What do the review sites and global coffee chains have in common?

Last week, Which? published a survey of the major coffee chains. What it discovered may surprise some: the discrepancy in caffeine - the active ingredient most people are paying for - is not just of the order of double-digit percentages, say ten or even twenty, but multiples:

You don't need a maths degree to work out that Starbucks customers are being short-changed. Why would this be? Is there no limit to the lengths to which some of these massive, usually US-owned, chains will go to increase turnover and profits at the expense of the product they deliver to their customers? Do they not realise that people will, eventually, work out that 'there is a better way'? That better way? The independent cafes and coffee shops listed on Google.

It's the same in the world of reviews: why would a - any - business employ a review platform as opposed to a specialist such as HelpHound plus Google? Google provides:

• Unrivalled reach: to well over 95% of consumers in the Western world

• Unrivalled credibility: consumers, as evidenced by survey after survey, trust Google reviews over and above those hosted anywhere else

• Unrivalled access - for both businesses and their customers; every business has a Google account and so does every potential customer (OK, some people don't own a computer or a smartphone, but they are an increasingly insignificant minority)

And it's free!

Yes, we understand; Google is far from perfect, but it is so much more influential than its nearest rivals. A question we often pose to CMOs goes as follows...

'All other factors being equal (financial, mostly), where would you rather have a significant review score and presence? Google or [insert name of any other review site]?'

Yet over 30,000 businesses still opt to pay for one review site or another. Even when two of the most prominent, at least in the UK, have either been sanctioned by regulators (Trustpilot) or are currently under investigation by them (Feefo). 

The honest truth - and we have been all over this sector for nearly twenty years now - is that if Google reviews had existed twenty years ago, there would be no other review solutions. There would be services like HelpHound that helped businesses make the very best of their Google reviews, but there would be no need for any other review sites, be that Yelp, Trustpilot,  Trustatrader, Feefo, Reviews.io or any of the others that grew like mushrooms in the pre-Google-review darkness.

Action for businesses currently paying review sites

Be honest, you were expecting us to say 'Stop!,' weren't you? We respect the fact that it is never quite as simple as that. Management needs to be absolutely sure that any change of direction is going to be in the best interests of the long-term health and wealth of the business. The first thing to do is speak to us, and before that, it would be helpful if you made a list of your objectives in relation to the review management solution of your dreams.

HelpHound: as far from Starbucks in relation to review management as it is possible to be.

One final point

By now, most readers will be asking themselves 'Where does HelpHound feature in all of this?' The answer is quite simple and splits the business world neatly in two...

1. If you are a 'product-based' business (online or physical retail, for instance), you will need to ensure your score on Google is somewhere in excess of 4.0 out of 5. That may or may not require the input of a review manager such as HelpHound. If individual negative reviews are hurting business, then it is almost certainly time to consult us
2. If, on the other hand, you are a 'service-based'/professional business - 'professional' in the sense of being one of the acknowledged professions: legal, medical, accountancy, wealth management and so on - then you will know that your reviews are actively sought out and read before potential fee-earners make first contact, and that even a tiny proportion of inaccurate or unfair reviews will be unhelpful in the extreme, then you should be speaking to us as a matter of urgency*

*urgency? Yes. The review landscape has undergone a fundamental shift in the past year. First, and most important of all, the UK regulator, the CMA, has been given new powers and tools to sanction businesses that are in breach (usually for cherry-picking and/or gating), and we estimate that well over half of all UK businesses that actively engage with reviews are currently in breach. 

Secondly, AI search has meant that scoring 4.8 or 4.9 is vital if a business is going to be consistently returned in any given search, whether that be Google Gemini or any other, and the only way to be sure of attaining and sustaining such a score going forward (cherry-picking has been used to achieve it historically) will be by adopting moderated review management.

The next step? Have your business audited today.

This common mistake is costing businesses £thousands

This business is listed on Google, and this is what shows up in every single search for it:

Ouch!

So what did it do? It signed up to a lead generation website...

...where it looks beyond brilliant. 10/10 all the way.

So what did it do wrong? It did what so many businesses, large and small, do. It failed to address the core issue.

And that core issue: its presence on Google. Google reviews don't go away. On top of that, Google reviews are invariably returned first in search. And consumers have, over nearly twenty years, come to rely on them.

What should the business have done?

First and foremost, it should have responded to the review. Next: it should have invited all its customers - the ones who have written the 182 reviews to CheckaTrade - to write their reviews to Google. 

Better still, it should have asked all its customers to write a review on its own website, where it could have had them all moderated for factual accuracy by someone like HelpHound (which would then automatically invite them to copy their review to Google).

Like this:

Top left: the 807 reviews and counting that have all been moderated by HelpHound (top right)

And this:

leading to the kind of score and presence in search (legacy first)...

...AI next:

That keeps the customers rolling in. Without paying for a review or lead-generation site. Without paying for Google Ads. 

It is never too late to begin saving money whilst at the same time adopting a strategy that will see your business thrive in the years to come. Welcome to HelpHound.

Further reading:

• Our fees

• Our guarantee of success

• Moderation - a full description

• Reviews in 2026 - a comprehensive guide

Wealth managers and financial advisers urgently need to address their review management strategies

Numbers crunched: back in 2019 these businesses had an average of 7 reviews each - and that average was heavily skewed by Hargreaves Lansdown and Nutmeg - today they average 45 reviews each. Their scores averaged a borderline respectable 4.4; those have now fallen to 3.7. From reading the individual reviews, it is evident that very few have been written at the request of the business. These businesses, virtually all of them, have left their image in Google search to a tiny minority of their most motivated clients. And those most motivated to write a review? Those that are the least satisfied

We first addressed the concept of reviews for wealth managers and financial advisers back in 2019. Here is the article. Before we go on to look at one example in depth, let's compare a handful of those businesses' images in search then and now.

We think you will agree that there is no arguing as to the direction of travel for these numbers. If unaddressed, the number of reviews will continue to rise, and the average scores of the individual businesses will continue to fall. 

In-depth analysis

Now on to our deep dive into a specific example: have you seen an advertisement for Fisher Investments UK* lately? We have. Normally we wouldn't 'name names', but we will make an exception in this case, for two main reasons...

*We should mention that none of what follows implies that we agree with any of the comments made in the reviews used to illustrate this article. We are solely addressing matters of fact relating to Fisher Investments UK's engagement with online reviews.

1. The business - or its PR advisers - should pick up this article in a standard media scrape, and its contents will be of considerable help in digging the business out of the review management hole** (no exaggeration, by the way; read on) it currently finds itself in.
2. The business provides an outstanding example of what will happen to any service or professional business that has not yet engaged with reviews, and the wealth management industry as a whole has been very slow to embrace the world of online reviews, whether on Google or otherwise. In short, each business's image in Google search has come to be dominated by a tiny minority of its clients, and the most motivated ones at that

So what did we find, bearing in mind we followed exactly the same route as almost anyone seeing Fisher Investment UK's advertisements and seriously considering contacting the business?

Let's follow that route. First, a simple Google search...

...that conveys, we are sure you will agree, a pretty shocking first impression. next: mine down into the actual Google reviews themselves...

We didn't cherry-pick (or select 'lowest' as most consumers do). These were simply the first reviews served by Google when we searched. Besides the content of the reviews themselves, which is hardly encouraging, the really damaging thing is the 22 likes next to the two-year-old review. That's one person a month reading that review and bothering to thank the reviewer; bear in mind that we always estimate that only about one in twenty readers, at the very most, will do that.

Next, if we haven't been put off already, let's go further and see if Trustpilot agrees with Google (it doesn't always)...

And Trustpilot breaks their reviews down by percentages for each star rating...

...Fifty-four per cent 1*. Based on the available facts, on the face of it, it is hard to argue Trustpilot's 'Poor' descriptor.

This review isn't great, in and of itself; it also references the business's TrustPilot reviews (our undelining). Proof, if proof were needed, that consumers of high-value services take note of online reviews

We will translate the above for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with Trustpilot's process: a business can challenge any review on Trustpilot, as can a consumer. Trustpilot will then contact the reviewer and ask them for 'proof of purchase'. 

As you can see, in this case, 96 reviewers declined to provide this to Trustpilot, five did but had their 'breach of Trustpilot's guidelines' upheld, so their reviews - all 101 of them - were not published. 

On the face of it this looks like a reasonable safety mechanism for all concerned; whilst we cannot answer for Fisher Investments UK or Trustpilot on these individual cases, we have consistently - over a period of many years - held such activity to be in potential breach of the UK CMA's core regulations which specifically state that no obstruction be placed in the way of a consumer wishing to express an honestly held opinion. 

Google, for example, will not take down a review unless it breaches its very narrowly drafted Terms of Service. It certainly will not insist on 'proof of purchase'.

It is obvious that a great many of those who have written reviews of Fisher Investments UK on Trustpilot have not wished to provide Trustpilot with what would almost certainly be highly confidential personal financial information. They may also, for completely understandable reasons, not wish to divulge their precise identity to their investment adviser when writing what might be a critical review.

We also have two questions for the business:

• Engagement: Why not respond to all the reviews? - on Google, the business has responded to 3 out of 34 reviews (it's free to do so). On Trustpilot, it has responded to 37 out of 113. All businesses should bear in mind two things about responding to reviews: the first is that a negative review without a response from the business is pretty universally viewed as an admission, by the business, that the client's criticism is valid; the second? That is when responding, you are not only responding to the individual who has taken the time to write the review, but to every single one of your potential clients that may read your response. That's why we consistently advise businesses to address the points raised in the review and not, as so many currently do, to respond with 'please contact us'.

• Why not invite investors to write a review? To Google (or to Trustpilot, if the business has a negative image there). It's free (although Trustpilot limit those businesses not paying for its services to 50 free invitations a month - which shows where their core market is: retail).  We'll begin by answering this question ourselves, for any similar business reading this article: there is one very good reason not to engage: finance is a complex area. Many clients will not fully understand the processes involved or the work their adviser is doing on their behalf. To put it in plain English, it will be very easy for them to 'get the wrong end of the stick', and this can easily result in a factually inaccurate or potentially misleading review, for the world to see. And that is exactly why such businesses should use an independent moderator. Moderation will ensure that these problems and misunderstandings are resolved before a review is posted anywhere. Not only does this result in factually accurate reviews that potential clients can rely on, but it is also a brilliant way to ensure that existing clients understand what the business is doing on their behalf - see the link above or in 'Further reading' at the ned of this article. 

**At the head of this article, we say that the business is 'in a hole' and we imply that the individual reviews and their attendant scores - on both Google and Trustpilot - will be causing significant reputational, and therefore financial, harm. This is not conjecture. We have years of experience in dealing with clients in the professions and service industries, and know only too well how damaging a low score and the individual critical reviews are. Potential business is lost in significant volumes if a business's score falls below 4.5, and it is also lost whenever someone takes the trouble to 'like' a critical review (unlike reviews of hospitality or product reviews, no one ever idly reads reviews of service businesses for fun; they read them because they are actively considering using them).

Every one of those 22 hearts is a potential client saying - to the writer of the review 'Thank you for warning me'. And they are just those who bothered to click on the heart. We estimate that at least fifteen people read a review for every one that votes, possibly running into the hundreds.

AI search

AI search is spreading like wildfire. Here is a typical Google Gemini search for Fisher Investments UK...

1. is a description of the business, likely scraped from its own website. 2. is the result of Google Gemini's scrape of at least 110 websites, including its own and others' reviews. 3. are links to articles from the web that Google's AI thinks most relevant to the question asked of it (in this case, some credibly critical articles).

Conclusions

What seemed like a reasonably safe strategy at the dawn of Web 2.0: 'ignore reviews', is no longer viable. Reviews - its own and those from other sites - are just too core to Google's offering. If in any doubt whatsoever, just check where they appear in Google's hierarchy. And Google responds to user demand. Users demand reviews, and Google ensures they get to see them.

The only thing left in the business's control is just how effectively it engages...

• Not at all: not viable these days, the business will be exposed to precisely what has happened to Fisher Investments UK: having its online reputation controlled by a, in this case, tiny, minority of dissatisfied clients

• Through a review site: better than nothing at all, but only marginally; since Google entered the reviews game when it introduced its own, Google reviews have been supremely dominant in search. They also win in the credibility stakes, partly because they are so difficult for businesses to manipulate (and more and more consumers understand this these days)

• Through Google: fine if you are in a business that will not be significantly impacted by factually inaccurate or potentially misleading Google reviews (or a lower Google score). If you are in the professions or high-value service business, then you will need to seriously consider taking an extra step in conjunction with your Google review strategy: Independent moderation

• Moderated Google reviews: think of this as Google reviews +++. The only proven way to do this is to engage an independent moderator, as neither consumers nor the regulators will readily accept a business moderating its own reviews. Moderation involves every review being checked by a moderator for factual accuracy and/or any misleading statements, before the review is published on the business's website, and then the reviewer is automatically asked to copy their review to Google

We have continually refined this last solution for over a decade now (you can read back over nearly 1,000 articles stretching back to April 2010 - we never delete one, and we're proud of just how many correctly predicted the current situation). And the cost? Since New Year 2024, we now guarantee that HelpHound will pay for itself and more.

Back to the list of businesses at the top of this article

Our final 'conclusion' is that there is still time for almost all of these businesses to address their review management and turn around their Google scores, and therefore 'rescue' the adverse image they are currently creating in search. The task presents more challenges when a business has 200+ Google reviews and a score under 4.0, simply because directing clients to write reviews to Google will inevitably involve presenting them with the business's current lacklustre score and the negative reviews themselves. If your business is in this situation, we will need to discuss a precise strategy with you. And the sooner the better.

Further Reading

1. Results: quantifiable results, both in terms of traffic through your door and an uplift in the quality of business transacted
2. Moderation: a full explanation 
3. Compliance: we alluded to this above; suffice to say, there's no reason for a business to sail close to the wind as far as the regulators are concerned

Reviews and trust - there is no future for the first without the second

Yet again the regulators have seen fit to step in - this time in relation to fake reviews, specifically those posted to Google. It is time we revisited the rationale behind regulation and reviews.

In an ideal world...

Everyone who wrote a review...

• Would be in a position to understand everything to do with whatever product or service they had been sold and were reviewing

• Would be in a positive - or at the very least, benign - frame of mind, both at the time they interacted with the business that sold them the product or provided them with the service and later, when they came to write their review

• Would have perfect command of the English language, or whatever other language they wrote their review in (Google accepts reviews in 149 languages)

And every business that asked its customers to write a review...

• would welcome every review with open arms

• would not place any barriers in the way of someone wanting to review their product or service

• would respond to every review posted - anywhere

And every review platform would conform to these basic tenets...

• it would favour neither business nor consumer

• it would ensure that no barriers were placed in the way of a consumer wishing to post a fair and accurate review

• it would offer an effective appeal route for the business under review against inaccurate, potentially misleading or plain unfair reviews

• it would ensure that its reviews were as visible as possible to consumers

The current regulatory situation

In the UK, as regular readers know, online reviews are regulated (by the Competition and Markets Authority - 'CMA'), and such regulation is backed by the force of law.

The CMA has been conducting an ongoing review into the use and abuse of reviews for many years now. Here is their advice to businesses - which remains current to this day. Periodically the CMA will announce action it is taking or agreements it has come to - here is its latest, this time with Google.

At this stage we should mention that, in the UK at least, there are examples of businesses taking reviewers to court for posting defamatory reviews. Here is one such. For obvious reasons, both commercial and reputational, this is a rare occurrence, as the legacy press and social media rarely shine a favourable light on 'big business' taking customers to court. This makes a fair and evenhanded regulatory and legal approach to reviews even more important. But such action does conclusively prove one thing: that businesses would do well to take every measure to avoid such negative reviews, especially the 'unfair' ones.

The future

So far, quite reasonably, the regulators have focused their attention on the sites that host reviews. They are also right to refine that focus to concentrate on Google, as it now hosts four out of every five reviews on the web (see its remarkable dominance here).

This was reinforced when we were privileged to have an in-depth conversation with a senior staffer at the CMA last year. The central thrust of his message was 'Just because the CMA doesn't constantly repeat the fact that we have an open investigation into abuses of online reviews does not mean that we have closed the file, the opposite is true.'

So the next logical move by the regulators will likely be on the following two fronts...

• against the legacy review sites that have been driven to offer more and more questionably legal benefits in order to compete with Google reviews (bearing in mind these sites invariably charge businesses and Google does not). These range from control over who is able to write a review to the ability to challenge a genuinely held customer opinion in the hope that the customer will simply give up and not insist on their review being published

• against businesses that are in contravention of the CMA's core regulations - the main ones being 'cherry-picking' only demonstrably happy customers to invite to post reviews and 'gating' - identifying that same cohort using a questionnaire 

We also hope they will widen their remit in relation to the review sites...

• sites that offer businesses boosted prominence in rankings in return for financial reward
• sites that muddy the water by selling leads to businesses on the back of reviews
• sites that discriminate against reviewers who are unable or unwilling to provide proof of purchase*

*this, on the face of it, would appear to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It is only when faced with a real-world situation when the consumer has genuinely lost their receipt or cannot see why they should be required to provide one to a third-party review site that the injunction by the CMA to allow the review to stand must apply.

To summarise

From a business's standpoint, today in 2025, there are few* reasons to use a review site and many reasons to use Google reviews...

• they are the first reviews any prospective customer sees of your business
• every one of your business's locations will have a distinct Google profile with reviews attached
• they have greater credibility than other kinds of review, simply by virtue of readers understanding that Google knows a great deal about the poster
• just about everyone on the planet is able to write a Google review without 'joining' or 'registering'

*these 'few' reasons become fewer by the year. The exception is retail which understandably requires stand-alone reviews for each and every product they sell. So sites such as Bazaarvoice still have a role to play. Our advice to all service and professional businesses is to focus entirely on Google reviews; should they already have a presence on other sites that should be maintained, at least for the time being, alongside Google.

A very important question for businesses that already have an established presence on Google

How do you collect your Google reviews? 

Many - most? - businesses, if they are being candid, will admit that they are selective in inviting customers to write a review to Google. This is against the CMA's aforementioned core regulations - against the law. 

So what? - we hear people say all the time. And our answer? We have sympathy, but your business does not exist in isolation. We agree that it is highly unlikely that your business, of all the 5.5 million in the UK, will be the first to be sanctioned by the CMA (although the long list of those fined by HMRC for breaches of AML should at least give you pause for thought - imagine your business appearing on a list like this - and then featuring in the local/national press as 'ABC Plc fined by government agency for breaking rules relating to their customers' online reviews.'). 

Look at it this way: you know your business is in breach by cherry-picking 'happy' customers to invite to post a Google review. So your staff know as well. And they move on - sometimes to direct competitors. How do you suppose a competitor will use that knowledge? Is there even an outside chance that, when faced with a potential customer, they will be tempted to say something along the lines of "Yes, their Google score and reviews are excellent, aren't they? Perhaps if they complied with the law and allowed all their customers to write a review, as we do, then maybe they wouldn't look quite so great?"

This innocuous link - 'Write a review' - makes the business compliant with the CMA regulations at a stroke - it also leads to the key benefit of review management: moderation

Resulting in the business looking like this on Google...

Initial search (left) and their Google reviews tab (right) showing their score and all their reviews collected since they joined HelpHound...

From 5 to 500 - not so hard when you combine a great business with the correct - compliant - review management

The key here is that no well-run business needs to remain in this position (few reviews or in breach of the CMA regulations). By the simple expedient of employing moderated review management it will a) protect itself from factually inaccurate or potentially misleading reviews - that's what gives our clients the confidence to be so proactive in inviting reviews - and b) achieve a great score on its own website and on Google.

It will also be demonstrating that its reviews can be trusted - both those on its own website (see above) and those on Google.

Review management - illustrating the process

This infographic appeared in a recent article ('Help! We've received an unfair Google review.') and has proved popular with those looking to understand how HelpHound works...

Click on the image to expand the infographic

It shows a screenshot of the 'reviews' section of the home page of a client's website, taken on a mobile phone. Each important feature is highlighted. The key here is to include this on the home screen; you don’t want potential customers having to go to a menu or search for a tab to see your reviews because that will dramatically reduce the number that read them - and the resultant click-through - considerably. 'Visibility' is key.

Here's the same information displayed on desktop/laptop/tablet...

The precise layout is up to you and your professional advisers (web design and so on). We will advise on which elements must be included to be legally compliant and you will benefit from more than a decade's experience at HelpHound as well as feedback from our other clients every step of the way.

And finally...

The picture wouldn't be complete if we didn't show you the final results in terms of the impact of all of the above in a popular Google search, in this case, '[business type] in [location]' or '[near me]'...

We can't take 100% of the credit for our client dominating in search, but most experts estimate that engaging with - by inviting and responding to reviews on your own website - makes up around 15% of any business's score from a Google search point-of-view. 

Given that these days most businesses conform with all Google's other ranking criteria - location, contact details etc - then this, we would suggest, is a must

The only difference for a firm of solicitors, an accountancy practice, a recruitment agency, a GP practice, an educational establishment or a firm of financial advisors will be that most of these have yet to find a way to embrace review management compliantly, so those that do so will enjoy a significant head start on their competition. In fact, most professional service businesses have a significant advantage over estate agencies: they almost always have an ongoing relationship with their customer/client/patient that estate agents do not (in the case of sale and purchase transactions, at least).

You will be in the best position to assess the value of all of the above (results are here). Then you can relate it to the cost - here - and effort - minimal - needed to implement and manage HelpHound's professional review management for your business.

Further information

The only other process that readers of this article need to understand is the invitation to write the review(s) - both to your own website and to Google. It is covered in this article.

Google reviews - which category does your business fall under?

This is a 'polished' copy of an internal HelpHound guide. 

Why publish it? Categorising helps us ensure that businesses are given the most appropriate information and advice right at the outset of our relationship. Mainly because there remain so many misconceptions surrounding reviews and review management, even now, fifteen years after the first Google review was written. It similarly helps businesses understand the starting point for our relationship.

Your business will fall under one of the following seven headings - every professional service business does - there is a brief description of the relevant issues for that category and a link to a relevant article for those who wish to mine deeper.

We begin with the simplest category of them all...

1.  No engagement and no reviews

 

'5+ years in business' and not a single review. A rarer beast these days, but by no means exitict

We are the first to acknowledge that this is a completely understandable strategy; we hear so many CEOs and marketing directors say 'We'd prefer to fly under the radar.' And the reason for this is simple: they realise that engaging with reviews, especially Google reviews, involves considerable reputational risk for their business, akin to driving uninsured. To pursue that analogy: you might be the best driver in the world, but the other road users still present a huge risk, so you insure your car. It's exactly the same with reviews: your business and all your staff may be as perfect as makes no difference, but customers will - and do - grab the wrong end of the stick (and will write misinformed reviews as a result).  

Solution: the business will know it is missing a wonderful opportunity to engage with Google reviews as well as exposing itself to unfair damage should one or more unhappy customers find their way to writing a Google review (from no Google score to scoring 1.0 overnight). It needs 'insurance' against factually inaccurate and potentially damaging reviews, and that means adopting a fully moderated system. A moderated system will ensure that most factually inaccurate or potentially misleading reviews are addressed before they are published anywhere online. 

 

2.  No engagement and few reviews

 

 

As above, but customers - hopefully happy ones - have found the business's Google listing (after all, it comes up whenever they search for your business, even if they're just looking for contact details).  

Solution: they may have had near misses (in this case a heart-stopping 'You have recieved a review' email from Google every time one of those reviews is written). The business needs to engage before it loses its hugely valuable Google score of 4.8 - 5.0. And that means adopting a moderated system to provide the reputational insurance referred to under 1. above.

 

3. No engagement and many reviews

 

Imagine being in a business that can afford to ignore reviews altogether? Few of us are so lucky - or should that read 'Few of us wish to work in/for a business that simply doesn't care enough to even respond to reviews posted by the customers that are its lifeblood'?

There are businesses, though, that find themselves in this situation and remain vulnerable (by 'vulnerable' we mean that Google review scores work in both directions: a Google score of 4.8 or more will attract between 15 and 25 per cent more enquiries through Google - sometimes far more; a score of less than 4.0 will deflect that amount of enquiries, at the very least (and can result in a choking off off inbounds althogether - read this horror story).

As for 1. and 2. above, if the business's current Google score is 4.8 or over, all fine, but action should be taken ASAP. If that score is 4.7 or less there will need to be remedial work undertaken to bring the score back up. 

Solution: We will agree a plan of action with the business to ensure a steady flow of moderated reviews and, in the case of a business scoring less than 4.8, initiate a tried and tested plan of action to remedy that situation and bring the score back up. Reassurance will be swift: as soon as a business's score improives the upsurge in the flow of inbounds will follow.

 

4. Engaged: hand-picking customers to invite to write a review

 

You will understand why we have anonymised this screenshot. How can we be sure that this business is hand-picking clients to write Google reviews? Well, it's a simple case of 'If it walks like a..., if it squawks like a...'. Businesses that don't comply with the law surrounding reviews are remarkably easy to spot, whether that be by looking at the pattern of reviews (a flurry of 5* reviews following a 1* is common) or, in the case of the regulators, examining the mechansism the business uses to invite reviews (text or email - and they both leave a cast-iron paper trail)

 

Here we run into our first legal issue. It is illegal under UK law to hand-pick 'happy' customers and then invite those, and only those, to write a review. The regulators (the CMA) call it 'cherry-picking' and they have an ongoing investigation into it. 

We occasionally meet businesses that say 'our [positive] reviews are so important, and so integral to our marketing, that we are prepared to take a risk'. We liken them to the 18th century traders who saved on the insurance offfered by the men at Mr Lloyd's coffee house: they are taking an unnecessary gamble, but instead of risking the value a shipment of spices from the Orient, they are exposing their business's reputation to a wholly unnecessary risk, especialy given that the cost of compliance is bundled into the cost of the 'insurance' (Here it is - for most businesses less then a BUPA subscription for a single person!)

Solution:  Adopting moderated review management provides the solution to both issues: 'insurance' against inaccurate or misleading reviews and complete compliance with UK law. From day one*. 

*We can provide no cast-iron guarantees, but it is our considered opinion that the UK CMA is highly unlikely to focus regulatory action on cases where the business in question is currently compliant, so the sooner the business becomes compliant, the less likely it is to be caught in the CMA's net.

 

5. Engaged: using email or a questionnaire to establish which customers should be invited to write a review.

 

There is nothing in the CMA regulations (or Google ToS) against sending a questionnaire such as this to customers. Businesses cross the line into illegality when they only invite those who have rated the business 5* to subsequently post a review.

 

 Google's relevant anti-gating rule. More here

 

This is a similar case to 4. above. The regulators - and Google - have a term for it: 'gating'. And it is illegal in the UK - and against Google's Terms of Service worldwide (a full explanation can be found here).

Solution: Stop! Adopt a compliant moderated system immediately. We cannot be absolutely sure, but again we feel it will be highly unlikely that the CMA will take legal action and sanction a business that was once non-compliant but has since taken steps to ensure future compliance. To date, businesses sanctioned by the CMA, for whatever reason, have almost always been currently non-compliant. As for Google: they have been known to delete all of a business's reviews when they find proof of gating. And who supplies that proof? A competitor or a disgruntled ex-employee usually.

 

6. Engaged: using a review site

On the left: the business on its chosen review site, all but invisible in search (actually, it does appear - but on page 3, so way less than 1% of searchers will ever find their way there). On the right: its Google score and reviews are shown in every search of its name.

Feefo? Yelp? Trustpilot? Reviews.io? All these solutions pre-date Google reviews. In the case of product businesses - online retail and similar - the stars they 'sell' the business are probably pretty effective. After all, we buy shirts because we like the look of them. As long as they score 4.0 out of 5 on, say, Feefo, we won't be put off making a purchase. But professional and service businesses must focus on Google reviews, simply because it is Google reviews that all your potential customers/clients/patients are seeing in every single search they perform.

Solution: If businesses such as this had known just how dominant Google reviews would be - no one comes close in seach, and Google are way ahead in terms of credibility and longevity - they would have gone down that route in the first place. It's never too late to change. The business doesn’t have to immediately lose its chosen review site, it just needs run a moderated Google-focussed solution alongside and compare the results. 

 

7. Engaged: Inviting all customers to post a review to Google

Now we're getting there. Google reviews are where it's at for all service and professional businesses. Because they show in every single search, from the initial 'How can I find a reliable doctor/lawyer/school/investment adviser?' to 'How do I contact the one I've been recommended by a friend/colleague?' The issue that has led to businesses adopting solutions 1 - 6 is simple: fear of the harm that can be done by just one factually incorrect Google review.  

Solution: Now all a business needs is the 'insurance' cover that will enable it to be compliant and at the same time collect genuine Google reviews from its customers. It's called moderation. Read about that here. It may well be the most rewarding ten minutes you spend on behalf of your business this year.

Conclusion

There is only one solution that works perfectly - or indeed at all, when compliance is taken into account - for all professional and service businesses, whether they be in the medical, legal, educational or financial spheres (or those directly associated, such as estate agency) and whatever category from 1 - 6 they fall into above, and that is independently moderated review management.

It only remains for your business to choose an entity to provide that independent moderation. We humbly submit that, with over fifteen years of experience dealing directly with reviews and review sites, including - in fact, especially - Google, of all kinds and being the first to alert businesses to the primacy of Google reviews, HelpHound would be a good place to embark on your business's journey.

And finally

This article focuses on the legally compliant solutions to reviews and review management. And without a compliant solution all the other good things that flow from positive engagement with Google reviews are as nothing. To be candid: what is the point of amassing hundreds of reviews by cherry-picking or gating if your competitors know that's what you are doing (and will be alerting any prospective customers they come across)?  

There is, of course, much more on the upside. Here are just a few of the hundreds of articles covering the positive aspects of adopting professional review management.

• Results. We are often asked for proof that inbound enquiries will accelerate once HelpHound is adopted and up and running. Our first objective is to have our clients score 4.8+. once that is achieved on the business's own website and on Google there should be a noticeable and measurable increase in inbound enquiries - calls and clicks - and this article shows real-life examples and case histories. It also shows how the quality of those enquiries rises - markedly, both in terms of conversion and value. 

• If you would like to read what we have to say that is relevant to your own business sector please interrogate the blog - just go to 'Search this Blog' on the right and enter 'medical' or 'education' and so on and you will be shown whatever we have written that is directly relevant. If you still cannot find what you are looking for just email - info@helphound.com - or call us - 0207 100-2233 and we'll give you the answer straight away (HelpHound provides specific tailored advice for each of our clients, we are as far from a 'one size fits all solution' as can be).

• Fees. Here they are. We aim to be a profit centre, not a drain on our clients' resources - see 'Results' above - we have had our fees compared to many things over the years, from 'coffee for the whole office once a week' to 'the same as I pay BUPA every month'. What is certain is that your business will fare far better with HelpHound.

• Compliance. We hear the groan! But, to be serious for a minute, we keep close tabs on what the Competition and Markets Authority is up to, and only two months ago we had confirmation that their investigation into businesses flouting its regulations with regard to reviews remains very much live and ongoing. Given that there are so many advantages in being compliant - and not being seen to be non-compliant - and that compliance comes as standard the day a business joins HelpHound, we would suggest that this aspect of our service is a no-brainer for all businesses.*

*Many businesses we meet labour under the - understandable - misunderstanding that compliance with the CMA regulations means having to proactively invite every single customer/patient/client to write a review. This is categorically not the case; what the regulators do insist on is every single stakeholder having an equal opportunity to post a review. All HelpHound clients' modules [what we call the visible side of our software on your website] contain a button - see red arrow below - that allows exactly that. 

The 'Write a review' button leads directly to a form where your customer writes a review which is then sent directly for moderation pre-publication. The 'What is HelpHound?' link goes straight to a page explaining HelpHound's role 

The advantage of this mechanism is that the client can write a review whenever they wish (it is this function that ensures the business is compliant with the CMA regulations); that review will then be subject to HelpHound's moderation before it is published on the business's website. If the review contains errors of fact or potentially misleading content our moderator will contact the reviewer (and the business if needs be) to resolve the issue. Over 97 per cent of reviewers welcome this engagement and correct their reviews, or they decide not to post a review at all. Only after this are all reviewers asked to copy their reviews to Google. Just to round out the example above, here they are on Google...

This screenshot tells the current position of a business with its Google score (4.9), number of Google reviews (497), score from its own reviews (4.9 again) and number of reviews hosted on its own website (693). The key statistic to be drawn from these numbers - aside from the excellent scores - is the success that the business has had in converting reviews to its own website into Google reviews: over two-thirds have been copied over to Google - 71 per cent to be precise. 

Two more things you may be interested to know about the business above:

• When they joined HelpHound they only had 6 Google reviews
• They recently opened another office

So: decide which category your business falls under (it may have covered more than one in the past!) and then arrange to speak and/or meet one of us. We will answer all your questions and give you a very accurate idea of where your business will be - and what the results for your business will be - going forwards.