These statistics show just how vital reviews and their accuracy and authenticity are in 2025
We once likened the world of online reviews to the Wild West. Not the 'fun' Butch Cassidy kind of Wild West, but the real Wild West, the one populated by purveyors of snake oil and false hope, that resulted in thousands of deaths on the Oregon Trail and a landscape littered with broken promises to Native Americans and poor immigrants from Europe in equal measure.
Re-reading the paragraph above, we wondered, just for a minute, if we had been guilty of hyperbole or exaggeration? The answer? No, maybe even quite the opposite. Let us, for a moment or two, look at where the review landscape is today, with all its warts exposed.
Where do consumers go to read reviews?
- Google - in almost every case. Estimates vary, from low estimates of over eighty per cent to well over ninety per cent of reviews of businesses and the services they provide are read as a result of a Google search, leading straight to Google reviews
- The service/business review sites - Feefo, Trustpilot, Reviews.io - not so much (more on these later)
- The product review sites - Amazon, Google, again, and subscription services such as Which?
- Specialist sites - often travel or hospitality related - that rely on reviews to drive traffic - TripAdvisor, Booking.com, FourSquare and the like. Jobsites such as Glassdoor and lead generation sites like Trust a Trader
Where do consumers go to write reviews?
- Spontaneously? Almost always Google
- By invitation? Google and the online review sites
Now the warts
And, just like real-life warts, despite all the best efforts of the regulators, they so far persist.
A word on regulation: the regulatory framework is designed so that consumers are not misled into choosing the wrong product or service. For the sake of this article, we are going to focus almost exclusively on reviews of service businesses and the professions. Why? Because they are relied on so much more heavily than product reviews. The average consumer will buy a shirt if it scores 4 out of 5, ditto a kitchen appliance or even dinner out. But an oncologist? A financial adviser? A family lawyer? An estate agent even? Are you buying one of those services if a fifth of their customers rate them at 1* out of five? We'll answer that based on over a decade of experience: a resounding 'No!'. Consumers of these types of high-added-value/life-changing services want to see as perfect a score as possible.
So - and by this stage, you probably know roughly where we're headed - businesses in those 'essential service' categories will, by and large, do whatever it takes to look great.
Wart No. 1
The law says, unequivocally, that a business that invites a single review from a customer must allow all its customers to write one. It cannot cherry-pick its proven happy customers.
But nearly every business we meet for the first time is doing just that. To be fair they are usually horrified and understanding in equal measure when we explain the reasoning behind the law. Often they simply say 'But we couldn't engage with reviews at all if we had to ask everyone we dealt with for one'. That's no excuse.
But there is a solution, if only businesses would adopt it: moderation. Moderation means having an independent body read every review for factual accuracy and misleading statements, and stepping in to 'moderate' between the business and the reviewer when necessary, all before publication.
More on this vital ingredient of professional review management, under 'moderation'* in 'further reading' at the foot of this article and here.
Wart No. 2
The law (and Google's Terms of Service besides) states that a business must use no filtering system to pre-qualify which of its customers are most likely to write a positive review. This is called 'gating'. And the most frequently used mechanisms? The ubiquitous 'Tell us how we did' survey' or a simple 'rate us' question in an App or by email. Only those responding with a wholly posiitve opinion are then asked to write a review. We have a whole - thick - file of these.
Wart No. 3
Another 'trick' is to use two review sites (or one + Google). Why ever not? But using one - far less visible in search - before going on to ask those who write a 5* review to copy it to the more visible and/or credible site (usually Google) is illegal. It's just another form of gating. This is a hybrid of a more common strategy: using a review site, secure in the knowledge that it will rarely show in search (at least by comparison with the business's google reviews). Just try finding the review you last wrote to a review site.
Regular readers will know that we have had issues with review sites for as long as they have existed. This post on the Money Saving Expert forum raises some important questions, and this article from 2021 raises more. For some of the reasons highlighted, we always have, and always will, use human moderators, not AI. That's not to say that AI doesn't have its uses, but there must always be a real person overlooking it to ensure these kinds of issues don't proliferate, and undemine faith in reviews generally.
Important note on review sites: almost all of these pre-date Google's involvement with reviews, when it soon became apparent that Google would dominate both in terms of both access (initially everyone had to sign up to a Google service to be able to post a review to Google, now everyone has!) and credibility (Google's credibility stems frem the lack of barriers it places in the way of reviewers). Nowadays any business wanting their reviews to be visible and credible will focus just about all its efforts on getting reviews to Google. If a business asks a customer to post a review to any other site the first question that customer should be asking is 'Why?' There are vanishingly few reasons a business should be doing so.
Wart No. 4
Asking for the review face-to-face. Why not? Now, be honest, we all know that people are highly unlikely to take a proffered iPad, with the review box helpfully already opened - and maybe even defaulted to 5 stars - and write a negative review. Google will suspend businesses where many reviews emanate from a single IP address, but some businesses have got wise to that and ask for the review in the customer's own home.
A recent subset of this practice is the 'card with a QR code inviting a review'; fine if the customer is left with the card, not so fine if they are asked to use it in front of the staff member.
Wart No. 5
Asking for the review at a time when the customer will be most disposed to have a positive review of the business. We see this every day of our working lives. Fair enough for an estate agent to ask for a review immediately post-completion; after all the whole of their service is complete and fresh in the memory of the consumer, ditto a doctor at the end of a course of treatment, but a business asking for a review after an introductory meeting?
Wart No. 6
Asking for a review of a non-core service: 'How was your telephone call?', 'How was our email?' or even 'What did you think of our offices?' (we've seen all of those). We know of one business that has gathered nearly a million reviews on a well-known review site, many in this manner.
Wart no. 7
Relating reviews of one service to the sale of another. A business has a portfolio of offerings, but only invites reviews of those that are most popular. It then mobilises those reviews - and the resulting score - in its marketing of its less popular (and perhaps more profitable) products or services.
One example was a vacuum cleaner manufacturer launching an e-bike on the back of thousands of reviews of - you guessed it - their vacuum cleaner. The advertisement for the e-bike just showed a glowing 5 stars.
Wart No. 8
Using a review platform that allows the business to challenge reviewers to prove their identity or their use of the service under review (asking to see invoices/proof of purchase is common). This may seem reasonable until we mine down further: not only is this a commercially dangerous practice - reviewers denied an opportunity to post a review will often simply write their review to Google instead (especially if they want to voice a negative opinion), where it will be far more visible and have a far greater negative impact; Google will never ask a reviewer for proof of purchase.
Should Google insist on 'proof of identity' before publishing such a review? We think not, and it does not. But some popular review platforms do allow businesses to challenge such reviews and their authors. Needless to say, few businesses challenge 5-star reviews!
There is also a significant reason for review platforms not to insist on the identity of the reviewer being disclosed, at least initially. Take the example above: the reviewer wishes to alert the world - and the business's future customers - to the excellent experience they have had, but the service under review is one of a very private nature - medical in this instance (but it could just as well be legal or financial). How many Google reviews would this client have if Google insisted on full/real names?
Wart No. 9
Buying reviews. We thought we wouldn't need to include this in 2025, simply because we know, and we assumed most businesses would know, that Google has massive resources to catch out any business doing this, but a very quick search shows that it is still prevalent.
Wart No. 10
This is part of an article in an industry newsletter. Notice it doesn't specifically mention 'reviews', but is it fooling anybody?
Rewarding reviewers. This is a murky area. Possibly alright if the business can be seen to be rewarding those who write any kind of review, but most - all?- examples we come across exclusively reward those who write 5-star reviews. We have seen Amazon vouchers and M&S vouchers, discounts on future purchases and picnic hampers. The regulators will take the view that the offer of any kind of reward implies that they review should rate the business highly, and it is therefore illegal.
Now, we know that one wart can be mistaken for a beauty spot. But ten? So many businesses are perpetrating at least one, sometimes several, of these sins. Because they think they can fool all of the people all of the time? Perhaps they don't know that the UK CMA has invested heavily in a years-long investigation into businesses flouting their rules, including the development of sophisticated AI tools to automatically identify illegal activity?
In summary
Not only is all of what you see above illegal in the UK, but it also undermines the value of legitimate reviews. Honest opinions, in the form of online reviews, are actively sought out by over four out of five consumers, but when they understand that businesses commonly manipulate their reviews to appear better, they begin to lose faith. And as a result, those reviews lose some of their value for both parties.
Businesses owe it to themselves and their customers to find a legal and effective way to engage with online reviews, without breaking the law (or the bank - see below), even if they think they can currently get away with it.
Living proof that your business can look great in search and be compliant with the CMA regulations at the same time - those 748 reviews are from the business's own website (see under 'CMA regulations' below). They are backed up by over 500 Google reviews...
It may surprise you, after reading all of the above, that we have some sympathy with businesses engaged in some of the practices outlined; after all, they know that they must look good in search and when compared with their competitors, or risk losing significant amounts of business. At the same time, they are justifiably frightened of the consequences of opening the floodgates for all their customers to comment.
There is a solution, and it's all about having a deep understanding of the CMA's regulations, as well as consumer behaviour, when engaged with online reviews, combined with having every review moderated before publication.
The CMA's regulations
The 'Write a review' button (circled) enables anyone to write a review of the business and ensures compliance with the CMA regulations. The 'What is HelpHound?' button (arrowed) reassures all stakeholders that the review process is professionally and independently managed and above board (for just one instance: the 3 reviews shown are the most recent received by the business, they are not chosen by them).
The CMA regulations don't say 'You must actively invite every customer to write a review'. What they do say is that 'any business that actively engages in inviting customer reviews must allow all their customers to do so.' And the easiest way to do so? Have an invitation to write a review on your business's website (see above), and then have whatever reviews are written, either by email invitation or through that link, moderated.
Moderation
We introduced moderation over a decade ago, so we know precisely what its impact is. Across all our clients we know that an average of 7 in 100 reviews require our moderator to step in, because they contain errors of fact or statements likely to mislead a reader. Out of 100 moderated reviews over 93 will either result in no final review being written - 'Sorry, I was wrong, don't publish it' - or there will be a corrected review posted - 'Thanks for pointing out my mistake, please publish my corrected review'.
Is there anything Google can or should do, given its preeminent position in this sector
Google knows full well that people rely heavily on its reviews when researching crucial - and often potentially life-changing - purchasing decisions, which is why it gives reviews such prominence in search. These could relate to health and well-being, legal matters, financial transactions or major events such as a home sale, just to mention a few. We have criticised Google in this forum before, and most of those past criticisms remain current today. Here we go again...
Helpful? We don't think so. For the business or its potential customers
- End ratings (reviews with stars but no words). They offer no value whatsoever.
- Delete - or at least demote - off-topic reviews. No one wants to read a review of the business's office architecture
- Take your appeals process seriously. Freedom of speech is a great thing, we agree. But freedom to libel a business? We handle multiple Google appeals every month on behalf of our clients, and we are proud of our track record of getting unjustified reviews taken down, but we are bemused by some of the rejections we/they get.
Examples include reviewers reviewing the wrong business (e.g. the XYZ Place Hotel instead of the XYZ Palace Hotel), reviewers quoting provably incorrect prices or financial details (an estate agent allegedly charged 6 per cent commission - Google were sent a copy of the contract clearly stating 1.5%), a reviewer writing a deeply critical review of a business because they had seen the owner on TV and 'didn't like the look of him', reviewers blackening a company's name having provably never had dealings with the company (e.g. the AirBnB hosts in Paris who wrote a negative review of their guest's medical business in London x 2; Google removed one on appeal but the appeal aginst the other failed, for no apparent reason). We could go on.
Google's response to these detailed and time-consuming appeals is, to say the least, unpredictable and often lacks coherent reasoning. One-star reviews hurt businesses (they are invariably the first consumers read) - if you doubt that, read this sorry story. Google needs to invest time and resources into their appeals process.
Conclusion
First of all, every site that hosts reviews has to clean up its act, from Google and Trustpilot to Yelp and Tripadvisor. Minimise 'fake' and malicious reviews. Have an effective appeals process for both the reviewer and the reviewed business. Don't employ mechanisms that you may be able to justify as being well-intentioned but, in your heart of hearts, know are being used for the benefit of the reviewed business that is paying you. Ensure your client businesses adhere strictly to your terms of service. For example, if you know a client is advertising a new product using your five-star rating for another product, ensure they at least state this in their advert. If a client appeals every single one-star review, question that as well. And stop using AI bots!
Businesses? Implement a compliant and moderated review management system at the first opportunity.
Further reading
- The CMA is coming for you! - the CMA has warned businesses to become compliant, and review management leaves a great paper trail for it (and its AI) to follow. This article explains the CMA's regulations and its current position on enforcement.
- Moderation* - a full explanation of this vital part of our service. It's a brave service business that embarks on unmoderated review management (we often find ourselves reminding businesses that they may be perfect, but a proportion of their customers won't be!).
- Results - great review management adds value to your business's bottom line. Simply by making your business look great to potential customers. This article contains proof of concept in spades.
- 4.9 is the new 4.5 - consumers now demand that high-value-added businesses and the professions have a Google score as close as possible to the perfect 5.
