Winkworth rank second in London - has HelpHound make a difference?

There are many thousands of estate agencies in London, and one might reasonably expect the 'big two' (Savills and Knight Frank) to dominate most of the league tables. So who held second place in the critical SSTC (sales subject to contract) rankings for 2019?

 Here's the full article.

Now, at HelpHound we are as aware as anyone that there are multiple factors that will have led to these results in what every commentator agrees has been a torrid time for estate agency. But we reiterate the question posed at the top of this article: 'did HelpHound make a difference?'

Before we attempt to provide even the vaguest answer to this question please take a look at any of our Winkworth members. Here's just one...

In specific Google search ('Winkworth Blackheath')...

That star rating at top left is derived directly from the reviews on Winkworth's own website, not Google as so many assume (as is the score and number of reviews). It's the same for 'Reviews from the web'.

In Google local search ('estate agent Blackheath')...

We'll never know how much Google's algorithm likes business's that host their own reviews on their website, but Winkworth appears to be doing something - actually an awful lot - right: leading the 3-pack and leading natural search (with the score and reviews and stars showing as above).

On their own website (crucial for those that don't arrive there via Google - through Rightmove, for example)...

Is this impressive? A hundred and forty people prepared to say 'use Winkworth Blackheath'?

When combined with the actual reviews...

...well, at least three people thought so - see the 'helpful' votes below the review - all garnered within a week of publication.

In summary

If your attitude is...

• our customers all ignore Google reviews
• our customers all ignore Google scores
• our customers all ignore our competitors' Google reviews, scores and rankings
• we don't care where we feature in organic search
• we don't care where we feature in local search
• we don't care what our Google rich snippets look like 
• we cannot be bothered to host reviews on our website*

...then you probably won't have read this far! So pick up the phone now and you will be well on the way to looking like Winkworth.

*occasionally we meet a potential client that assumes that we are offering some way of filtering negatives otherwise 'how can our clients look so good?'. They could not be more wrong. The CMA regulations expressly forbid 'cherry-picking' (selecting customers to write reviews) and filtering of any kind. Despite this, almost every business we meet is doing exactly that. For a simple guide to the regulations - and how to comply with them, read this.

Oh! - and while we're on the subject of the impact of 'looking so good' see these results, Google's numbers never lie.

Reviews - resolutions for success in 2020

It's 2020 and it's high time businesses were on top of the subject of reviews, after all they've now been around for nearly all of the - not so - new millenium. But many still lag behind. In this first article of the new decade we will outline what a) some of our clients still need to do and b) what other businesses should do.

Our clients

1.  Aim to have at least 100 reviews on your own website.

Front and centre, where potential customers cannot miss them...

With the number of reviews displayed alongside the 'write a review' button and a link to the verification agency (in this case: HelpHound), then all the reviews themselves a click away...

Note: the number of readers who found this review 'helpful'.

These 'stars in search' and the accompanying scores in the business's Google search are from those reviews, the company's own, not Google's...

As are these, in the most important search of all: local...

2.  Aim for at least 50 reviews - per location - on Google.

They show in every conceivable search. In the business's Google knowledge panel...

And in the rich snippets Google shows underneath...

3.  Then double both those numbers, as soon as you can.

4. Respond to all your reviews - on your own site and on Google. 

It is now a proven point that customers respond more positively to businesses that engage with reviewers...

A note on SEO: we will never be able to prove a connection between hosting your own reviews - not a review site's - on your website and a boost in SEO, but we can apply basic logic combined with a pretty thorough understanding of Google's published SEO criteria. Google likes changing content and it likes content that helps differentiate businesses for consumers, and what does both better than reviews? All we can say is that the overwhelming majority of our clients - irrespective of size and spend - do rank very well indeed in local search.

Other businesses

1.  Stop breaking the law. Seriously. We're betting most people reading this think it's still legal to selectively invite customers to write reviews. It is not. Read this.

2.  Stop breaking the law(2). It's not legal to use some kind of filtering system to try and ensure only happy customers write reviews. To be absolutely clear: you cannot send out a survey or email to find out which of your customers are happy and then only invite that subset to write a review; nor can you use a review site like Trustpilot to find those happy customers and then invite them, and only them, to post a review on Google. It's called gating and it is a) illegal in UK law and b) against Google's T&Cs. The CMA will fine you and Google will delete all your reviews. Read this.

4.  Focus on Google. Forget review sites like Trustpilot, Yelp and Feefo (most sophisticated consumers have) and get your own reviews to your own website and then to Google. More here.

3.  Embrace professional review management. It's inexpensive (less than three figures a month per location) and it pays back immediately. Read this.

Have a happy and successful 2020.

The kind of Christmas present no business needs

Bear with us - this story is about review management! But first, here is a piece in the Daily Mail (and many other publications have picked it up):

So what has this got to do with reviews? Let's look at how the business looks on Google today:

Those last two reviews have been posted by people that have read about the business in the press. Up until then, the business scored a 'perfect 5'. The article is responsible for them now failing the Google filter. 

Before (filter or no filter):

After (filtered):

Gone!


Urgent action the business should take now

1. Flag the two negative reviews.
2. Appeal both those reviews to Google - on the grounds that the reviewers have 'no first-hand knowledge or experience of the business under review'. It's not guaranteed to work, but, framed correctly an appeal does stand a chance.
3. Introduce a formal review management programme, designed to allow all their customers to write a review (in order to be in compliance with UK CMA regulations
4. Then aim to get enough reviews to Google to lift their score back above the Google filter. To achieve 4.5 - the filter's cut-off - they now need another nine 5* reviews and no more 1*s. To be safe then they need the programme to keep the reviews rolling in. 

What the business - and any other business finding itself in its 'pre-press outcry' situation - looking good but with few reviews - should have done:

1. Introduce a formal review management programme, designed to allow all their customers to write a review (in order to be in compliance with UK CMA regulations).
2. Then aim to get enough reviews to Google to lift their score way above the Google filter. We always aim for 50 per location for our clients.

Look at this similar business - an estate agent, again in Kent - what would happen to its Google score if it received two spurious 1* reviews?

Its score would drop - perhaps - to 4.9. That would still leave it a safety margin of 0.4 clear of the Google filter. And it's highly unlikely its great rich snippets - the three shorthand guides Google provides under 'Reviews' at the bottom of the knowledge panel (above) would alter.

It would still appear in mobile/map search, irrespective of the Google filter (see that at top left in red under the Google logo?):

An added bonus? When the press looked the business up on Google at least they would see they are great servants to the home-owners of the community; it might not snuff out an article like this, but it would certainly give comfort to anyone searching for an agent in the weeks to come.


The lesson

Don't wait until your business it the victim of negative reviews before you engage. Review management should be part and parcel of every business's marketing strategy these days. it's not expensive - indeed, it should make you money (our clients generally see an uplift in call and clicks through to their websites in the region of 20 - 30 per cent) - and it will provide an excellent first line of defence in cases like these.

London Capital & Finance - who still thinks reviews have no role to play in protecting consumers?

Continuing on our financial theme: a year ago this review of London & Capital Finance was posted to Google - and therefore visible to anyone searching online: 

We know, for certain, that at least 9 people have seen that review (see the 'thumbs up') and given that we reckon one thumb's up is equivalent to at least twenty views, the number begins to look significant). 

Meanwhile, in this week's news:

If the advice contained in that review had been followed by even one David Turnball then it must, self-evidently, be a good thing.

How to choose a wealth manager

This was the title of the lead article in this week's Sunday Times Raconteur section:

In 2020 you might expect some reference to researching using the net. But there is none. So we will pick up where this article left off. 

The article references 'the damaging closure of high-profile Woodford Investment Management' so we will just add another three 'high-profile' names that have featured in the press recently to start a list of our own: St James's Place, Hargreaves Lansdown and Lindsell Train; we will then go on to examine the online presences of all the firms quoted in that article, after all, won't every investor looking for a new home for their portfolio be searching online as a first step - even if only to find contact details?

And right next to those contact details, in every single search? 

That's right, the firm's Google score - in lights - and a link to their own clients' opinions of them. If you were searching for someone to manage your life savings, even if you have had the firm strongly recommended by a friend or colleague, or you know an existing client who thinks they are the bee's knees, wouldn't you want to read what their other clients have to say? We would. So let's take a look, shall we?

Woodford

St James's Place (head office)

St James's Place (a typical office):

Hargreaves Lansdown

Linsell Train

Chase de Vere

Mattioli Woods

Brooks Macdonald

Quilter Cheviot

Barnett Waddingham

Brewin Dolphin

Last line of the article? 'It pays to do your homework'. All we can say is 'good luck' researching these businesses online, you'll get plenty on past performance (and we know what everyone, including the regulators, says about that) but next to nothing from their hundreds of thousands of existing clients about service levels. Even those that score well - see Brewin Dolphin above, where none of their three reviews appear to have been written by a 'real' client and Barnet Waddingham with a score of 4.9 from seven reviews, ditto (five being worthless ratings, four of which have been written by points-seeking local guides) have made no effort to harness the power of online reviews for the benefit of potential clients.

The article contained this survey:

We're going out on a limb here, but surely those who value 'personal attention' and 'quality and reputation' might also place a high value on a business that went to the trouble to invite and display customer opinions like this:

And this...

And this...

Surely the most cynical investment manager is going to acknowledge that at least some of their potential clients might be reassured by seeing that in excess of 100 of their existing clients were prepared to put 'pen to paper' to voice their approval of their service?

So why don't they?

We did the obvious thing. We asked some. They responded candidly (having been reassured their responses would be published anonymously). Here they are...

• "We expect the responses - and ratings - to correlate with clients' subjective experience of the performance of their portfolios."
• "We expect that our unhappy investors will be much more likely to post - therefore unfairly skewing our image."
• "Many of our clients are simply not financially savvy enough to make a reasoned judgment."
• "Our clients will object to being asked to publicly express an opinion of our services."

And, more than once...

• "None of our competitors have engaged with Google reviews."

We mined further down. Why not? The answer, when pressed, was invariably fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of losing control. So here's our answer to that 'fear'.

Fear that clients will focus on performance

Performance is one - important - aspect of any investment management service. But remember that clients do not need the business's permission to post a review on Google. One surefire way to ensure a negative online impression over the long term is to leave the field clear for unhappy clients. Remember that the business can always respond to the review, and use that response to educate their potential clients as well as address the contents of the individual review. 

Fear that only those with an axe to grind will post reviews

This has been proven to be a 'false fear'; there is no evidence at all, across a range of high-value services where the business has proactively engaged. And that is the key: ignore consumers and the most disgruntle will post reviews, engage and happy loyal clients will way outnumber them.

Fear that clients don't understand financial services well enough to post an accurate review

This is where a service like HelpHound comes in. Our clients invariably invite their clients to write their review to them in the first place, this gives HelpHound the opportunity to moderate the review before publication. What is moderation? It is the act of checking a review for factual inaccuracies before it is published. Reviewers welcome it as much as our client businesses - after all, most reasonable people don't actively want to post an inaccurate or misleading review, they actually want to help their fellows make the right decision.

Fear that clients will resent being asked to write a publicly visible review

If anyone thinks that financial services are so sensitive as to be exempt from reviews then we would ask them to consider this client of ours, a Harley Street feminine health and wellbeing clinic.

There are perfectly reasonable grounds for this objection, after all, finance is a private matter. Our answer, based on extensive experience with similarly sensitive businesses, is that a - perhaps surprising - number of people are prepared, willing even, to share their experience for the benefit of their fellows. Remember that no one is forced to write a review, all that it takes is careful wording of the invitation (such experience we have in spades) making it quite clear to the recipient that their review is designed to help others and is entirely voluntary. 

No other financial services business has engaged with reviews

We hope we have made a strong case for reviews in the context of investment management and financial services. We are confident that the first financial services businesses that engage will see immediate benefits, in much the same way that estate agents (hardly the most popular businesses!) have done - here is the monthly report Google sends every business (we recommend you seek out whoever in your business receives it, the data it contains is invaluable):

Aside from your business's Google score which anyone can easily find by simply googling your business, it contains vital information on...

• how many people found your business in Google searches in the previous month (2,653 in this client's case)
• how many calls you received directly through Google (73)
• how many visits to your website came as a direct result of finding you in a Google search (90)

...and, perhaps most important of all, any uplift in these numbers (important because the uplift, in this case, was as a direct result of joining HelpHound).

Further reading...

• Thousands could lose their life savings - why reviews matter (this article was written well before the Woodford storm broke, but would have been just as relevant in that context)
• Estate agents were - understandably - wary about adopting a proactive stance with reviews; see what five of them say here
• Unfair, fake, misleading or just plain inaccurate reviews do no-one any good, and they can seriously impact a business. Here's the happy ending for a case involving a client of ours.

Inviting selected customers to write reviews of your business? - it's illegal

This article is aimed at two distinct audiences: clients who find they are competing with businesses that are flouting the CMA regulations and those businesses themselves.

The regulations

Most businesses (and all regular readers of this blog) are aware by now that two actions are illegal...

• selectively inviting 'happy' customers to write reviews - known as cherry-picking
• Using a filtering mechanism to identify such customers - known as gating

There's more on the detail of these regulations in this article. But, as with all laws, they are ineffective if enforcement is lacking. The CMA has much besides reviews on its plate, so, as is common with government bodies of this ilk (HMRC anyone?) they rely heavily on whistleblowers. Here is the kind of letter a whistleblower might easily, and with complete justification, write...

At this point, the CMA would be bound to open an investigation. The nature of this investigation will depend on the CMA's assessment of the severity of the infringement of its regulations. This assessment, in turn, will depend on the potential harm the infringement may do to consumers. Businesses playing fast-and-loose with reviews self evidently seek to influence consumers to take an action - with financial consequences - that they might not otherwise have taken had the business been in compliance with the regulations.


The CMA has teeth

In summary...

If your business is doing any of the following...

• inviting selected customers to post reviews to Google
• using any kind of mechanism to establish what kind of Google review a customer might write - a feedback system, another review site, a questionnaire, simple 'shop-floor' feedback from staff

...it is breaking the law (the business and its directors personally). You should stop any such activity immediately and seek advice on compliant review management.

Further reading...

• Google bans gating and sanctions businesses that engage in it.
• the CMA regulations - explained.

Google now invites visitors to your website to write a review

Google has expanded its outreach to your customers a step further. Now, when someone visits your website, they will get an invitation from Google like this:

The implications for businesses:

• Those that are currently ignoring Google reviews: you will begin to get them (Google Local Guides are incentivised to write reviews - see the 'level' and 'points' above and this article), and, given human nature, unhappy customers are about fifteen times as likely to post as happy ones. 
• Those currently using another reviews system: your dissatisfied customers will begin to post to Google, especially if they happen to be Local Guides. This is a syndrome we call 'deflection' and there is more about that here.

Our advice:

1. Adopt a proactive review management strategy. How ever much you and your colleagues are still saying 'who posts these reviews?' and 'what king of people pay attention to these reviews' you know the answer to the second question is certainly not 'no-one': apart from studies from the likes of Harvard Business School there is the amount of real estate Google now dedicates to reviews in search and the hard evidence from those that have adopted such a strategy (20% more calls and 30% more visits to your website anyone? See this case history).
2. If your review management strategy currently involves a reviews site (other than Google): change to a Google-focussed strategy (see the results of doing this in the link above - the client in this case study moved from a reviews site to adopt professional review management).
3. If you are currently breaking the law (and many businesses, wittingly or unwittingly are): conduct a thorough compliance audit to ensure you are not either cherry-picking (inviting selected customers to post reviews) or gating (using a more formal mechanism to identify happy customers - e.g. a survey, or even another reviews site - before then only inviting proven satisfied customers to post a review).