It's no longer a secret that in the digital age, companies are under the watchful eye of consumers, and as such, Google reviews play a crucial role. They influence the choices of potential customers and shape the reputation of establishments.

However, I recently identified an emerging problem, often ignored, which nevertheless deserves particular attention: this is what I call the two-speed Google rating, characterized by establishments which seem “doped” with ratings of 4.9/5 for example and an enormous rating volume, versus establishments stuck at 4.2/5 and an almost non-existent rating volume.

How can we explain such gaps, for establishments whose customer experience and quality are not necessarily poles apart?

The Emergence of Neo-Establishments

Neo-establishments, these new entrants to the market, whether they are trendy bakeries, brand-new restaurants or even new brasseries, seem to benefit from a disproportionate advantage in terms of rating compared to historical players, who is not only linked to the “honeymoon” effect relating to their recent opening. They benefit from two main levers : the integration of innovative digital tools coupled with incentive strategies. And these two levers raise several questions, particularly on an ethical level, whether for the consumer, or for healthy competition in a given market.

Digital Tools

The first lever consists of using digital tools which give establishments a definite lead in terms of reputation. So far, nothing shocking, it is up to each company to monitor the tools made available to it, and to use them if necessary. The problem is when the use of this tool favors one competitor over another, without the end customer knowing that there is a statistical bias linked to this tool. Let me explain.

To illustrate the point, we can mention for example payment at the table, a functionality offered by hyper innovative start-ups whose efficiency and agility I salute in passing. Concretely, when paying the bill, the table payment tool very simply invites customers to leave a note at the establishment, on social networks or on Google for example.

Regarding the process, regardless of the incentive to leave a Google review, payment at the table is a revolution for catering, in the same way as taking orders at the table or at an order terminal, and even more so for sit-down restaurants, with all due respect to the eternal conservatives who are allergic to any innovation in countries such as France, and who mean that abroad, everything goes faster, and everything is more practical than elsewhere. here. But let's move on to this subject.

This payment technology at the table requires the customer to leave a note in a super simple and hyper intuitive way, where an invitation by the waiter or the merchant to leave a note “manually” would have had a much greater chance of remaining a dead letter. Indeed, it is laborious for the customer to search for the establishment in question on Google Maps for example, publish a good rating, and even worse, leave a comment, especially for a purely functional consumption such as a coffee or a croissant for example. example.

This type of tool therefore induces rapid and often biased collection of opinions, mostly positive. Indeed, the convenience and immediacy offered by these tools encourage satisfied customers to leave instant feedback. This creates an influx of high grades which, although legitimate, represent only part of the customer experience.

Conversely, and this is where it is really pernicious, it is that if the competitor – or to be less controversial, the neighboring business – does not use and tool, it will not only have a number of very lower rating than the one who benefits from this advantage, leading the end customer to believe that he does not have a loyal clientele and that he is therefore necessarily worse than the other, but he will also have a rating inherited from all reviews published voluntarily by the loyal customer. However, we know that reviews published voluntarily by customers without facilitation by technology are generally much more critical, especially since reviews on the Internet sometimes act as a complaints office.

Interest

In addition, some establishments offer incentives to encourage customers to leave positive reviews. These rewards may take the form of promotional codes, free products or other benefits. Although this practice is increasingly widespread, and is ultimately fair game, it raises ethical questions. Are the opinions thus obtained truly representative of the experience lived by the customer, or are they influenced by the promised reward?

Historic Establishments: A Penalizing Legacy

Conversely, historic establishments often find themselves at a disadvantage. They carry the weight a Google rating accumulated over several years, influenced by a period when negative opinions were more numerous. Before the advent of today's digital tools, dissatisfied customers were more inclined to express their dissatisfaction online, thus creating a negative bias in the ratings.

The Burden of Bad Reviews

These establishments must therefore deal with a history of marks which may seem unfairly harsh. Unlike new establishments, they do not always have access to the same digital tools to quickly improve their online reputation. Additionally, they are often seen through the prism of their past opinions, making it difficult to improve their image without considerable effort.

And I'm not even talking about the cognitive bias which consists of giving a good rating to an establishment whose rating is already very high, via what we could call "social proof", namely that if this establishment is all the rage, is that it has to be good, and going against the grain of that is very psychologically costly for the consumer.

Unfair Competition?

This dynamic creates unfair competition between new establishments and historic establishments. The former, armed with modern technologies and incentive strategies, can quickly build a favorable online reputation. And if they inherit a bad review from time to time, it really means that there is a problem with the consumer in question, and their average rating remains intact. The latter, on the other hand, must struggle to overcome accumulated negative biases and the absence of effective digital tools. And for these, it is the positive opinion which is in fact an event. When they have a good rating, it's really because the consumer loved the experience, and not because they gave a good rating to give a good rating when checking out online, or to win a gift .

Towards a Fair Solution?

All this leads me to think that it would be good to rethink the evaluation system to offer a fair chance to all establishments, perhaps with the following ideas:

1. Transparency of opinions : Google and other review platforms should require a clear statement of the incentives offered for reviews. This would allow distinguish incentivized opinions from spontaneous opinions.
2. Weighting of opinions : The platforms could set up weighting algorithms which would take into account the date of the review, the frequency of reviews left by a user, and the impact of digital tools. Thus, a review submitted via a real Google search would have more weight than a review submitted tersely through the intervention of a third-party application.
3. Encouraging spontaneous opinions and raising consumer awareness : Promoting the spontaneity of reviews, possibly in the press, and raising consumer awareness of reviews posted by third-party technologies would make it possible to lower the odds a little and inform the end customer, particularly in the current extremely difficult times for local traders. It would be a sort of civic economic act to help local businesses face the giants who have the means to equip themselves and boost both their rating and the attendance of their establishments via advertising and press relations.
4. Support for historic establishments : Provide resources and training to help but also promote historic establishments and in particular “old” merchants (whether the age of the business but also the real age of the merchant) to adopt new technologies and marketing strategies. online reputation management.

In the photo illustrating the article, a simple and good meal eaten in a famous chain of meat restaurants, which paradoxically, despite its weight, must face big obstacles in terms of opinions compared to larger brands. youth :

• The “social proof” of the brand which is much less impressive than the fashionable neo-brands. In other words, it is psychologically easy and inexpensive for the consumer to slap the knuckles of a brand considered “historic”, because the brand does not benefit from the “honeymoon” effect of a “trendy” and pseudo-innovative brand, regardless of the quality of the product sold.
• The typical costs of large structures (hygiene, HR training, headquarters, communication, etc.), higher than more agile medium-sized brands, which has an impact on the selling price, and of which the consumer has no idea. Which makes the latter more demanding.
• The choice to sell meat at a good quality/price ratio, which immediately costs much more than products based on wheat cereals, dairy products or even quality vegetables.

And many other problems that I will perhaps have the opportunity to substantiate in another post…