Reasons for NOT wanting to join HelpHound

Of course, almost any business solution has drawbacks, and review management is no exception. So rather than gloss over them, we wanted to address the reasons a business might not want to join HelpHound head-on. We hope businesses seeking a solution to their review management will appreciate our openness. 

In no particular order (as some will apply more to one business than another)...

Reputational risk

Proactive engagement with reviews, especially for businesses approaching the subject professionally and compliantly* for the first time, can be understandably alarming.

After all, inviting customers to leave reviews means accepting that not every review will be positive. The prospect of a damaging negative review — or, worse still, a succession of them — has historically led some businesses to shy away from engagement altogether.

Others have attempted to reduce the risk by selectively inviting customers they believe are likely to leave positive reviews, or by using some form of 'gating' — filtering customers according to their likely sentiment before deciding whether to invite them to post a public review.

The problem is that avoiding negative reviews doesn't make the underlying reputational risk disappear. And practices designed to influence which customers leave public reviews can create regulatory and credibility problems of their own.

This is precisely where professional review management earns its keep: encouraging genuine reviews while giving businesses the opportunity to identify and manage inaccurate or potentially misleading review content before it develops into lasting reputational damage.

* 'And compliantly': most businesses that we meet for the first time have addressed the subject of reviews in one way or another; they have asked their happiest customers to leave a review on Google or they have joined a review site, somtimes both. But they have almost always commited a breach of the CMA regulations in doing so. One of our first actions is to conduct a full audit of the business's current review exposure and management. For more on this increasingly important subject see 'The risk of getting compliance wrong' below.

 

Extra work/effort involved

If reviews are regarded as 'nice to have' rather than a core part of a business's marketing and customer relations strategy, then almost any work associated with them can understandably be seen as 'extra'.

Inviting customers to leave reviews, following up those invitations, monitoring reviews, responding appropriately and dealing with criticism all take time.

The question, therefore, is whether any return, in terms of new business acquired, customer retention and staff satisfaction justifies the effort.

For businesses where prospective customers routinely consult reviews before making contact (high value service and professional businesses especially), reviews have moved well beyond being a marketing accessory. They influence first impressions, enquiries and, ultimately, new business. They can also play a big part in ongoing customer retention (many clients ask for reviews on a periodic basis, simply because they find the approach works better than other forms of CRM).

An effective review management system should therefore reduce unproductive workloads rather than add to them.

 

The risk of getting compliance wrong

Businesses are becoming increasingly aware that reviews are now subject to consumer protection law and the attendant regulatory scrutiny (by the CMA in the UK) that has teeth*.

That awareness can itself create reluctance: Are we allowed to ask for reviews? Can we choose whom we invite? Can we moderate their reviews? What action can we take if a customer posts something unfair, misleading or inaccurate?

These are legitimate concerns, particularly as regulators have increased their focus on practices that may distort the impressions delivered to consumers.

But doing nothing is not necessarily the safest response. The objective should be to have a review process that is transparent, compliant and demonstrably fair to both the business and its customers. In full compliance with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (which came into force on 6 April 2024) and the CMA's own enhanced regulatory and investigatory powers. 

For many businesses, having an independent review management process in place provides valuable reassurance on precisely these points.

*Teeth: up until the above mentioned Act of Parliament and the advent of AI investigative tools, the CMA had focused its regulatory efforts on the likes of big pharma and the construction industry; the combination of the greater powers in the Act (including the ability to fine businesses up to 10% of their annual global turnover) and the adoption of AI investigative tools working night and day, 24/7, means that all businesses are now in the crosshairs (we are monitoring this current regulatory action, which includes an investigation into a review site and one of its clients, and will report the resuts here, as we have done in the case of the recent EU 4 million fine imposed on Trustpilot for misleading consumers).

 

Conflict with an existing review solution

A significant number of UK businesses already pay for some form of review solution.

Those businesses may understandably be reluctant to question a system into which they have already invested considerable time, effort and money. Nobody particularly enjoys being told that something they have been paying for - perhaps for years - may no longer be the most appropriate solution.

But the relevant question isn't whether the previous investment was wasted. It is whether the solution being used today delivers what the business needs today: genuine reviews, regulatory compliance, effective management of customer dissatisfaction and maximum benefit from the review platforms that prospective customers actually consult.

Changing course doesn't invalidate what went before. Sometimes the market - often prompted by the law - simply moves on.

One important note here: Most review sites and solutions were in place before Google introduced its own reviews. Most would not have been 'invented' had they known that Google would come to domintate the reviews market to the extent it has. One major focus of our advice focuses on review management for the long term, and that often means Google, even if it sits alongside others. Google will almost certainly be here in five or ten years time; who remembers Qype (Europe's largest review site until it was swallowed up by Yelp! in 2012, Yelp! itself then withdrew from the UK and Europe in November 2016)? 

 

Cost

Google reviews themselves are free. Professional review management is not*.

There is a cost attached to independent moderation, customer feedback management, monitoring and the systems required to manage reviews effectively and compliantly.

So the calculation is straightforward: does the value justify the cost?

That value shouldn't be measured simply by the number of reviews generated. Businesses should consider the value of protecting their reputation, identifying dissatisfied customers, resolving complaints, improving their Google presence in search and converting more prospective customers into enquiries.

For some businesses, those benefits won't justify the investment.

For others, the cost of not managing their reviews properly may be considerably greater.

*Here are HelpHound's charges. And, just as importantly, our guarantee of success. 

So why join HelpHound?

We will show you abundant proof of concept before you decide whether or not to join, but just look at the example below and ask yourself, 'What would the impact on our business be of looking as good as this, in full compliance with the law, and without any ongoing costs apart from HelpHound's monthly fee?'

And the AI search for the 'best estate agent'?

The objections above are understandable and reasonable. If a review management company pretends there is no cost, no work involved and no reputational or regulatory risk (indeed, any of these), businesses would be entitled to be sceptical.

The point of HelpHound isn't to pretend those issues don't exist. It is to manage them.

Last, but definitely not least: in order to manage your reviews (through our moderation process), they will be posted to and hosted on your own website. And another significant bonus? Unlike Google or sites such as Trustpilot, you will retain ownership of your reviews.  

To help businesses safely invite genuine reviews without the need for cherry-picking (or gating); to prevent, as far as is possible within the rules, inaccurate, misleading, malicious or just plain unfair comments from seeing the light of day; to identify and resolve customer dissatisfaction; to reduce the administrative burden; to help businesses operate within the rules; and, ultimately, to turn reviews from something businesses worry about into something that actively supports their reputation and marketing. Something that makes all the stakeholders, from staff and management to customers, both existing and future, proud of their choice of business.

And that, we suggest, is the strongest reason to join.

The CMA's new powers - fail one question and your business is vulnerable

There have been three important events in the last eighteen months regarding online reviews that every business should be aware of:

• The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 gave the CMA vastly increased powers to sanction businesses misusing online reviews
• The CMA has invested in AI software to speed up the identification of businesses likely to be in breach
• The CMA has begun taking action, initially regarding five businesses (one being a review site), where it considers there have been potential breaches

Below is a checklist, in the form of the five questions to which the answer will be a simple 'Yes' or 'No', so you can identify if your business is in breach, and therefore what action it needs to take, if any, to avoid sanction by the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA).

1.  Does your business selectively invite customers to write reviews, either to a review site or to Google (or both)?

2.  Does your business employ any mechanism - a formal survey or a simple 'were you happy with our service?' type email to identify 'happy customers' before inviting them to write a review? 

3.  Does your business have control over the timing of reviews written by your customers?

4.  Can your customers only write reviews of your business if specifically invited to do so?

5.  Does your business use a review site - Trustpilot, Feefo etc. - to identify those customers most likely to leave a 5* review and then invite those, and only those, to post a review to Google?

If you cannot answer 'No' to all of the above five questions, your business is in breach of the CMA's core regulations*.

*We cannot, of course, make any promises as to any course of action the CMA is likely to take in any individual case, but logic indicates that businesses that have taken steps to correct breaches, or that were in breach in the past but are no longer, are unlikely to be the first targets for regulatory or legal action by the CMA.

What will the CMA do?

First: what it will not do: the CMA will not warn any business that it is about to become subject to either investigation or sanction; it will consider that its press releases over the years have provided sufficient warning.

Past history indicates that the CMA is highly unlikely to initiate action against a business and subsequently find it not at fault. The CMA will only initiate action where it considers that it has a watertight case. 

CMA fines, even before the 2024 Act gave them the power to levy fines of up to 10% of a business's turnover, were never insignificant. The case of the four Bristol estate agents that were fined £370,000 for illegal price-fixing is instructive in this regard.

The 'we're too small/insignificant' argument that we have heard so often in the past ceases to hold water now that whistleblowers, combined with the CMA's own AI, make it economically viable for the CMA to sanction businesses regardless of size. From our discussions with the CMA, resources are a critical factor, and anything the CMA can do to bolster these or show HM Treasury that its ROI is providing a positive financial impact will undoubtedly be viewed positively.

Our advice?

It couldn't be simpler: comply with the CMA regulations. Now. 

How?

We fully understand the reasons why businesses have cherry-picked (invited only customers they were certain would write a positive review) and/or gated (pre-qualified customers before inviting only those likely to leave a 5* review) in the past. Inviting 'everyone' was considered a risk too far. But the benefits of having a great score, especially a great score on Google, were just too obvious to ignore.

Unfortunately for such businesses, that option was never on the table: the CMA's regulations have expressly forbidden such a strategy for many years now. One can see the CMA's logic: how are consumers to trust a business if it is somehow able to filter reviews to ensure that only those that show the business in a positive light ever make it onto the web? On top of that, how are consumers to trust reviews as a whole?

This has, until now, given a great many businesses a stark choice: avoid engaging with reviews altogether or flout the CMA regulations. The first sacrifices far too many benefits (increased enquiry rates and lead flows, social proof and SEO, to name but a few). It also runs the increasing risk that a minority of disgruntled customers can 'capture' a business's online image. 

The second of those is no longer viable, as we have explained above. The risk of sanction is now just too great (and the sanctions are far too severe to contemplate). 

Achieved thanks to moderation - search 'estate agent Kingsbury' and see how this business shines in full compliance with the CMA regulations

That's where moderation - the act of employing an external moderator to ensure reviews are as accurate and reflective of the reviewer's experience of the business as possible*, comes in - it's an extra expense, admittedly, but one that will a) ensure compliance with the CMA regulations and b) protect your business from factually inaccurate, potentially misleading or just plain unfair reviews. 

*Moderation relies on the cooperation of the reviewer. In our long experience, an average of 7 reviews in 100 require intervention of some kind by our moderators, to invite the reviewer to correct errors of fact or rewrite a potentially misleading comment. In only 3 cases in 100 where our reviewers become involved does the reviewer decline to do so. Put yourself in their position: who, knowing the business will post a response to their review, will persist in writing one that contains inaccuracies?

The 'Perfect Business' - does it need moderation?

We come across these less and less these days. Why? Not because businesses have become slacker, but because more and more consumers have come to understand the power a single well-crafted review has - especially if written on Google - to hurt such businesses.

We continue to encounter many businesses whose perfect Google score of 5.0 has been impacted by an inaccurate or misleading negative review. Some might reasonably say, 'But that's just one among dozens (hundreds even)', and they would be mathematically correct. But consumers have also learned how to read reviews: these days they will often select the 'lowest' button...

...and if the reviews they then read are credible, they will often move swiftly on to another similar business.

How do we know this? Because of the urgent calls we receive from businesses where a single negative review, often inaccurate and sometimes unfair in the extreme, has resulted in their inbound enquiry flow falling measurably. Retroactive review management - known as 'reputation management' in the trade - is far less effective than proactive moderated review management.

And Finally...

Even when businesses understand all of the above, they are left asking one crucial question: 'Does this mean we have to actively invite every single one of our customers/clients/patients to write a review?'

The answer is 'No'. The 'golden key' to review management is twofold: first, an intimate understanding of the CMA regulations and then this button, allowing anyone to review your business when on your website...

To see this working live - both the 'Write a review' process and the 'What is HelpHound?' explanation, click here

...the key word here is 'allow'. This makes your review management practice compliant. The CMA understands that there are circumstances where a business wouldn't want to proactively invite a customer to write a review, but they do require you to provide a mechanism to 'allow' them to do so. We probably don't need to repeat it, but all reviews written by people clicking that button are sent directly to pre-publication moderation. How much better than a factually inaccurate or misleading review on Google?

Further reading...

• How the CMA uses its direct enforcement powers

HelpHound - the COMPREHENSIVE solution to reviews for ALL businesses

Regular readers will have seen all the Google AI scrapes posted here in recent months. One theme has been consistent: the comparison of HelpHound with Trustpilot. Here's a typical example...

Not 100% accurate - our reviews are incorporated into your Google listing, not under (or not at all):

Our client leading local search (in a very crowded marketplace) with their stars and rating highlighted (arrow); see Trustpilot anywhere? Quite.  And we should be quite clear: we moderate every single review, but we will only intervene if a review contains factual inaccuracies or has the potential to mislead a future reader, we do not - and cannot, by UK law - intervene simply because the reviewer is 'unhappy'.

And so far, so good. We are delighted to be singled out as the best review management option for high-value professional businesses, because that's exactly what we developed HelpHound to be (not, as some other solutions - no names - as a way of confecting a score of 4.5 to be used in marketing).

But here's the thing: a business doesn't have to choose between HelpHound and the review sites, be that Trustpilot or one of the myriad out there - Feefo, reviews.io, Yelp, Tripadvisor, or one of the industry-specific sites (Trusted Trader and so on) - if we (and our client) decide that they need a profile on one of those sites, then we will manage that as well. 

We have a high-profile client that looked great on Google and on its own site, but noticed that Trustpilot was attracting reviews from those that had - often unfounded or the result of misunderstanding - negative opinions. This was driving the business's score down to a point where competitors were able to weaponise it against the business in question. Unfairly. Funnily enough, the business also had an inbound sales call from Trustpilot offering 'help' too.

What did we do, together?

First, we pointed out the following:

1. The business's Trustscore (Trustpilot's name for the rating) could be improved without having to pay Trustpilot
2. That the business owned their own reviews, and could do whatever they liked with them, and that included asking their customers to copy them across to Trustpilot
3. That their Google score was of paramount importance, notwithstanding Trustpilot's pitch as to visibility in search. Google's own reviews always take pole position in search and Google is the search engine of choice for well over 90 per cent of the UK population, and it commands 98 per cent of UK mobile search

Second, we implemented - jointly - the following strategy:

• We first set up a test: we asked a percentage of customers who had written a review to the business's own site to copy it to Trustpilot
• We measured response, and then we calculated the number of positive reviews that would be needed to restore the business's Trustscore to good health
• We switched the repost request away from Google to Trustpilot for a percentage of customers for a period of weeks

Result?

The business's score on Trustpilot restored to well above 4 ('Great' in Trustpilot terminology). All for no extra cost. Diary note to repeat the procedure at intervals in the future.

So, our objective on behalf of all our clients:

First...

...to enable them to safely - and compliantly - invite reviews to display on their own website and use in their own marketing

Second...

...to get as many of those reviews as possible across to Google, to ensure a really impressive presence in competitive searches there

Third, and it is a distant third if we are honest...

...to look good on the review sites that matter to our client without incurring any extra costs

One more important consideration

Both Google and HelpHound are designed to host reviews and score a business per location. If a business has multiple locations, it is essential that the consumer can discover how the customers of that specific location feel about the service they were provided, and the service they can expect. Trustpilot charges significant fees for multiple listings, which is why it is so rare to see individual branch/office/outlet scores hosted there.

Conclusion

So, we repeat the title of this article: HelpHound works for all kinds of businesses, and it works more effectively and more comprehensively than any other review solution. Think of us as a review broker, in the sense that wherever your business needs reviews, now and in the future (remember Qype or Ciao, anyone?), we will enable you to get them there. If that means to Trustpilot, fine; if that means on Yelp!, so be it. But, just for the foreseeable future, at least, we will almost certainly continue to focus on enabling our clients to positively glow on Google, and in the relevant Google searches.

HelpHound or Trustpilot? Your questions answered

The starting point for this article is important; online reviews can make or break a business. So let's first define that starting point. It is easiest done by listing all a business's objectives when moving from passive to active review management ('passive' being just as it says, waiting for reviews to appear on whatever platform and then - perhaps - reacting to them). 

Objectives with active review management

1.  To encourage customers to post their opinions where they will be seen by the most potential customers

2.  To ensure that those opinions reflect the reality of the business as closely as possible

3.  To ensure the absolute minimum of factually inaccurate or potentially misleading reviews are written, anywhere

4.  To comply with the law, in whatever jurisdiction(s) the business trades

By now, some will be thinking, 'Can we add the following?':

5.  Prevent negative reviews from appearing anywhere

6.  Especially on Google

And finally...

7.  To have a solution that serves both business and consumer in the long term 

So now let's see the difference between Trustpilot and HelpHound, taking each point above in turn...

1.  Visibility

Trustpilot                                                          

Trustpilot is a strange animal when it comes to visibility. Most - all? - businesses want their reviews to be seen by the most potential customers, but for searches on a specific business - 'ABC estate agents' or a generic class of business '[best] estate agent [near me], the two most popular searches on Google, Trustpilot rarely features, and Google invariably does. 

A review site that doesn't feature in most searches? How does that help either businesses or consumers? Our client, by the way, is the business leading both map and local search, and the only one showing the rating from its own reviews - not Google's - in organic search.

In addition, if a consumer searching for a type of business in their area were to visit Trustpilot and search, often the results are unhelpful in the extreme. Here is a search for 'accountant in Exeter' (Google lists over seventy)...

 

HelpHound

Our objective, on behalf of all our clients, is to have them show as they deserve in the important searches. Here is an example of one in the crucial generic, or 'map' search ['business type'] in ['location']...

The overwhelming majority of those 570 Google reviews of Winkworth in Kingsbury have been subject to HelpHound's moderation, which is specifically designed to eliminate, as far as is possible, factually inaccurate or potentially misleading reviews or review content before publication. Long-term statistics prove that this is effective in over 97 per cent of cases.

...and in organic search...

This is perhaps the most important screenshot in this article: hosting your own reviews - those 761 reviews indicated by the red arrow, gathered with and moderated by HelpHound - gives a really great SEO boost and provides wonderful social proof. It also enables the business to feed moderated reviews onwards to Google, with a significant proportion of the 761 reviews you see here finding their way to Google (almost all the 570 shown in the previous screenshot).  Our client would be the first to confirm that their score would be at least a couple of points lower in each location in the absence of HelpHound's moderation. And we know just how much our clients value the 5 gold stars highlighting their businesses in competitive searches. How? Because occasionally Google turn them off by mistake, and when they do, our clients invariably call us within minutes!

2.  Opinions reflect reality

Trustpilot

The most recent review of Trustpilot, on Trustpilot. 14 per cent of all reviews on its own platform rate Trustpilot at one star. That's nearly 60,000 1* reviews. Many are similar in tone and content to the one above.

So many Trustpilot reviews contain little or no information that is helpful to a prospective customer. We have pondered this long and hard, and the only conclusion we can come to is that Trustpilot's paying business members use push text to invite reviews; we know that this reduces word count and quality dramatically from when we conducted a live test for a client some years ago

Even the most cursory of web searches reveals that Trustpilot receives considerable criticism for aspects of its operation that hinder genuine opinions from being posted. One can see the logic of a system that seeks to verify reviews and reviewers, after all, inaccurate negative reviews unfairly harm businesses, but Trustpilot's mechanism manifestly works against consumers (especially those reluctant to divulge their true identity to the business under review**) and, importantly, in almost certain contravention of the UK CMA's regulations (see below). Again and again, even on their own platform, we see consumers complaining that their reviews are not published. 

**At first, this - insisting the customer use their real identity - looks like a good idea; only experience proves that such a strategy drives reviewers, especially those intent on posting a negative review, however misguided, straight to a place where their review will be accepted under a pseudonym. And that place? Invariably Google.

It also has an unintended but highly negative consequence for Trustpilot's paying business customers: suppose you are motivated to write a negative review of a business (and, believe us, there is no more motivated reviewer than one that wants to write a negative review!), but you are prevented from doing so by the platform, in this case, Trustpilot? A win for the business, some might think. But in reality, quite the opposite: these days, most consumers know that they can write whatever review they like on Google, so a significant proportion of those prevented from writing their honestly held opinion on Trustpilot will go on to do exactly that, where it will be far more visible (as well as, we suggest, credible). 

HelpHound

Reviews written on a HelpHound client's website. Detailed and therefore helpful.

And copied to Google...

Every review written through HelpHound is moderated; read by a human being, not machine-read or read by AI. This ensures that no misleading or factually inaccurate reviews are published. Unless the reviewer decides. And that last phrase is key: it keeps the decision firmly in the hands of the consumer - and therefore compliant with CMA regulations. This does not mean that reviewers publish reviews that contain factual inaccuracies or misleading statements, far from it. Just read any HelpHound reviews and you will notice three things: that the English used is well above average for the web (our moderators correct spelling and grammar); that they are more detailed than the average (the way we suggest our clients invite reviews leads to that) and, if critical, they are far more constructive than most negative reviews on other platforms. 

3.  Minimising factually inaccurate or misleading reviews

Trustpilot

Quantity over quality. For years, the stock markets valued review platforms on the basis of the number of reviews they hosted. So those platforms targeted volume. But consumers have wearied of reading valueless reviews such as those shown above, written by messrs Patil, Butler and King and their ilk. This may go some way to explaining the poor performance of quoted review sites' shares recently...

HelpHound

Moderation. Again. It is the only way. Consistently accurate reviews serve everyone: the company, its customers and its future customers. We are proud that, however far back you go, you will find all our clients' reviews have the following in common...

• they are overwhelmingly accurate in their depiction of the standard of service the reviewer received from our client's business 
• they are longer and more detailed than the average online review, and thus more helpful for future customers
• they contain few errors - either grammatical or spelling

 

4.  Compliance

Trustpilot

There's far more to compliance than simply complying with the CMA regulations. The reason the regulations are there in the first place is to protect consumers, but they are also there so that businesses that don't flout them can mobilise online reviews to drive their businesses.

There are currently far too many businesses - some large nationals and multinationals - who would appear to have bought Trustpilot on the basis that they would be able to challenge - successfully - negative reviews. 

Why, one might well ask, does this company, like so many, reference its Trustpilot score in its advertising? Perhaps a look at Google will provide the answer?

This is a case where a compliant solution - inviting all one's customers to write a review to the most visible site on the entire planet would have been the best advice. But then Google won't allow businesses to 'flag' reviews...

It is easy to see what has happened - sixteen out of nineteen reviewers (all writers of negative reviews) 'didn't respond to Trustpilot's request to resolve the breach of Trustpilot's guidelines'. That sounds very official, doesn't it? In practice, what has happened is that the business has asked Trustpilot to ask the reviewer to provide documentary evidence to support their review. And the reviewer has declined to do so. 

This is where Trustpilot comes very close to breaching the CMA regulations, by denying the consumer the right to have their genuinely held opinion published 'unless they provide documentary evidence'. Think of the situation the reviewer is in: they wish to post a critical review of their financial adviser or their medical practitioner, are they likely to want to have their personal details divulged to a third party for onward transmission to the business under review?

Bear with us now. Read this recent review of Trustpilot on Trustpilot:

If this were an outlier, we might take little notice. But look at all of these...

...and then consider the fact that they were all written in the last week. And not a single one has elicited a response from Trustpilot.

HelpHound

We have consistently maintained that the only way to engage with reviews and comply with the CMA regulations is to have those reviews moderated. Any system that demonstrably deflects negative reviews simply because of their rating must, by definition, be against the spirit, if not the substance, of the law.

Everything we do complies with the CMA's regulations, and not just because we want to comply with them, but because we believe that compliance adds massively to the credibility of our review management service and online reviews in general.

5.  and 6. Preventing reviews from appearing anywhere, and especially on Google

Trustpilot

Somewhat bizarrely, focusing on Trustpilot has enabled many businesses to deflect negative reviews away from Google. But that is to use reviews for an entirely wrong purpose. Reviews exist to help consumers choose the right business - sometimes a business that can have a life-changing impact (think medical, legal, financial and similar). They don't exist for businesses to manipulate them, and, as a direct result, those who rely on them. The first question any business should be asking itself is 'Why are we not concentrating on looking great on Google?' and there is only one answer to that question, which is 'We should be doing exactly that.' Why pay a review site when Google reviews are more visible, more credible and, added to those two clinchers, free?

HelpHound

By now, we are all agreed that having a great score and a great review presence overall on Google is the number one aim of any review management strategy. So how does HelpHound prevent negative reviews from appearing anywhere, especially on Google? By enabling the business to invite all of its customers to write a review on the business's own website and then to Google (the latter is by automatic invitation by HelpHound). And then moderating them fairly and professionally. Look at this business...

A score of 4.9 from 571 reviews is impressive in its own right. But we all know estate agents. How come they have just seven 1* reviews? With all the misunderstandings that can arise, whether buying or selling, letting or renting (and we all know moving house is one of the most stressful experiences one can have). The answer becomes apparent when we read the business's responses to the least flattering reviews: in a tiny minority of cases, they put their hands up and simply apologise, but in most instances the reviewer would have benefited from moderation; there has been a completely understandable misunderstanding that would have been resolved if the reviewer had taken the opportunity to write their review through HelpHound rather than direct to Google, as the overwhelming majority have been encouraged to do by this client. A considerable bonus of this system is the fact that it also, in the majority of cases, prevents an irrevocable split between the business and its customer. 

7. Long-term success

Naturally enough, when businesses first embark on active review management, they focus on 'putting their house in order' as soon as they feasibly can. But the wrong short-term choice(s) can severely impact - even put off - long-term success.

Trustpilot

The central issue with Trustpilot is exactly the same as inviting customers to write reviews directly to Google: it is impossible to eliminate inaccurate and potentially misleading reviews 'after the fact'; once that kind of review has been posted, it will, with vanishingly few exceptions, remain on the site. Even if the business can answer whatever criticism the reviewer has made, however erroneously, the review's score will remain to impact the business's overall score. In addition, there are severe compliance implications, because businesses or their staff will often succumb the - illegal - temptation to cherry-pick happy customers to invite to write reviews*. Besides opening the business up to regulatory action, such activity is very easy for competitors to identify and mobilise.

HelpHound

Moderation - again. There are two reasons why all our clients' businesses are so accurately reflected in their reviews - on their own websites and on Google. The first is that they are invariably great businesses (badly run businesses tend to adopt one of two approaches to online reviews: they either bury their heads in the sand and ignore reviews or they cheat - we use that word advisedly - to look good).

Surely a business in this sector must understand that potential and existing clients would appreciate a more proactive approach to Google reviews? Even a response to this review, which Google considers the 'most relevant', must surely be better than silence?

And finally...

At HelpHound, we make no bones about being a commercial entity. Still, we fervently believe the best way to drive our business is by being completely honest and transparent in what we, and our clients, do regarding our and their reviews. Great review management not only reflects well on the business concerned, but it also imposes discipline on each and every member of management and staff as well. We know of no client of ours that is not more efficient and effective as a direct result of adopting professional review management.

If you are still thinking, 'Why not simply substitute Google for Trustpilot?' then ask an additional question, such as 'Why did we not do that before?' The answer to that question would almost certainly be along the lines of 'If we had done that, then we would inevitably get the kind of inaccurate/misleading/plain unfair reviews that HelpHound's moderation is specifically designed to enable our customers and us to manage between us before any kind of review is posted.' 

Further Reading

• Moderation - a full explanation

• *Compliance - the CMA regulations and how to comply

• CMA to use AI to identify businesses flouting their rules regarding reviews

• Reviews for sensitive and complex businesses - essential reading for those in the financial, medical and legal spheres

• What price great review management? Full fee scales here

• Our guarantee of success