Massachusetts-based moving company, called Casey Movers, which appears to have violated both of those rules, starting with a legal threat to Buckley's wife concerning a negative review she had written about Casey Movers 18 months ago, after her parents had a very bad experience with the company. It first took the company over a year to even notice the review and then post a weak defense of its practices. It didn't respond to any of the specific complaints about unprofessional behavior or broken promises. It only focused on the amount that the company had been willing to pay for damages, and gave a somewhat "technical" response about how this was what the "insurance option" she chose provided -- and even could be read as scolding her for not choosing the more expensive insurance option.
And yet... five months later (18 months after the original complaint went up), the same guy who wrote that bizarre defense sends a threat letter saying that the company is prepared to sue for libel if the review isn't removed:
Someone decided enough was enough and decided to get some good reviews at CitySearch where they now have a majority of good reviews, except there’s a problem, they’re not real reviews. You may ask how I can say that with so much confidence? Go look at them yourself, one after another… notice how most names are generic or don’t have a human photo? Yes that’s level 1 of suspicious reviews. Start looking at the reviews the “people” have left. It’s quite a coincidence that so many people who have used a Boston moving company have also loved a sprinkler repair guy in Anaheim, California and Fun Hawaii Travel out of Honolulu.His investigation also turned up that the company had been posting images of positive review letters that some customers had signed, but in doing so, revealed all their private info. Buckley contacted a few who seemed surprised and said that they had not provided permission to reveal their private info.
They also have a flurry of activity in August of 2012 – Aug 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14. That seems a bit sketchy as well.
For a while, Casey Movers and the main representative of the company involved in all of this, Matthew Overstreet, basically ignored Buckley. But as his story kept getting more attention, Overstreet finally reached out to Buckley -- and again just kept focusing on the "insurance coverage," a relatively minor issue (made even more minor following the ridiculous threat of a libel lawsuit). Eventually, Overstreet called Buckley on Wednesday night and seemed to indicate that there wasn't any interest in actually suing, though he refused to promise not to sue Buckley's wife.
Either way, the whole story is yet another fun one to include in the long list of companies who get on the wrong side of the Streisand Effect. Going beyond that, it really shows how a bogus legal threat can lead to not just backlash and attention, but also much deeper investigations into whoever originated the threat -- and that might turn up other questionable activity, such as posting likely fake positive reviews to try to counter the real negative reviews. Oops.
I have an app...
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
I’m looking for research...
Who Are App Developers?
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
I have a business...
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
Reader Comments (rss)
Receptionist said their attorney will most likely be the one to call me back. Should be a fascinating conversation...
(Flattened / Threaded)
Politely
Wait. What?
Legal threats are not polite. Baseless legal threats even moreso.
Can we please start smacking the lawyers across the face with a dainty white glove? That's how you politely threaten someone (or so says Hollywood, and they would never lie to me).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Receptionist said their attorney will most likely be the one to call me back. Should be a fascinating conversation...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Fake Online Reviews
But here at TD we already know that fake online reviews are a Non-Story. Someone should politely inform Phil Buckley of this fact.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fake Online Reviews
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Customer service
I had a major auto glass company mess up an installation and caused a leak that did not exist before. Not only did they send my car to a reputable local Ford dealer to be fixed, they refunded my money, 100 bucks over what I paid and supplied a rental car while ours was being fixed.
Would I suggest them to others? Absolutely, because if they do mess up, they will make it right, and that's what counts. Everyone makes mistakes.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Luckily, though, we generally got good reviews and those who were negative we were able to turn around with a little work.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Keep reminding us of your one "innovation", Mike!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Keep reminding us of your one "innovation", Mike!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Fake Online Reviews
ins't one thing as bad as the other?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Keep reminding us of your one
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Fake Online Reviews
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Jurisdiction
The primary purpose of venue statutes is to save defendants from inconveniences to which they might be subjected if they could be compelled to answer in any district, or wherever found
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00038.htm
Not sure if this would end up benefitting the person here, but it seems to me that the company is trying to pressure some kind of settlement/agreement with the threat of expensive travel just to be in court.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Keep reminding us of your one "innovation", Mike!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Thank you and...
I received an email from a Boston based investigator for the Better Business Bureau asking for me to forward anything we have proving our side of the story - working with the in-laws right now to see if they kept the old paperwork.
As far as having a lawyer in the area, Michael Farraher has offered his services (pro bono) if Casey Movers does move forward with their threats. A number of other notable lawyers have also offered help including Ken White over at Popehat.com.
Thanks again everyone. If you have any questions or advice feel free to email me.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Politely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2sxCQ_rU
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Keep reminding us of your one "innovation", Mike!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Seinfeld "The Cartoon"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
P.S. It doesn't matter whether the customer is right or wrong. IT DOESN'T MATTER YOUR REPUTATION IS FUCKED IF YOU TAKE ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE THAT IS NOT A FULL APOLOGY.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Politely
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Annoying
Kristen Ann Buckley
101 Morena Drive
Holly Springs, NC 27540-9399
http://www.city-data.com/wake-county/M/Morena-Drive-1.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Annoying
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Jurisdiction
If the court initially found that the company had standing to file suit in their jurisdiction, the defendant would at least need to file a motion for a change of venue and then send a representative to the court for a hearing. Then, the court would have to decide where the case would be heard.
Courts tend to lean toward keeping cases if at least one party is actually within the jurisdiction (see East Texas for that). However, a case could be made that the company has the resources to send representatives to another jurisdiction and the individual does not. It could go either way and could be expensive just to get it moved.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Annoying
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Annoying
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Annoying
I agree that it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to find my home address, it's listed multiple places.
Blurring out the address on the image is like locking your car door when your in a parking garage, it's not fool-proof but it stops 90% of the problems.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Customer service
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment