Yes, this. How can they objectively rate businesses that are paying them?
But, they go even further. That is, they will collect complaints, etc. and give the business a bad rating if the business does not respond using the BBB's system. So, even if the business is legit and has worked earnestly to resolve customer issues, they must add value to the BBB scheme (and thus also reinforce the BBB's perceived "legitimacy"), otherwise risk their own reputation.
In fact, we received our first complaint after several years in business and they opened a "file" on us. We then received threatening letters from the BBB indicating that we had a window in which to respond, else receive a negative rating. Worse, even before we had a chance to respond, they'd already given us a C-minus; citing as the reason that they did not have enough info on our company. Why not a more neutral C? Better still, why not a "no-rating", indicating the actual truth that they'd acknowledged: they didn't yet have enough info to rate us? Why, instead use their qualitative scale to misrepresent us as somehow subpar? Again, they want you to submit more information and respond on their terms, thereby increasing value for them. It's the perfect racket.
Worse, most people think the BBB are the good guys and many actually believe they are government-affiliated. So, they effectively use their own reputation against companies (many of which are lesser known small businesses) to force them to add value to the BBB's own scheme or outright pay them. It really is a racket and should be illegal.
Comments
Yes, this. How can they objectively rate businesses that are paying them?
But, they go even further. That is, they will collect complaints, etc. and give the business a bad rating if the business does not respond using the BBB's system. So, even if the business is legit and has worked earnestly to resolve customer issues, they must add value to the BBB scheme (and thus also reinforce the BBB's perceived "legitimacy"), otherwise risk their own reputation.
In fact, we received our first complaint after several years in business and they opened a "file" on us. We then received threatening letters from the BBB indicating that we had a window in which to respond, else receive a negative rating. Worse, even before we had a chance to respond, they'd already given us a C-minus; citing as the reason that they did not have enough info on our company. Why not a more neutral C? Better still, why not a "no-rating", indicating the actual truth that they'd acknowledged: they didn't yet have enough info to rate us? Why, instead use their qualitative scale to misrepresent us as somehow subpar? Again, they want you to submit more information and respond on their terms, thereby increasing value for them. It's the perfect racket.
Worse, most people think the BBB are the good guys and many actually believe they are government-affiliated. So, they effectively use their own reputation against companies (many of which are lesser known small businesses) to force them to add value to the BBB's own scheme or outright pay them. It really is a racket and should be illegal.