I think this thread is really showing up the tricky subtleties of this.

I've used hellopeter.com myself with an issue I had with a rather well known printer manufacturer. There is no doubt that the problem was escalated way quicker than it was "going through the system." I was (and to some extent still am) a hellopeter.com fan.

My objection really hangs on two points:
You're branded as a company that does not respond (if you do not pay up).
If the consumer can make public untested allegations for free, the company should be allowed to respond on the same footing. Remember, the allegations of misconduct are not investigated for validity first. This is definitely not consumer journalism, which takes a far more responsible approach towards verification before publication. Ultimately, the company might be more than willing to respond - just unwilling or unable to pay for the privilege(?) or right(?).

Trying to justify the spend on a cost saving basis is invalid.
Face it. This is a marketing spend. And you're being forced to spend it in a specific direction or take the consequences of unanswered innuendo.

I know that with my issue with the printer manufacturer, they did not save a cent servicing the complaint because it went via hellopeter.com. And now with this new knowledge, I know it definitely cost them more than if they had simply resolved it directly.

At an emotional response level, our knee jerk reaction is in favour of the little guy, and we've all probably suffered at the hands of an uncaring "customer care" department of a large organisation on more than one occasion.

However, how would you as a small business owner feel if a disgruntled client vented their spleen on hellopeter.com and you were faced with coughing up R12 000.00 to say "Heck. I'm so sorry to hear that. You should have let me know. Let's get this sorted out for you."

For a classic example of size of the "victim" altering point of view, try this Google loses $1 billion US a year to click fraud thread on another forum for size.