TripAdvisor Perks: Bribery Or Just Good Marketing?
A commenter took issue with my blog post yesterday that praises Hotel Mela’s effort to encourage guests to make TripAdvisor reviews, in exchange for discounted future stays.
Commenter "Stephen Dutton" writes: you are not going to give a negative review now are you!, its close to bribery to get your Tripadviser rating higher, and more exposure for your Hotel by using this sort of Blog remarks, Is it distorting the idea of a fair review and that future guests need a fair comment…not paid comment
The commenter raises some legitimate ethical questions. Let’s examine them.
Argument 1: Guests are not going to post a negative review if a discount incentive is dangled in front of them. I think this argument is wrong on its face. A guest who legitimately had a bad experience is not going to be swayed to hide his true feelings with merely an offer to stay there again at a slight discount.
And in fact, one could actually argue that a savvy traveler is more inclined to leave a negative review, knowing that the hotel is monitoring reviews closely and would likely offer some more impressive perks as a sort of mea culpa for a bad experience.
Argument 2: The discount offer amounts to bribery. This would be true if the discount was only valid for positive reviews. However, the hotel honors the discount for any review, regardless of content.
Is it bribery for a person to donate to a political campaign and then hope the candidate does what you want? No; it’s only bribery if the donation is dependant on the candidate doing a favor for the donor. Same thing applies here.
Argument 3: The goal is to inflate the hotel’s TripAdvisor rating. Well, yes, I suppose that’s guilty as charged. But so long as the reviews are all coming from real guests and express their legit feelings about the hotel, then I see this as a smart marketing strategy, not anything nefarious.
Now, if some of the posts are actually fakes, then we’ve got a real problem of ethics. But there’s no evidence of that here.
Argument 4: The whole thing paints an inaccurate picture of reality at the hotel. Again, I think this is wrong. Guests who had a bad experience will still make negative posts, as addressed in Argument 1; the only thing that’s different is the number of guests who had a positive experience taking the time to post.
There is a phenomenon in journalism that I would imagine extends to the world of online hotel reviews: readers/guests who have something negative to say are far more likely to take the time to go out of their way and say it. People who are happy with an article/experience usually don’t take the time to say so. This promotion corrects for that.
If anything, future guests of the Mela now have a more realistic picture of the hotel, not a skewed one.
So who’s right, me or Stephen Dutton?
HHotelConsult commented:
Waikiki commented:
Madigan Pratt commented:
Madigan Pratt commented:
World Wanderer commented:
Stephen Dutton commented:
Chris Roberts commented:
Adam Kirby commented:
Madigan Pratt commented:
Andy commented:
Iain Fraser commented:



















