Groupon sales rep threatens restaurant with negative Yelp reviews

Post by SimHacker » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 11:35 AM UTC

greenyoda wrote: post #166

baddox wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you're right, although that law doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Firstly, that first definition uses "unlawfully," which sounds circular to me. And if I'm understanding that description correctly, basically, you can't inform anyone that they have any incentive to do anything you desire. Bosses wouldn't be able to threaten to fire someone if they continue showing up to work late. Restaurant patrons couldn't…

"Bosses wouldn't be able to threaten to fire someone if they continue showing up to work late." The employer is paying the employee to provide a service according to rules that both parties agreed to when the employee was hired. Insisting that they show up on time isn't coercing the employee, since it's something they freely agreed to as a condition of their employment. "Restaurant patrons couldn't threaten to leave…

Post by mathattack » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 1:59 PM UTC

SimHacker wrote: post #170

mathattack wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I would have written a hardcopy letter to the CEO, cc:ing every member of the board of directors asking how they would protect my business from the slander. I don't see how the offending employee doesn't get fired, but I think I would have given the boss a way to make me whole before going public.

Nothing could compare to the positive publicity and support that Sauce is getting from the community for going public about the extortion instead of seeking private compensation. No way could Groupon could have offered them any "deals" that would bring them as much good publicity and customers as this event will. And it would be unethical for Sauce to seek compensation for keeping it private. What you suggest is more…

Post by infinitone » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 2:04 PM UTC

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #126

mattmanser wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had quite a few people defend them on previous threads about groupon with really positive experiences. They have tended to be places like paintballing or sky diving, things where the cost doesn't go up that much more with the more people who come. And who can upsell (paintballs, photographs). There's a technical business term for those businesses that I can't remember. But apparently they do do well out of grou…

Service-oriented businesses tend to have positive experiences. Pretty much anything where you may have somebody sitting around 1/2 their time doing nothing, just to make sure you've got coverage during all of business hours. Any money you recoup from that 1/2 of the time is money in your pocket. Anything with inventory costs (e.g. restaurants) have a much harder time. Food costs are a significant portion of the cost…

Post by baddox » Sun, Aug 18, 2013, 9:07 PM UTC

greenyoda wrote: post #166

baddox wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you're right, although that law doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Firstly, that first definition uses "unlawfully," which sounds circular to me. And if I'm understanding that description correctly, basically, you can't inform anyone that they have any incentive to do anything you desire. Bosses wouldn't be able to threaten to fire someone if they continue showing up to work late. Restaurant patrons couldn't…

"Bosses wouldn't be able to threaten to fire someone if they continue showing up to work late." The employer is paying the employee to provide a service according to rules that both parties agreed to when the employee was hired. Insisting that they show up on time isn't coercing the employee, since it's something they freely agreed to as a condition of their employment. "Restaurant patrons couldn't threaten to leave…

Post by skore » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 9:21 AM UTC

cfinke wrote: post #98

skore wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Link seems gone already. Next time, take a screenshot, otherwise it's a bit hard to prove you were right - especially considering you are making claims about mentions of drug use.

A screenshot proves nothing: http://i.imgur.com/puRHX20.jpg