This is actually just
listening to your customers, and caring about them enough to respond to them thoughtfully. If you get a bad review, you still respond thoughtfully.
Why do we have to make it into some buzzword salad term for some “strategy” powered by pseudo-academic research nonsense? Anyone that has actually ran a business could verify it.
The paper is not about listening to your customers at all, it is suggesting ways to make negative reviews seem ridiculous so that negative reviews actually form a positive impression.
I think the takeaway is to make your critics look like hyperbolic dimwits by being nice and using real names. It not obvious this is the best rebuttal strategy. I see companies often get hyper factual and cold with responses to negative reviews. When responding to a negative review, you are writing not to that person, but rather to the audience that reads reviews.
Right, which in both disingenuous and impersonal. You could just read reviews, personally answering them, which I think would be the best policy. But this seems like a way to game it all instead of actually just being authentic. I guess if you can’t package it into a template it’s too much work.
> Why do we have to make it into some buzzword salad term for some “strategy” powered by pseudo-academic research nonsense?
Presumably because there are some people who are driven to action only by buzzwords, not common sense; so this is a way for the common sense-driven to convince the buzzword-driven of the wisdom of the common sense course of action.
One strategy that I employed after getting a nonsensical 2 star review was having two friends write two 1 star review with honest positive comments. People sorting by most critical review will still see positive comments and assume the low ratings is because of accidental clicks. Is it moral? I don't know, but I didn't ask to be included on a review site and be affected by the words of strangers either.
I got a feeling that unfair negative reviews work for reason different than "empathy". Seeing a 1-star review, it is safe to assume the person writing it was very angry and tried to make the review as bad as possible. Which means that things not mentioned were quite good... well, good enough to not stand out.
That is, when I see in the review that unreasonable expectations of some guy were not met, I kinda assume that reasonable expectations were actually met, and that busyness / service is worth checking.
To put it in very non-scientific terms: people love an underdog. If your business is flourishing and someone leaves a negative review, eh, you're doing good. But if I see someone do a 3-star for some corner bodega that just happens to be one that I visit - oh, I must right this wrong with a 5-star review.
It's impossible for my instincts not to kick in and push me into rooting for the 'little guy' or someone who's been unfairly wronged. (Whether they were wronged fairly or unfairly is a matter my instincts leave for later.)
Anecdotal data, but for some of our products we sell, only such "unfair reviews" ever received comments from other shoppers (either pointing out the mistake, or straightforward ridiculing of the reviewer). I have a mixed opinion on it in regards how it affects customers considering our products, since one to have to make an effort to go beyond stars-value. But on the personal level it certainly makes me feel better (almost as much as handwritten thank you cards =))
This is me. When I stay at cheap hotels that have bogus reviews like “small room”, I’m very inclined to leave more positive and realistic reviews, and even to be more understanding of them. Usually this leads to being treated better and it’s a win on both sides.
This is actually just listening to your customers, and caring about them enough to respond to them thoughtfully. If you get a bad review, you still respond thoughtfully.
Why do we have to make it into some buzzword salad term for some “strategy” powered by pseudo-academic research nonsense? Anyone that has actually ran a business could verify it.
I think the takeaway is to make your critics look like hyperbolic dimwits by being nice and using real names. It not obvious this is the best rebuttal strategy. I see companies often get hyper factual and cold with responses to negative reviews. When responding to a negative review, you are writing not to that person, but rather to the audience that reads reviews.
Presumably because there are some people who are driven to action only by buzzwords, not common sense; so this is a way for the common sense-driven to convince the buzzword-driven of the wisdom of the common sense course of action.
No. We don't live in a moral world, though.
That is, when I see in the review that unreasonable expectations of some guy were not met, I kinda assume that reasonable expectations were actually met, and that busyness / service is worth checking.
It's impossible for my instincts not to kick in and push me into rooting for the 'little guy' or someone who's been unfairly wronged. (Whether they were wronged fairly or unfairly is a matter my instincts leave for later.)