Sometimes, the only way to get the attention of an unresponsive company is by hitting them where it hurts, public reviews. One Redditor was fed up after months of being ignored and treated poorly by the billing company responsible for handling payments for her doctor.
Despite numerous attempts to resolve a billing issue, she was constantly met with rudeness or indifference. After a final frustrating interaction, she decided to leave a negative Yelp review for the company, specifically calling out their atrocious service.
The next day, the CEO himself called to address the issue, eager to resolve it but with one condition: take the review down. What followed was a hilarious, yet satisfying display of malicious compliance. Read on to see how this clever move played out!
Billing company owes this man money, he post a bad review, CEO calls asking for removal
In this story, we see a common frustration with large companies, feeling ignored or mistreated. The original poster (OP) was owed money by a billing company that handled their doctor’s payments.
Despite months of trying to get their money back, OP was met with rude responses or silence. Feeling powerless, OP turned to a Yelp review as a way to get the company’s attention.
Psychologically, OP’s decision to post the review makes sense. After being treated unfairly for so long, they felt they had no choice but to use a public platform to force the company to take action.
It’s a common reaction when people feel powerless in a system that doesn’t listen. For OP, leaving the review was a way to take control when other methods failed.
The satisfaction in this story comes from the company’s quick response once the review was posted. The CEO of the billing company reached out, promising to send the money quickly if OP took the review down.
This shows how powerful online feedback can be in today’s world, companies will often act fast when their reputation is at risk.
However, OP’s decision to delay taking down the review raises an interesting question. While it may feel good to hold onto that power, it also could be seen as a little unfair since the company did follow through.
Was it right for OP to keep holding the review over the company for months, even after getting what they wanted?
Psychologist Dr. Robert Cialdini, who studies influence, explains that people and companies often only act when faced with public pressure. This can be an effective tool for getting results, but it can also harm relationships if used too much.
In this case, while OP got what they wanted, the delay may have made things more tense than they needed to be.
So, what do you think? Is it ever okay to keep holding something over someone once they’ve done what you asked? Or should we aim to resolve conflicts more directly without using power plays?
These are the responses from Reddit users:
These commenters highlighted corporate mismanagement and the satisfaction of karma
These commenters shared stories of standing up to companies and exposing their failures
These commenters encouraged taking action against companies with poor customer service
Sometimes, you just have to take matters into your own hands, especially when you’re treated poorly by a company that feels too big to care. This story of malicious compliance shows that, while getting your money back is great, it’s the sweet taste of making the CEO squirm that truly makes the process memorable.
So, what do you think? Was the delay worth it, or should the Redditor have just taken the check and moved on? And have you ever used a public platform to get your voice heard? Drop your thoughts below!
