Purplebricks - a condemnation of review sites

 This article appeared on Property Industry Eye this morning...

But, should you look at Purplebricks' review sites of choice...

But, you may well say, those scores - 4.4 from Trustpilot and 4.5 from Feefo - are more than respectable. Why are allAgents so hard on them and why does Purplebricks accept it needs to improve 'quality of service to our customers'? Maybe a look at their Google scores - where they are available - may help?

Here's London...

And their HQ in Solihull...

Oh! - and here's another review site that they don't belong to...

And the aforementioned allAgents...

Now, we don't propose to go into any more in-depth analysis of the whys and wherefores of all the above, simply because we think we've already given most people enough information to come to the conclusion that subscribing to a review site can make even a business that rates so low on Google and other review sites look great. 

There is only one review mechanism that is open to all without interference from the business under review and that's Google. And our sincerely held view is that consumers are best served by reading a business's Google reviews and being guided by a business's Google score.

That goes for businesses as well: how can you justify - to the regulators, to your potential customers - using any other review mechanism but Google?

Google also happens to be seen by everyone when they search - that's unless the business has made strenuous efforts to make its Google reviews as invisible as possible. So why would a business pay for a review solution that comes a very poor second - in terms of both visibility and credibility (not to mention transparency) - to Google reviews?

Purplebricks Canada - what on earth were they thinking?

'A former employee told Forbes:  “When I received the email I was disgusted that Purplebricks thought it necessary to cheat to get reviews. They asked us to get friends and family, who had never used the service, to post 5-star reviews online, focusing on Google and Facebook, and I was even more disgusted to find that so many of my colleagues went along with it. It’s deceiving to the public.” '

It is also illegal. The full Forbes story is here

On one level this was patently a considered attempt to mislead the Canadian public into using Purplebricks - we have to assume by someone at a pretty senior level (the Puplebricks statement makes no mention of dismissal, which would have inevitably been the sanction if it had been perpetrated by a junior member of staff). But the story should not be seen in isolation, Purplebricks have other questions to answer...

How about 'Why are you using reviews generated and written by your UK customers to support your Canadian marketing?':

And 'Are you gating* to ensure you look good on Google?':

Given that this is what your UK operation looks like:

*Gating: using one or more filters to pre-qualify customers to ensure only those customers most likely to write 5* reviews are invited to do so. Illegal in the UK under CMA regulations and in breach of Google's terms of service...

We have two more questions for Purplebricks relating to the use of reviews in the UK:

1. Why do you invite customers to post reviews to Trustpilot and Feefo and not Google?
2. Why are you using both of those platforms?

If we get an answer to any of the questions posed in this article, from any reliable source, we will post them here. Meanwhile, if you want your business's reputation to remain intact...

• comply with the CMA regulations - to the letter - and Google's too
• use Google, not a review site 

And, if you want to sleep at night, employ a professional review manager, preferably one with a moderated system.

Purplebricks adopts a second reviews solution - why?

Purplebricks' latest TV advertisement - it references their Feefo score at the end...

The ongoing saga of Purplebricks and reviews continues. Regular readers will be familiar with the 'story so far' (those of you new to our blog can catch up here); in short: Purplebricks used Trustpilot and then announced - back in December 2017, that they were changing to Feefo. Now we understand that they will be continuing with Trustpilot and also using Feefo. To reiterate the question in the title of this article: 'why?'

To attempt to answer this question (feel free to comment, anyone from Purplebricks, Trustpilot or Feefo, or indeed anyone else who thinks they may be able to shed light on this intriguing situation) we will examine the available facts and attempt to draw some conclusions that will be relevant for businesses struggling to decide on the right reviews solution.

Purplebricks and Trustpilot

The facts:

• Purplebricks have over 57,000 reviews on Trustpilot, and they break down as follows...

• Trustpilot is an 'open' review site, that means that anyone can write a review at any time
• Purplebricks are - as at today's date - still 'collecting' (see top right of the first screenshot), in other words 'inviting', customers to write reviews to Trustpilot. Indeed, twenty-eight reviews have been posted there in the last twenty-four hours alone

Purplebricks and Feefo

The facts:

• Feefo is a 'closed' site, meaning that a customer needs to be invited to post a review 
• There have been two reviews written to Feefo in the past twenty-four hours

So much for the facts. Now to the questions...

1. Why use two reviews sites?
2. Why so many more reviews to Trustpilot than to Feefo?
3. Why not use Google?

Which we will attempt to answer...

1.  Why use two reviews sites?

We can only assume that 'testing' continues. Maybe one day Purplebricks will decide on one or the other, we will monitor the situation. 

Our comment: As regular readers will know, at HelpHound we believe that systems designed for online retail, where transactions tend to be in the tens or hundreds of pounds at most, are not sophisticated enough for services where hundreds of thousands of pounds are at stake in every transaction. We firmly believe that high-value businesses such as estate agency (and financial services, wealth management, legal and medical services, and so on) owe it to all their stakeholders - especially their customers - to invest in proper professional review management (which, ironically, need not necessarily cost a penny more).

2.  Why so many more reviews to Trustpilot?

Purplebricks told Property Industry Eye that they have been 'live' with Feefo for some months. According to their listing on Feefo the first review was posted there seven months ago. One might expect some time would be taken to integrate a new system across the business, but the flow has been fairly even since day one.

Our comment: it would appear that Purplebricks staff may currently choose which solution to use to invite their customers to post a review. What we do know is that they are still overwhelmingly choosing Trustpilot for this purpose but are referencing Feefo in their marketing. If you were working at Purplebricks, which route would you choose for your 'happiest' customers?


The most significant side-effect...

What we can say, beyond a shadow of doubt, is that using a reviews site is harming their image where everyone is looking, on Google...

No amount of positive reviews on any reviews site will counteract an image like this on Google. Why? Because anyone seeing a business that looks like this on Google - and reading the content of the overwhelmingly negative reviews - is going to bother taking the next step (reading the reviews on the reviews site).

It's called 'deflection' -  and there's a whole article devoted to it here. But, in essence, it's very simple - your happy customers write reviews to the place you ask them to, your unhappy customers write to Google. And unless your marketing and review management strategy takes that vital point on board then your business will suffer.

3.  CMA compliance issues

The CMA regulations exist to ensure that consumers are not misled by businesses manipulating reviews. The full regulations - and our analysis of them - are linked to under 'Further reading' below, but suffice to say that there is a really easy litmus test: ask yourself 'does the reviews solution we have adopted/have under consideration give us any advantages over the consumer - can we challenge, control, delay or otherwise influence the publication of our customer's review?' And that includes having an 'invitation only' system. If the answer is yes - your business is non-compliant.

Oh! And before any of you get the idea that selectively inviting customers to post to Google is a good idea ('cherry-picking' the regulators call it) please read the last paragraph of that 'deflection' article very carefully...

Further reading...

• The CMA regulations
• Deflection
• Is a reviews site strangling your business?

Purplebricks and Trustpilot - and now Feefo

We wish someone from either Purplebricks or Trustpilot would tell the world what is going on. Why? Because we - and many others, if the flurry of comments on estate agency news sites and forums is anything to go by, are intrigued, to say the least.

At HelpHound we moderate thousands of reviews every month - and have done for longer than some of us care to remember, so we know what a genuine review looks like. 

Something like this (don't be thrown by the differing designs, most of our clients have bespoke reviews feeds)...

Or this...

Or this...

Or this...

Or this... 

...and what do they all have in common? They invariably refer to details of the transaction - sale or letting. In fact the word 'sale' appears in every one - and we haven't cherry-picked them, they all come from page one of each of the clients' reviews.

In contrast, here are some of the most recent reviews of Purplebricks (again, all from page one)...

What do they have in common? They don't include details of the transaction, and the word 'sale' or 'completion' is notable by its absence - the closest one gets is the last one that mentions the 'sales process'. 

Odd? Well it certainly goes against our experience - if anyone thinks they know the answer please don't hesitate to comment here.

...and now Feefo

This is their latest advertisement in the trade press:

  A score of 4.1 is just 0.2 away from failing the Google filter

Bear in mind that this screenshot of Romans Basingstoke's Google knowledge panel will have, we assume, been carefully hand-picked, what does it show? It shows, yet again, that if you employ an independent reviews site you will drive negative reviews to Google. There are eleven like this a click away...

...going to prove that you have to choose a reviews solution that focuses on Google.

Purplebricks - the Emperor changes its clothes?

   More of this article here for Times subscribers, and here is today's PIE article (be sure to read the comments)

Today Purplebricks announced that they will be 'adding another independent reviews site': Feefo. This raises at least two important questions: Is it possible that Trustpilot have resigned? And why Feefo?

We will probably never know the answer to the first question (only time will tell - but Purplebricks are highly unlikely to be using both at the same time), but we can make a pretty accurate guess at answering the second.

What is the difference between Trustpilot and Feefo?

  

 Whatever the merits (or otherwise) of the Trustpilot system when applied to the Purplebricks business model, there's no contradicting this search

Simply put: the first is an 'open' site - meaning that anyone can write a review at any time of their choosing, the second is a closed, invitation only, site - meaning that the business controls both the timing of the invitation and the identity of those invited to review.

There are weaknesses in both systems:

'Open' site:

• if absolutely anyone can post a review the site is open to abuse - by competitors, disgruntled ex-staff and even the business itself.  Other open sites - TripAdvisor and Yelp are two obvious examples - are often criticised for number of this type of 'fake' review they host. We are familiar with all the 'solutions' these sites have for this issue, from Yelp's 'review filter' to TripAdvisor's 'flagging' - and they all have one thing in common: they favour the paying business over the consumer - and that's why we've never felt able to recommend any open review sites to our clients

'Closed' site:

• a much rarer beast, partly because it goes against - in the UK at least - the spirit of the CMA rules (that state that consumers should be allowed to write reviews at a time of their own choosing) - and partly because it, wittingly or unwittingly, hands considerable power to the business. Why? Because it is reliant on the business supplying it with all its customer's email addresses.

More on closed review sites...

They work pretty well for online retail (at least, they do now, now that they have found a way of separating reviews of the product in question rather than the courier used by the business!): the shoes get five stars? - buy them, one star? - avoid. But do they really add value for consumers? - are we not interested in more than just how the purchaser felt about the shoes straight out of the box? Did they wear well? With a 'closed' system the purchaser has no way to go back six months later to say the heel fell off.

Now let's look at the effect of 'cherry-picking' (the habit of only inviting 'happy' customers to write reviews). Online retailers don't bother - why should they? - all their products score 4.5 out of 5 and if they occasionally list one that scores badly they just drop that product line. As a result they are pretty well guaranteed to be compliant with the CMA's rules. But a service business? That's a whole different kettle of fish. 

Service businesses tend to be 'high-value-per-transaction/low-turnover' and that has massive implications where reviews are concerned. Just one convincingly-written but factually inaccurate review has the power to significantly harm a business - to stop the phone ringing. So, given a closed review solution, what is this kind of business tempted to do? You've got it - they are 'careful' about who they ask to write a review. They cherry-pick. And as soon as they do that all credibility flies straight out of the window. Who only wants to read what a business's happy customers think of it? No-one, that's who.

Our guess, and it is only a guess, is that criticism of the way Purplebricks were perceived to be using Trustpilot has led them to choose a closed system (or maybe it's the 959 negative reviews - six in the last 24 hours; it will be interesting to see how Feefo's results compare), for all we know the same criticism has led to the management at Trustpilot back at their HQ in Copenhagen to review things too. We will be monitoring what happens next very closely.

Purplebricks CEO Michael Bruce is quoted as having said "Partnering with Feefo demonstrates our commitment to growing customer trust and it is another step towards greater transparency in estate agency. Customers and brands alike trust Feefo because they know Feefo reviews are the real deal."

"Greater transparency"? We will be keeping an eye on how many non-completes are invited to write a review. "customers ...trust Feefo"? Rightmove's recent survey said only 2 in 100 recognised the brand - some way to go, but we'll see if working with Purplebricks boosts that number - and in which direction.

Meanwhile - for those considering either an open or a closed system - don't. The only place you should be looking to get reviews is on your own website and on the 'open' site of all 'open' sites: Google. And luckily that's where all your potential clients will be looking.

Now all you have to do is find a system that will enable to do that with total credibility and without exposing your business to unfair, inaccurate or misleading reviews (or attack by your competitors) - welcome to HelpHound!


Further reading...

We're guessing that most of you reading this article don't want to end up with two reviews solutions - or even one wrong one! - so here is a little more to help you...

We humbly submit that there's only one way to look like this - and be able to look a prospective client straight in the eye when they ask 'How?'

• Rightmove - Get reviews to Google and your own website
• How Resolution™ minimises the risk of inviting misleading or factually inaccurate reviews
• The unintended consequence of using an independent site - looking bad on Google
• Concerned about inviting customers to post reviews direct to Google? You should be: read this
• Your business is judged by the company it keeps - and that includes your reviews solution 
• How our clients defend their choice of review manager

 

AllAgents suspend listing of Purplebricks reviews - who next?

This appeared on PurpleBricks' page on allAgents today...

What has happened? Well, first let us say that we know no more than has been published on PIE. But from that, we gather that “allAgents received correspondence from Purplebricks’s legal representatives threatening legal action if we do not remove 71 negative reviews. allAgents has decided to action their request pending further investigation.”

Things have, it appears, quickly moved on to complete suspension. 

We make no comment on the merits or otherwise of either party's case, but we will be following this story with interest, not least because allAgents are by no means the only site that carries reviews - negative of otherwise - of Purplebricks and every other business on the planet. If Purplebricks can get a reviews site to take down its reviews which business and which reviews site is next?

Trustpilot - which is Purplebricks' review site of choice - itself released an 'open letter' that is quoted in full on Estate Agent Today. 

Our take...

Reviews are meant to help consumers make decisions, but there are often marked differences between reviews sites (above), and Google and those reviews sites...

Again, we make no comment as to the accuracy or veracity of the reviews that make up these three distinctly divergent scores, except to say that we don't know quite where they must leave the average consumer.

As regular readers will know, we at HelpHound have always had issues with independent reviews websites - it is very difficult indeed for an independent site to market a service that is seen as actively encouraging dissatisfied customers to post publicly visible reviews - and many have mechanisms that are designed to address this very issue. The trouble is that some of these mechanisms can be seen to give rise to potential differences when checked against the Competition & Markets Authority's regulations.


Our solution...

There is no need for a business to use an independent reviews site. Adopting proper professional review management gives a business a much more flexible solution - and enables the business to get reviews where they will do the most good (and there's no doubting they do good!) and that is currently on the business's own site and on Google.


Update 20 September...

An article in the Times today.

As of today, Trustpilot's entry for Purplebricks US looks like this...

With all but one review looking like this...

And - a simple click through to Nick Smith's Trustpilot profile shows this:

What is anyone to make of a review site where the business has to report the review to the review site it employs? Did anyone at Trustpilot have the slightest inkling that a reviewer with a .co.uk email address may possibly not have sold a property in California. More to the point, did Trustpilot - do Trustpilot - know that Purplebricks only launched in the US last Friday? 

Purplebricks US site looks like this (currently)...

Now, we can only say what HelpHound's policy would be in this case, and that is that we will only allow our clients to show reviews that are directly attributable to the location in question. You open a new office in Cardiff - you better start getting review from clients in Cardiff, because we are not going to allow you to show reviews from your Bristol office! If a consumer sees a HelpHound verified review on a business's website that review will be of that business in that location...

Reviews of Winkworth in Kennington - nowhere else.

In conclusion...

We are sorry if the tone of this article is verging on the intemperate, but here at HelpHound we work very hard to ensure that we, in conjunction our clients, manage their reviews in such a way as consumers are able to rely on them: if a HelpHound client looks good it must be because they are good.

We understand that reviews sites are under considerable pressure - on the one hand from some businesses that think it is 'unfair' that people can 'write what they like' about them and want the review site to bend over backwards (and bend the rules - both the CMA's rules and the rules of natural justice) to help them - and on the other from Google; the canal companies were not thrilled when railways came along, but come they did. 

Google and professional review management are now the solution businesses need - with a sideways glance at Facebook too - and if that means that the independent reviews sites fall by the wayside, then so be it (there was a massive hint that this was happening when Yelp left the UK at the end of last year).



Latest (21 September): 

Property Industry Eye "allAgents mount criticism of 'miffed' Purplebricks"

A new notice on Purplebricks' listing on allAgents



Please feel free to comment on this article - link below - and subscribe - centre right - so you can be sure to receive every article as it is published. If you need more information email fiona.christie@helphound.com.

Purplebricks in the news again - our take on agents' comments

Here's the article on PIE. We suggest you read it first, then we want to focus on some of the comments made by agents. Here we go:

Point: agents should respond with their own 'propaganda' - their clients' opinions of their service - on their own websites and on Google. If you, like the agent who made the comment above, have 15 years' of blameless trading under your belt you should have no problem inviting and displaying them with confidence and credibilty.

 

 If a potential client visits your site and sees a significant number of independently verified reviews how much more likely are they to ignore other agents' marketing and pick up the phone?

Point: Boards are great, but agents should acknowledge that the first port-of-call for fee-earners these days is the web, even if the boards have made a great first impression. Looking great there - with great reviews and rich snippets and a great Google score - should be a high priority.

 It doesn't matter how the potential client finds out about you - board, local reputation, referral, personal knowledge, previous client, sponsorship, advertising, PR - they will invariably search for you on Google. When they do you want to look like this

Point: without knocking specific sites, regular readers will know what we think about independent review sites - if you don't you can read this - and that we advise our clients to focus on looking great where it matters most: on their own sites and on Google.

To summarise

By adopting professional review management you will ensure a safe and steady flow of reviews to the locations on the web that matter - your own site and Google. 

Results: your should notice the difference immediately. You can't possibly get the instruction without the enquiry, and looking great in these two locations will drive enquiries - guaranteed.

How could a review like this not result in phone calls - and support commission rates?

On top of that you will have a cast-iron resource to refer to when the subject of fees is raised - what better justification for your fees than your clients' own comments.