CONSUMERS WANT GOOD AND BAD REVIEWS
90% read online reviews.
72% trust positive reviews.
30% suspect censorship when there are no negatives.
81% say negatives make positives more believable.
Reviews can guide purchase decisions, especially when no one in your circle can offer a recommendation. Since only a fraction of consumers post online, it’s important to recognize that those opinions are far from representative of the whole. Endless opportunities to voice opinions online create a cacophony of conflicting views that can be more confusing than helpful. Here are some considerations to discern the valid from invalid.
Businesses feature reviews to promote products or services. Amazon is among many to include both the positive and negative. Those that filter negative comments do so for the same reason hospitals don’t advertise the fact that every day, 1 in 25 patients will suffer from at least one healthcare-associated infection. Broadcasting the possibility of an unsatisfactory outcome may elevate concern disproportionate to need. Life-saving treatment should not be avoided for fear of secondary risks. Similarly, retailers accept that products may contain a manufacturing defect, become damaged during installation, or lost in transit. Yet publicizing the chance of disappointment is not nearly as helpful to consumers as providing relief for those situations.
Biased Reviews
Overwhelmingly consumers award the highest ratings to premium brands, indicatting marketing campaigns have stronger impact than product testing. Consumer Reports, the non-profit publisher of product tests and reviews has declined in authority thanks to consumer reviews posted directly on seller sites. This is disturbing given the magazine’s esteemed reputation for factual reporting versus unverified reviews allegedly posted by consumers.
Negative sites encourage angry reviewers to vent or seek revenge. They are not in the business of consumer education, advocacy, or protection. Like the film industry, they know that drama sells. Sites dedicated to negativity have grown in number, though not in popularity. Professional product reviewers are pragmatists who shun the ilk of haters and rage-quitters populating negative forums for being uninformative.
Yelp is criticized for filters that can exclude positive reviews, resulting in an extremely skewed purview. PissedConsumer mimics RipOffReport, a site that strictly prohibits positive reviews. Plagued by lawsuits over defamation and disclosure, RipOffReport launched a Corporate Advocacy Program. As the name makes clear, the program is not for consumers. To change negative reviews to “verified” status requires a hefty initial fee plus monthly fees for the lifespan of the company. The tactic preys on business owners who have had the misfortune of having their brand named on RipOffReport. Little scrutiny is required to determine whether RipOffReport reviews are legitimate or manufactured to market its highly lucrative exploit and extort scheme. The backlash in promoting retribution is that the number of complaints against RipOffReport on competitor PissedConsumer’s site continue to climb.
As for-profit enterprises, sites that permit positive reviews are inherently bias toward advertisers. The merger of Angie’s List and Home Advisor created an advertising behemoth for home improvement contractors. Partiality is unmistakable when companies are permitted to incentivize consumers with discounts or giveaways to receive 5 star ratings. Spending marketing dollars on an industry-specific site for favorable ratings and page positioning effectively converts consumer reviews to paid advertising.
Fake Reviews
Search “pay for reviews” and discover a plethora of businesses that post fake reviews for a fee. By paying a team of individuals or using bots it is easy to populate numerous sites with fictitious or anonymous reviews, and to do so repetitively. Ghost reviews can successfully advance a product, service, individual, or political agenda. As the IT community continues its quest to advance data algorithms that learn, adapt, and predict, the ability to discern an authentic opinion remains a human function.
Google’s sophisticated algorithms cannot determine whether a comment is prompted by a disgruntled employee, contractor, competitor, or personal grievance unrelated to the product or service but privy to details. Nor can it track the number of times the same reviewer posted under alternate identities. Many sites have policies against fictitious identity and falsified statements but given the volume of posts these violations are rarely enforced.
Worth Remembering
Just as reviewers comprise a mix of personalities and expectations, a company is a group of working people with feelings about their efforts and reputations—collectively and individually. Consumers and businesses must not forget that some members do not represent the whole. It would be unreasonable to treat all customers like the one who could never be satisfied, or to assume that all carpenters track wood glue through the house. Poor reviews are costly in terms of lost income or jobs and unfair when fault lies elsewhere. Such was the case when Martina Lowell-Suarez lost her supervisory position of 16 years at a major cosmetics manufacturer in New Jersey. “An employee was terminated from my department for publishing a trade secret. It appeared in a review that we had taken down, but it took me and my family down, too.”
Few genuinely aggrieved customers give venting priority. The majority seek resolution in the form of restitution or change assuring future improvement. Savvy consumers and businesses alike understand that collaboration achieves better results faster than a flurry of online posts or a team of lawyers.
In life each of us receives both positive and negative reviews. It depends on who you ask and when. As one kindergartener explained, “She was my friend, but not today, and on Saturday she’s coming to my birthday!” Opinions and relationships really do ebb and flow. The best we can do is learn from constructive criticism and let the remainder roll off our backs like water from ducks.
When evaluating the opinions of others, keep these factors in mind:
Relevance How closely does the review align with your needs? The salon with low ratings from color or perm treatments may provide outstanding haircuts at great prices.
Time Products and services change, so recent reviews have the greatest value.
Quality Is the review truly intended to help others? It’s hard to be practical when upset. Look for rational comments that set forth facts. If attempts to resolve the issue failed, the reason should be clearly stated.
Quantity A boutique will never match the number of reviews received by a retail chain. Keep comparisons proportional as in Home Depot and Lowe’s.
Authenticity Manipulations are difficult to detect, even for sophisticated web crawlers. Before reading reviews, determine which sites merit your time by searching “complaints about [site name]”. Disregard sites that permit anonymous reviews as they are likely to be marketing platforms. A comment from “John D.” lacks any credibility, so ask the business if you can speak with that customer. If a review seems helpful but you question its veracity, search for other posts from that user. Red flags include multiple reviews on different sites or incongruent details. Did that person really purchase 4 camcorders this year, or is it a bot? Suspicious, too, are reviewers who rave about one business and trash competitors.
Video Testimonials This is an excellent opportunity to see and hear the reviewer and is most reliable when the full name is included. It is much easier to weigh words while gauging the speaker’s tone and body language. Even the most camera-shy person conveys a naturalness that few Oscar-winners can replicate.
Seeking Satisfaction
After conducting research and making your purchase, should you experience less than 100% satisfaction, pause before posting. Contact the business directly and promptly. Waiting to address an issue dilutes its importance. A refund policy, satisfaction guarantee, or established procedure like Ebay’s successful dispute resolution process offer consumer protection. Gruffly informing a waiter that the soup arrived cold is immature and may get you hot soup with an added ingredient. Present your concern respectfully so that it can be taken seriously.
Hostility can backfire with waitstaff, and even small companies have the resources to extinguish consumer heat. If you believe you can leverage a deal thinking Tim’s Tree Trimming is competing with Larry’s Landscaping, think again. They are likely friendly competitors who service each other’s customers during peak season. Calling Larry a loser online could get you shut out of local help from his cousin Pete’s Plumbing. Know that frustration occurs on both sides. When businesses respond to reviews, few disclose how uncooperative a customer is. Vinny Scialpi of Marinetti On Top said “Three times they scheduled us to fix the chimney but were never home!” Companies need resolution as much as consumers do.
Anyone who has said the wrong thing to a loved one (hopefully) learned that hurtful words can cause lasting damage. Publicly airing a dispute makes problem solving much harder. Review sites are the worst venue for dispute resolution. To get what you really need, set aside emotion and take a conciliatory approach. Be prepared with helpful information such as original packaging, dates of calls with name of representative spoken to, photos, and suggestions to move both sides toward a solution. You’ll be pleased by how effective this is, and how much better you’ll feel. As Chicago Bears founder George Halas said, “Nobody who ever gave his best regretted it.”
Green Eco Solutions 