Why should Google help businesses that cheat?

Not a day passes when we don't come across a business that is gaming reviews. Some are even doing it accidentally (or at least they claim to be). But this behaviour is manifestly unfair on both their competitors and on the consumers that are misled by it.

What are these businesses doing? There's quite a list, some obvious, some more devious, all designed to mislead potential customers, all illegal*:

• They are breaking the 'Cornflakes rule'; remember the competitions on the back of the packet when you were a child? They specifically excluded 'employees of the Kellog Company and those of all its agents and associates' from entering whatever promotion was then current. One of the first things many businesses do, especially if they consider they have been the subject of an unfairly critical review, is to get their staff and 'friends' to write a positive review.  

• They are cherry-picking. Cherry-picking is defined in the CMA's regulations as the act of selecting those customers most likely to write a positive review - and it is illegal

• They are gating. Gating is defined as pre-qualifying customers in order to be sure of their attitude to the business before going on to formally invite them to post a review, not only is this behaviour illegal, it is against Google's own T&Cs.

• One subset of gating: email customers for 'feedback' ('the 'How did we do?' email) and then only invite those that respond positively to write a review

• Another: the 'customer feedback survey': send out the survey and then invite positive responders to write a review

• The most 'sophisticated': invite reviews to an independent reviews site that does not rank highly for given important searches, then invite those that rank the business 5* on that site to copy their review to the one site that matters (and is visible) above all others: Google

*illegal: reviews and their use are governed by the UK government regulator. For an analysis of these regulations read this article.


Google's attitude towards such behaviour

Google lives and dies by the quality of its search content; this means that it is constantly reassessing every relationship it has with the third-parties that deliver that content. Those third-parties range from individual businesses' websites to the reviews sites that currently belong to the Google ad partner scheme. This scheme was originally devised by Google to allow advertisers to attach their review ratings to their advertisements, but this was before two significant developments:

• Google aggressively entering the reviews market themselves
• Google becoming aware of the flaws - both regulatory and in terms of the potential for gaming - inherent in the reviews sites' business models and the potential for abuse by their business users

We understand that this scheme is now under review. 


Google reviews

Google reviews are by no means perfect, but they have significant advantages, both for consumers and for Google itself (and the regulators):

• they are 'open': anyone can write one at any time
• they are attached to a 'known user': Google can track the reviewer's other activity on the web

And for businesses:

• visibility - they appear in every search on the business
• longevity - Google is not going anywhere any time soon
• credibility - in the scheme of things, Google has far more than a paid-for reviews site

Our conclusion

Google will either drop entirely or severely restrict the use and visibility of external reviews scores in the near future.

Meanwhile, we would encourage businesses to report any examples of abuse that they encounter to the Competition and Markets Authority: onlinereviews@cma.gov.uk.

Reviews and your ranking in search - any correlation?

This is one of the $64,000 questions we are asked every day of our lives, and the answer is not straightforward - that is, unless you apply some simple logic.

To begin with, Google is hardly likely to publish its search algorithms any time soon - they are its most valuable asset, a bit like the secret formula is for Coca Cola. But if you diligently monitor the web, and read Google's blog assiduously, as we do, you begin to get a feel, along these lines...

• Google likes reviews - a lot. Over the past five years they have dedicated huge resources - and massive space in search - to reviews 
• Google really, really likes its own reviews - way above those of any other company - and it controls their relative prominence in search
• Google is aware that the US Congress is looking at their monopoly position in reviews - and it has come up with a clever solution: Google Partners

Here are just two pieces of hard evidence. This (from the Google My Business help centre)...

...and (this from a Google search)...

And what can we extrapolate from this?

• That businesses need to concentrate all their available energy on Google reviews
• That Google partners, from the point of view of most businesses, are a red herring, at least from a search visibility point-of-view
• That businesses should host independently verified reviews on their own websites

But, most convincing of all, let's look at some real-life examples of businesses that tick these boxes: they all have two things in common: they have great Google scores and numbers of reviews and they all have their own reviews on their own websites for Google to find (and in many cases pull through into search using the schema)...

Here's a business - with 112 Google reviews and another 137 on its own website - showing in a competitive local search...

...and another...

.

..given that the cost, in effort and in financial terms, is hardly prohibitive, don't you think it's time your business tried professional review management for itself?

Is your business a shining star in search?

Like this, in a search for 'estate agents in Weybridge'...

...or this, for Harringay - showing not one but two HelpHound clients leading the way...

...or this, in Blackheath...

..or even this, coming second and fourth in Guildford...

...and this, when searching on your business name (which untold prospective customers will do, even if only to find your phone number)...

And a new client? Farrell Heyworth joined in the last six weeks - and here they are already...

Now - we cannot guarantee that the Google schema (the mechanism that Google uses to pull reviews and star ratings through to search results) will work in every case and for every search term because it is dependent on just how your website is configured but it has to be a very nice bonus indeed! If you would like more detail just read this.

Stars in search - the holy grail of reviews?

 Could these cars be named 'Yelp', 'Tripadvisor', 'Trustpilot', 'Yell' and 'Feefo'?

Or the 'go faster stripes'?

As with everything we do here at HelpHound we look, as far as possible, for concrete proof before advising our clients.

And the only proof we have seen so far? It looks like this... 

...and sometimes even like this...

Our conclusion...

...is that, currently*, our clients' overwhelming focus should be on Google. Get stars there...

...and business will flow. Anywhere else (including 'Reviews from the web' above, and organic search, below)...

...is a bonus (but look at mobile search - used by over 70% of all your potential customers)...

..see any reference to anything but Google reviews here? No - but two ways of accessing Google reviews at a click (and the score and star rating immediately visible)

 ...and, until we see hard evidence to the contrary*, that is the advice we will give.


The Google schema

For those of a technical bent, here is Google's own definition. For mere mortals: the Google schema is a piece of code that can be attached to reviews that aggregates scores and star ratings and then displays them in [some] searches.

The Google schema is sold very hard by those sites that compete with Google in the reviews sphere; of course it is, it's virtually 100% of their off-site offering. It also gets Google off the hook when reviews sites complain about their monopoly position in reviews: 'Oh, but they can implement the schema for their customers, isn't that fair?'. Unfortunately (for that argument from Google and for the independent reviews sites), as much as some businesses - quite understandably - like to see their name in stars in as many places as possible, we have yet to see proof positive that they provide any meaningful competition for Google ratings and scores. They are a 'nice bonus', but that is all.

Our clients, where their websites have the capability, use the schema to good effect - stars show in local search (as they do for Greene & Co above), but no business should buy a reviews solution simply on the basis of the schema - in that context it is 'go faster stripes'.



*as most of our clients know, we are not backwards in coming forwards with advice - you only have to read the million plus words on this blog to know that, or, if you are not a client yet, speak to one (it also provides a written record of that advice - for instance, you could go back four years and see when we first started advocating Google as the best home for your reviews). Rest assured, if the situation changes, we will let you know - and advise accordingly.

The Google schema - an explanation of the issues

Background

The Google schema, as many of you will know, is a way of delivering your reviews scores into organic search. In this article we will show you its advantages and disadvantages and explain why we think it is being oversold by the independent reviews sites. We will also look at some of the issues of various kinds that web designers are having when they are asked to implement the schema on behalf of their clients.

First - let's look at it in action. First - for one of our clients (with the schema working and delivering):

  Here you can see that the schema has enabled Google to pull the rating (4.7), number of reviews (271) into two locations - organic search and 'Reviews from the web' and display a star rating in organic search

Next, for a business using an independent site (schema coded but not delivering):

The first point: that the schema is not delivering, is obvious from this screenshot, but there is a far more important point to be made: by adopting an independent reviews solution the business has been deflected away from the one place that all potential customers will be looking: on Google. It is far more important to look good there than on an independent site, irrespective of whether or not the schema delivers.

How do we know? Because here are the results for another search (admittedly not one that any potential customer is likely to make):

If the schema is not working for you, the solution lies with your web designer. You can be with HelpHound or any of the independent reviews sites but if the schema is not correctly implemented the result will be the same: no rating in organic search.

But don't rush to blame your web designer just because you think the schema may not be working - we see examples of correctly implemented schemas not working all the time, and then, just as we are about to call it a day, up they pop (and vice versa). 

The schema is imperfect

Day-in day-out we see examples where the schema has been correctly implemented but the results still don't show - or they show for one search term but not for another. Then they do show for a period, then they disappear again. You simply cannot rely on the schema - it has to be treated as a bonus when it is working.

Remember mobile search

Now that mobile search is so much more common than desktop (some estimates put it as high as 80%) it is important to remember just how much more important Google reviews are - just look at these two screens...

 ...and note the total dominance of Google, from scores and ratings to rich snippets. The schema has delivered 'Reviews from the web', but that, we say again, should be seen as a bonus. You core strategy must centre on having great reviews on your own website and great reviews on Google.

And in a local search?

Again - the schema is there, but Google is ever-dominant.


Further reading:

• There's so much to great review management - see a bang up-to-date case study here
• The consequences of employing an independent reviews site - here