Eatery threatened to sue Blogger over comments on eatery

[seamen]

Ms Kaelyn Ong, a food blogger wrote to my paper, October 13, 2009:

AS AN avid food blogger, I share my dining experiences, good and bad, with my readers.

I sometimes send an e-mail message to restaurants I have dined at to give them my thanks and feedback.

That was what I did after visiting a food establishment in Singapore I shall refer to as “X”.
I praised X for its decor and also commented that its food could be improved upon.

The next day, I was informed that the restaurant had consulted its lawyers and wanted me to remove my post about it to avoid any legal proceedings.

Are Singapore food establishments that unreceptive to negative feedback?
I understand that restaurant owners are naturally protective about their businesses, but criticisms are meant only to spur them on to improve themselves.

If feedback is not welcome, does that mean that all the emphasis on good customer service is for naught?

I was disturbed that X requested the review be removed because it was not a glowing one.

If bloggers cannot speak their mind without being threatened with potential lawsuits, what is the point of blogging?

Has this happened to other food bloggers before?
I did not remove the post about X as I did not post anything which could be construed as libel.

What Blogger Kaelyn Ong wrote about Obolo:

I admire those who follow their passions and make their dreams come true. Imagine looking forward to work and creating lovely pastries everyday because you love it! I wonder if I’ll ever be that lucky.

To try an assortment of desserts, we went for 2 sets of the “Design Your Own Platter” ($13.50+) which gives us a choice of cake, Movenpick ice cream and macarons. Noisette ($6.70+ ala carte) is the best seller but it didn’t wow me. Just the average praline cake with chocolate mousse and genoise which was far too sweet and rich.

Nikita ($6.90+ ala carte) is a new creation with layers of cherry & raspberry gelee, pistachio mousse, sponge cake and chocolate mousse. Again, this falls short somewhat as the cake was too dry as a whole. Plus, there’s no hint of pistachio at all! The only thing I like was the kirsch-soaked little cherries that pack a punch!

Mango Passion Sorbet was great! Very tangy and refreshing. But the macarons ($2.20+ each ala carte) were less than stellar though they look quite perfect. The blackcurrant filling in Cassis was too sweet and jam-like; Chocolate Hazelnut was slightly better with a bittersweet ganache.

Supposedly sandwiching a chocolate ganache infused with raspberry, Ruby actually tasted like a normal chocolate macaron. No raspberry flavour whatsoever. Now, the Matcha macaron saved the day! Strong green tea filling and definitely not as sickeningly sweet as the rest. Raspberry Sorbet wasn’t half bad too!

I really wanted to like Obolo but its creations didn’t impress me enough. After awhile, the law of diminishing returns sets in and everything becomes cloyingly sweet. Definitely a case of sugar overload!

[Tiantianchi]

Like that I will be sued many times over.

[miki]

what happens when someone post a comment in the blog and agrees with the review? Will he/she be sue too?

[asian-malaysian]

Only one way to find out.

[seamen]

Obolo cakeshop will not sue blogger
Wed Oct 14 2009
Chen Jingwen
SoShiok.com .

Singapore, October 14, 2009 - The 'restaurant' that wanted to take legal proceedings against a blogger if she didn't remove her unfavourable post has been identified - Obolo, a cakeshop in Joo Chiat Road.

And it has also decided not to proceed with its legal plans.

Blogger Kaelyn Ong was not impressed with its cakes which she found "cloyingly sweet" and "definitely a case of sugar overload". But she was shocked when Obolo told her to delete her post or face "legal proceedings".

In her letter to mypaper, she didn't name Obolo but called it 'X'. She refused to remove her post
as she "did not post anything which could be construed as libel".

"There is also a disclaimer on my blog which says that all comments are based on personal preferences," she added.

When contacted, Ms June Lee, a director and chef-owner of Obolo told SoShiok.com that she and her business partner were not pleased with Ms Ong's choice of words. Referring to phrases like "sickeningly sweet" and "cloyingly sweet", they felt her language was damaging.

In replies to questions by SoShiok.com, Ms Lee said: "All we wanted was a third party opinion, from a legal point of view, to see if the content of the blog or the way it is being written constitutes
as any form of libel/defamation. We definitely didn’t send her any form of legal letter or documents.

"Even though bloggers do put a disclaimer on their blog, perhaps they should try to avoid using disrepectful, irrelevant and insensitive descriptions. We definitely welcome negative and/or constructive views/feedback, as it helps us improve further – but we felt we had to speak up because the review written by Ms Kaelyn was offensive and insulting."

Giving an example of how the blogger had gone overboard, Ms Lee extracted an excerpt from Ms Ong's review of Obolo on hungrygowhere.com. It reads: “The filling made me feel as
if I'm eating jam straight out from a bottle of jam *shudder*”.

"But we do not use jam in any of our macaron fillings at all, in fact we use only either buttercream or chocolate ganache-based fillings," said Ms Lee.

She claimed that some of her comments made in an email to Ms Ong "have been taken out
of context".

Said Ms Lee: "I have been following some of the comments made by online readers and most are under the impression that the negative feedback given to us was rejected. I would like to clarify that this was not the case. I did mention in my email to her that I would keep her feedback in view (Ihave already discussed with my chefs and made the necessary changes), but the main issue was the approach of the content, and not whether the feedback was positive or negative.

"I believe that any professional and credible writer/reviewer or blogger will present an objective picture of the establishment they patronize, be it positive or negative.

Although Ms Ong is adamant about keeping her post online, Ms Lee still hopes "that she will at least be willing to review and edit her post, even if she refuses to remove it".

"At the moment we have no intention of taking any legal action," said Ms Lee, who added that her shop had received positive reviews by other bloggers and favourable feedback from most of her customers.

On her post, Ms Ong had said: "I praised X for its decor and also commented that its food could be improved upon. The next day, I was informed that the restaurant had consulted its lawyers and wanted me to remove my post about it to avoid any legal proceedings. Are Singapore food establishments that unreceptive to negative feedback?"

"I understand that restaurant owners are naturally protective about their businesses, but criticisms are meant only to spur them on to improve themselves. If feedback is not welcome, does that mean that all the emphasis on good customer service is for naught? I was disturbed that X requested the review be removed because it was not a glowing one. What does this say about free speech?," she wrote in her letter, which was published in my paper on October 13.



In her post, Ms Ong described Obolo's signature Noisette cake (above, $6.70+ ala carte) as the best seller that "didn’t wow me". "Just the average praline cake with chocolate mousse and genoise which was far too sweet and rich."

She found another cake too dry although she liked its "kirsch-soaked little cherries that pack a punch".

Ms Ong had full marks for the Mango Passion Sorbet - it "was great" - but thought the macarons were "less than stellar though they looked quite perfect".

But she liked the Matcha macaron - "strong green tea filling and definitely not as sickeningly sweet as the rest" while the Raspberry Sorbet "wasn’t half bad too!"

"I really wanted to like Obolo but its creations didn’t impress me enough. After awhile, the law of diminishing returns sets in and everything becomes cloyingly sweet. Definitely a case of sugar overload!" she wrote in her blog.

Whether it's a case of a straight-forward remark of "too much sugar" or an insulting review, the fact remains that Obolo enjoys good sales of its signature items including the controversial Noisette.

Here are its most popular items:

Noisette – Dark chocolate mousse, caramelised toasted hazelnuts, crunchy praline feulletine and chocolate genoise enrobed in chocolate glaçage.

New York Cheesecake - Pure, creamy and with a hint of lemon, topped with fresh strawberries on a fragrant biscuit crust.

Mango-Passion Cheesecake - Mango & passion fruit-infused baked cheesecake on a fragrant biscuit crust.

Macarons – best selling flavours are bittersweet-chocolate and salted caramel-chocolate

We all know that many cakes can be sweet and that tea makes a lovely cake companion. At Obolo, you can enjoy the tea special, i.e. S$1 (before GST) for a cup of long black or gourmet tea with purchase of any slice of cake or 4 macarons. This special is available on weekdays only(except public holidays).

Obolo
452 Joo Chiat Road
Singapore 427665
Tel: 63489791

Give your view on this issue -> HERE

Read also -> The most expensive slices of cake

[makancamera]

The eatery may win if they sue since it is costly for a person to engage lawyer to fight the case.
That's why NKF won some cases against lone persons....until they took on SPH.
But the case will attract negative comments and attention. Other bloggers will feel threatened indirectly and they will all turn against the eatery.
So in the end the eatery may win the legal case but lose terribly in business, as public gets annoyed at this big bully small way; and most if not all boycott the eatery (even if the food is actually nice).

Then again, the blogger's choice of words is not the best.
Keep in mind as a blogger, many read your views; and it may destroy some one's livelihood (the eatery's). So it is best not to overdo criticism (or praise - as over the top praise may sound fake).

[Tiantianchi]

So perhaps should change "cloyingly sweet" to "tooth decaying sweet" or something like that ?

I think perhaps it would be better not to write a review that is negative at all. Afterall, like in this forum, everyone is here seeking where else to eat good food, who comes here to read where to avoid, hor?

If the restaurants could step out and face this positively and either promise change if there is truth in the criticism, defend if the facts are not true, I am sure the response would have been much better and might even give the opportunity to publicize themselves. The platform is free for all - whether in the blog or in the forum - if they bothered to do so.

[FSM]

I registered because I wanted to rebutt what makancamera wrote but I see Tiantianchi has beaten me to it. Oh well, I still want to rant.

Makancamera, don't get me wrong, I appreciate your effort to present both sides of the issue as any fair-minded person would, but even though both sides have their own reasons which to them makes perfect sense, one side can be wrong, and the other side can be right. No prizes for guessing which side I'm on.

As consumers, we WANT reviewers to put their bias into their reviews! That's why I don't bother with "professional" reviews. In their professionally relativistic zeal to be politically correct and find a silver lining in every cloud (and perhaps to discharge the obligations of a paid review), they don't give me the feeling of a consistent standard for me to calibrate my tastes to the reviewers'. I might as well go read the menu.

But by "bias", I don't mean the Jeremy Clarkson style of exaggeration. I don't mean bias through brand myopia either. I'm talking about the bias where subjectivity, like sweetness, is more or less fixed at a certain level for that reviewer. People have mood swings but we know our tastes don't vary that wildly. This is the bias of consistency.

And this is where I take issue with your remark that "the blogger's choice of words is not the best". I think the choice of words is indeed the best because with such no-holds-barred descriptions I can predict how my own reaction will be.

There is no overdoing of criticism as long as one is honest, but fair. Such criticisms are not made to destroy reputations, but to let us to know where we can make changes, if we want to. And if we don't want to make the changes, we don't threaten people with legal action. No, we smile and explain our philosophy for doing what we did, if we want to. And I daresay, we should want to do so! It helps prevent mistrust and misunderstanding.

PS: look up the Streisand effect on Wiki. The Streisand effect is the social media phenomenon where attempts to remove information causes that information to spread much further than if there were no attempts to remove that information in the first place. Obolo has already triggered the Streisand effect, but I think it's not too late to turn things around at all. Am I too much of an optimist?

[today]

Often its the criticism that stirs the pot, but its the rebuttal that blows everything out of proportion.

[pauline]

read today's newspaper article on this. we have to be responsible when we write our comments, ensuring that we write the truth without fear, favours or malice. guess it is the way we write our observations and comments.
sometimes, we notice some bloggers, especially those who think that they are only writing in their personal capacity (so that they can write without responsible thoughts). it is never really a personal diary when it is put up on the public domain. personal diary is only limited to limited viewership.

some of them write under the false pretense that they are protected wif secrecy, defamation and copyright laws. they must realise that these comments can be used in the law of court, including that of msg through sms. this is applicable not only to "celebrity bloggers" but to all who writes on the website, mobiles, public platforms

one must be responsible of what we write. we must be able to defend them. we can write how we feel but it is the way they are written. for example, we cannot say "boycott these places in the list..." this is not correct. but we can write something like "a list of places that i have observed do not have ABC features...."

[NinjaHelloKitty]

one must be responsible of what we write. we must be able to defend them. we can write how we feel but it is the way they are written. for example, we cannot say "boycott these places in the list..." this is not correct. but we can write something like "a list of places that i have observed do not have ABC features...."

I have to challenge your view because I do not see upon which platform you stand to judge what is right or wrong or to tell people how they should or should not write.

[FSM]

Pauline,

The relativism you're espousing is exactly what caused this little saga to erupt in the first place. "I'm right," one party says. "No," the other party says, "I'm right!" They both think they can defend their actions, you see, and they both think they have the correct interpretation of what is acceptable. And so it escalates ... and, you know, boomz. (Sorry, I just had to write that before it becomes outdated )

[pauline]

one must be responsible of what we write. we must be able to defend them. we can write how we feel but it is the way they are written. for example, we cannot say "boycott these places in the list..." this is not correct. but we can write something like "a list of places that i have observed do not have ABC features...."

I have to challenge your view because I do not see upon which platform you stand to judge what is right or wrong or to tell people how they should or should not write.

from your point of view, you are right. which means i am not wrong either.... so the winner is edward de bono.

[FSM]

from your point of view, you are right. which means i am not wrong either.... so the winner is edward de bono.

What a cop-out.

[thehungrycow]

Personally, I find no fault with the blogger's post. It is the response by Obolo that seems aggressive and uncalled for.

Perhaps a better approach would be to invite the blogger down to explain about the eatery's concept/ideas and maybe let her taste the result of any newly-tweaked recipes. Seeking clarification and showing receptiveness to the concerns/feedback of customers would be more welcoming than legal threat and being defensive.