I have recently found myself in a frustrating position that unfortunately for the other person, has lead to me having to give a rather negative review. I tend not to bother with negative reviews as word of mouth alone can spread like wild-fire, but this time I felt I had too.
Are we as a race over-using the freedom of speech act, or are we justified in our claims whether they be positive or negative?
If the option of reviewing a business or person is there for the taking, do you take the time to use the facility or do you just leave it and let someone else have their say?
In my case, I had to speak out as the company caused damage to my laptop which they admitted and after offering a partial refund on the condition that I remove my negative review. They decided to cancel the offer and do nothing what so ever to help me or help themselves from the negative review that could essentially put future customers off.
As I writer, we can fairly ramble on when we need too, and even more so when you have a few choice words to say as a result of customer dis-satisfaction. So, after round two of having no positive result from NRG Computing in Stirling, I decided to edit my review to reflect the lack of support and undeniable arrogance and unsatisfactory behaviour from the business.
But clearly the review effected him the first time around for him to ask me to remove it. Why get me back into the shop in the first place if he had no intention of giving me a refund?
Reviews allow us to determine whether or not we want to do business with particular shops etc, but is there a point where a line needs to be drawn? I think my review was deserved giving the lack of support despite admitting blame for damage to my laptop, but I still did not want to be put in a position where I had to.
Reviews allow us to vent and explain what we felt about our particular experience at the time, but is it enough? The next journey of my complaint is to inform trading standards which I wish I didn’t have to do, but the business has failed to meet the standards it suggests it offers and admitting property damage but not willing to amend any form of compensation has to be addressed.
Do we moan too much? Or is it justified depending on the situation?