Storytailer

STORYTAILER LLC
CHAPEL HILL

Google+ Ditches Zagat Ratings, Returns to Consumer Friendly 5-Star Ratings

By

Google can’t seem to make up their minds. That being said, they sneakily introduced a change that I believe most businesses (and consumers) will welcome.

In May of 2012, Google implemented their Zagat rating system which was confusing for both businesses and consumers. The 30-point system just didn’t make sense to most people including, most importantly, consumers.

As you can see by visiting any Google+ local page, they have reverted back to the 5-star rating system. Ultimately, this makes more sense as not only is it easier for the business to understand why their rating is what it is but a consumer intuitively understands what the number “means” in relation to reviews left by other customers.

The biggest thing is that it seems to have been rolled out completely in that the rating now exists inside and outside Google maps and whether you are logged into Google or not and you don’t need to have an upgraded listing as a business owner.

For the score to show, your business must have at least 5 reviews, however.

It isn’t quite updated everywhere yet. It’s still showing the Zagat score in the old version of Google Maps and in Google+ Local search results but I anticipate that this will all be conformed in due time.

I, personally, welcome this about face and think it’s good for both businesses and consumers.

What are your thoughts?

[Note: Thanks to 3GEngagement for the tip!]

The Game-Changing Google Program Auto Dealers Can’t Afford to Ignore

By

Google’s online ventures are usually anything but under the radar. Yet recently, in what may be a game-changing play, the search engine giant quietly entered the third-party lead provider business for car dealerships.

The beta version of Google Comparison Ads for Autos (which is unofficially being referred to as “Google Cars” within the industry) was launched to very little fanfare a few weeks ago in the San Francisco Bay area. The service invites participating dealers to send their inventory to Google, allowing consumers direct access to inventory, price comparison, and the ability to request quotes from within Google search results. As shown below, the program—and associated inventory—is prominently displayed on page one of a relevant search.

While the program is currently limited to dealers within the San Francisco Bay area, program-specific search results are available throughout the state of California, not just for people located within the Bay area—contrary to what others are reporting. As evidenced by the above screen-grab, I did not have to change my location to get Comparison Ad results, and I live almost 500 miles away, in Southern California.

Google is currently testing a number of similar Comparison Ads programs for other products, including credit cards, CDs, and checking and savings accounts. Results have been controversial, with many advertisers in these industries reporting dissatisfaction, especially since Google is not obligated to play by its own rules and is, in effect, competing with its own advertisers. In November 2011, Google temporarily suspended its Comparison Ads service to the mortgage industry with plans to reboot the program after revamping it.

While specifics of the program for auto dealers have yet to be announced, Google is promoting the new service with the following program highlights:

“Higher-quality leads: Our leads come directly from motivated, purchase-ready consumers who have specifically chosen to contact your dealership. Leads are unique, never resold, and delivered immediately to you.

Free inventory listings: You can have your inventory shown to consumers on Google for free, even if you decide not to receive leads.

More than just inventory: Consumers can choose to connect with you even when you don’t have a specific car in inventory. We know that you can order the car, dealer trade, or find other solutions to help consumers get the cars they want.

Greater control over leads: You choose how much you’re willing to pay for a lead and target consumers based on distance and specific type of car, so you get the leads that are most valuable to you.”

This is all the information that Google currently has publicly available about the program. However, the operational processes used in the suspended Comparison Ads program for mortgages may offer additional insights. Here’s a run-down of how the program functioned:

1. Google looked at maximum bids placed by each competing bidder and then set a reserve price based on those bids. Once set, the reserve price was the minimum fee bidders would have to pay to appear on a desired search results page.

2. Anyone bidding below the reserve price was dropped from the auction. Google also dropped the bottom 10% of bidders who bid at or above the reserve price.

3. Results were then displayed (in this industry’s case) from lowest to highest APR. This leads me to believe automotive results would be displayed with the lowest prices first.

Furthermore, this is how, in an unlisted video, Google described the highlights of the program to the mortgage industry:

• The ads were included in the “Sponsored Listing” section but are not counted in the AdWords auction.

• Pricing was pulled directly from the companies’ “pricing engine product feed,” which would presumably be the equivalent of a dealer’s DMS or pricing tool, and updated multiple times per day.

• Bids could be highly targeted to reach the consumers most likely to convert, and an advertiser could place different bids for each targeted criteria.

Google mentions that they are working on a different ranking system for the mortgage program (one of the reasons provided for its suspension) in which Google will reward high-quality advertisers using factors such as:

• Accuracy of offers as determined by mystery shopping

• Turnaround time on lead follow-up

• Customer satisfaction as measured by surveys

It is probably safe to assume that Google will eventually apply these ranking criteria across all industries serviced by their Google Comparison Ad program.

Google is promoting the Comparison Ads for Autos program as a way for dealers to source fresh leads from consumers’ Google searches, but given the above information I have several concerns regarding how beneficial the program will really prove to be.

First and foremost, Google claims that the leads generated by the program are “unique,” yet in the final step of a lead submission, the program offers the consumer the choice to contact other dealers who may have similar cars available. A single person inputting a lead and requesting contact by multiple dealers would hypothetically generate multiple leads, a complication Google does not currently address.

On a related note, Google is telling consumers that even if they are interested in a particular vehicle that has already been identified by VIN, they may be able to get the same vehicle from another dealer. As Google puts it, “if you see a particular car (specified by a unique VIN) showing in a dealer’s inventory, you may be able to get that car from other dealers as well. Dealers often times trade inventory with each other, so you can buy from the dealer that you prefer.” Thus, Google is negating the edge a dealer may have in winning the consumer’s business simply by having the exact vehicle they are looking for in stock.

In addition, while Google says that dealers can list their inventory on the program free of charge, it is unclear what would happen to any leads generated if the dealer chose not to “pay to play.”

For those who are willing to pay, Google allows dealers to “[choose] what [they’re] willing to pay for a lead.” According to Automotive News, the price-per-lead is determined via a bidding model, with dealers competing for prominent positioning within search results for their inventory.

The final component of the program is that Google emphasizes the protection of consumer privacy. There are three ways in which a consumer can contact you as a participating advertiser:

1. Inbound Phone Lead: This comes via a Google-generated phone number; the consumer’s phone is blocked from the advertiser’s phone system.

2. E-mail Inquiry: The advertiser is given the consumer’s name and the details of the product they are interested in, but the consumer’s e-mail address is masked.

3. Request a Call-Back: The advertiser is given a masked phone number with which to call the consumer.

Google states that lead delivery is compatible with CRMs, but how those leads would actually populate is unclear.

The fact that Google commands such a large percentage of internet searches means that this program is a potential game-changer. Google’s ability to position this program wherever it likes, regardless of its other ad programs, may mean that dealers are forced to participate to remain competitive. Because Comparison Ads currently appear just above the first organic search results, these results will likely divert a portion of traffic that would otherwise have gone directly to dealers’ websites.

Not only will Google’s Comparison Ads for Autos impact many components of your online marketing efforts, including search engine optimization strategy and pay-per-click campaigns, but it may also even affect the lead quantity that your current third-party lead providers are able to offer you. Obviously, dealers would be well-advised to pay close attention to the program as it develops.

via the July 2012 edition of the 3 Birds Marketing newsletter

How Reviews Stop Buying Decisions

By

First, it’s been way too long since I’ve blogged. For those who care, I apologize. I’ve been very busy in my new role with a great company, 3 Birds Marketing, and I’m very grateful that they invited me to join their team.

We all know that reputation management is mandatory in today’s digital world. Consumers have increasingly more information at their fingertips and there are more choices than ever out there. With auto brands barraging consumers with marketing, consumers are continuously relying on reviews to help make buying decisions. Studies show that consumers have more confidence in reviews left by other consumers than any other type. Everyone knows the importance of building and maintaining a solid, balanced reputation across all the review sites.

When can reviews actually stop the buying process?

I’m NOT talking about someone choosing WHO to buy from necessarily. Part of the problem is that consumers are so overwhelmed by reviews about your PRODUCT that not only is it essential to maintain a great reputation as a DEALER but to also pay attention to reviews about your brand and models.

Here’s an illustration I found that details pretty accurately what can happen:

original

Has this ever been you?

How do you prevent consumers from progressing past panel #1 in that comic?

Imagine this scenario… A customer comes into your dealership. They find a car they like. They go online on their phone to see if they want to do business with YOU. While reading your dealership’s reviews, they also come across product reviews from consumers saying positive things not only about YOU but also about the car they are trying to decide upon. After deciding they are comfortable with you, it’s possible that a consumer wouldn’t then feel the need to progress to product reviews on other sites and it could help avoid the progression illustrated in the comic.

In addition to not only building a solid reputation online across ALL review sites (not just focusing on a single site or two), why not also encourage your customers to say great things about your BRANDS and models?

There’s no reason why you can’t ask your customers to write a review about the car they purchase from you. Not only does this add to your reputation but it provides relevant and fresh content that could assist your dealership in not only appearing in name searches on Google but also brand and product searches.

There’s no reason why you can’t leverage consumer product and brand reviews on all of your review sites that can assist your dealership in gaining exposure that your competitor wouldn’t have.

If a consumer is trying to make a decision NOT on whether to do business with YOU but on whether to purchase your PRODUCT, a good mix of both types of reviews can certainly help prevent consumers from progressing to indecisiveness.

Buying Reviews and Car Dealerships

By

In the last few days, there has been national media coverage of a vendor on Amazon who decided to “stack the deck” and buy reviews. The two articles, one on Gizmodo and one in the New York Times, told the story of a company selling cases for the Kindle Fire on Amazon who included notes in the packages asking for positive reviews from buyers in exchange for a full refund of the purchase price they paid.

Within the automotive industry, there have been (and still are) companies that promise to increase your online reviews and, while they claim the reviews are all genuine, people paying attention can easily dissect the fact that they are not. I wrote an article in June of 2011 that investigated one company, Review Boost, that was suspected of doing just this in which I interviewed the owner.

Most dealers do not participate in or knowingly hire any companies that do this.

One statement in those articles, which was included in the letter to consumers who purchased the Kindle Fire case, caught my attention though.

“We strive to earn 100 percent perfect ‘FIVE-STAR’ scores from you!”

Does this sound familiar?

Most dealerships have a time, usually in their delivery process, in which the customer is “educated” that they will be receiving a survey from the manufacturer and how important it is for the dealership to receive top scores in all areas. Some dealerships even get as detailed as having a copy of the survey with the desired answers highlighted and reviewed with the consumers. I know dealers who ask the customers to fill it out and bring it into  the dealership in exchange for something – a free oil change, t-shirt, etc. Some ask for the survey to be returned blank (which they obviously plan to fill out themselves) and some just ask them to return a completed survey which they can then read and decide for themselves whether to return it or not. I know dealers who will even RDR the car with a different address if there is heat on the deal so that a customer never gets the survey at all.

While this is certainly not identical to the vendor in the articles, in which they offered a refund for the product in exchange for positive reviews, it’s pretty close.

Reviewing a CSI survey with customers when they buy a car is skating a fine-line especially when there’s coaching involved. When you throw in a free oil change or some other incentive, it’s the same thing. Every dealer knows that they aren’t supposed to do this. However, CSI scores can be tied to future incentives from manufacturers so dealers are always under pressure to keep their scores high.

The problem with any of this is that you never get an opportunity to truly improve. You don’t get real feedback on what (or who) is broken in your process. Even though these aren’t “public” reviews and are only viewed by the manufacturer and employees of the dealership, the opportunity for improvement still exists.

You should embrace the opportunity, take your lumps when they come, and do your best to solve the customer’s complaints or criticism with your CSI surveys just as you would with your online public reviews. Even though consumers might not see these when choosing your dealership, making sure that ALL your customers are happy by attempting to solve issues they may have had, whether you received the feedback publicly through an online review or privately through CSI survey feedback, will help you grow as a dealership.

Embrace all reviews, both negative and positive, public or private, and use them as a learning experience and an opportunity to fix broken processes, clean house of cancerous employees, and become a better dealership.

I guarantee that by doing this, you’ll see less negative reviews.

BMW Dealer Customer Service Fail Goes Viral

By

A customer comes into your dealership because the warning lights come on in his Certified Pre-owned BMW after your service department tells him to bring it in immediately. He comes in and your first tier tech tells him the lights only apply to an emissions issue which doesn’t apply in his state, promptly turns the warning lights off and tells the customer he’s “good to go”. The customer leaves and two days later, the steering fails on his car while driving 65-75 mph on the freeway causing him to crash off the side of the road. When he complains to the GM, no apology is given and he’s told to bring the car back in. He expresses concern about his trust in the dealership and says he wants to go to a different one and is told that he can only bring the car there.

He then goes online and starts asking questions in a brand-enthusiast forum. After getting some information and advice from his peers, he meets with the GM at the dealership where, after expressing his concerns about the dealership’s service quality, the GM asks “then you shouldn’t even be in my office wasting my time”. The customer then agrees to let the dealer pick up his car via flatbed to look at it but is denied a loaner car.

Someone at your corporate office sees his online forum posting and has the corporate LAWYER call the customer requesting that he remove his online posting. He refuses and takes the car to an independent mechanic where he is told that the codes indicate issues with “steering and stability control”.

BMW North America gets involved. They ask the customer to bring his car into a different dealer and promise to fly in a team of specialized engineers. They confirm the steering and stability issues, charge him his $50 deductible and only fix two issues that are covered under his CPO warranty. Neither the corporate office or the dealership will explain to him what was wrong or take any responsibility and, when asked why, they say they “don’t appreciate that (he’s) made this a public issue on the forums.”

Yes, this really happened. What a train wreck.

The dealership? BMW of North Scottsdale. (a Penske Automotive dealership)

This story made the website “Jalopnik” yesterday. The article (in which the dealer is not only named but linked to) “Did a Dealer Ignore a Faulty, Dangerous BMW?” has received 27,334 unique visitors and has 209 comments. In one day.

The original forum post has 327 comments on it in less than 30 days and has been viewed by 27,956 unique visitors.

The Jalopnik article is now in the #6 position on Google Page 1 for a search for the store’s name, four spots up from their DealerRater page.

 

bmw

We’ve all experienced irate customers. We all make mistakes. There were so many opportunities for customer service to appear by so many different parties (technician, service manager, general manager, corporate office, manufacturer, the second dealership, and, of course, the corporate lawyer), yet it never did and now the dealer and BMW have a PR nightmare on their hands.

One forum poster actually said this: “Scottsdale BMW got a pretty good rating at dealer rater…shall we change that?”

What would you do if this happened at your dealership? How would you handle this?

The Ethics of Online Reviews

By

This article started as an investigation into a company providing services to the automotive industry,Review Boost. I didn’t know much about the company, only that it had received some negative press and accusations of gaming online reviews. In fact, it even had a local San Antonio television station, KSAT, run a news segment regarding a dealership who used their services. There have been blog articles written questioning the authenticity of the reviews as well as articles written in both Automotive News and F&I Magazine.

The importance of reputation management has been increasingly on dealers’ minds, being, from the dealers I spoke with and interviewed for DrivingSalesTV, the hot topic of this year’s NADA convention. The FTC is cracking down on companies engaging in posting misleading reviews, legislators are pushing for stricter laws regarding this practice, legal advisors are reporting that a company exposes themselves tolegal risks by engaging in this act, and a California law went into effect Jan 1, 2011 making it a criminal activity. Add to these variables the fact that search engines are starting to increase the importance of online reviews in their algorithms and incorporating them into search results, naturally, when they popped up on my radar again after partnering up with an industry vendor, I was curious as to why the partnership happened and I started asking questions and doing some homework.

[Edit: After sharing my article with representatives from Review Boost, they informed me that they decided not to move forward with the partnership I referred to above.]

I spoke with William, the owner of Review Boost, at length. We spoke for upwards of an hour and he walked me through what his company does. First, to be clear, they deny all accusations of gaming reviews and/or writing the reviews themselves. William was very pleasant, if understandably nervous during our conversation but, in my opinion, sincerely wanted to clear the air regarding what his company does. Without revealing too many of his proprietary practices, which he shared with me, I didn’t get the impression that he is doing anything wrong at all. Now, given that there were already a ton of articles investigating and breaking down why other people feel that they are, I didn’t feel the need to rehash what others have already done and I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.

See, William isn’t in the car business. Review Boost began assisting local businesses like dentists, doctors, and such. It ended up that dealers account for about 30% of their current client base but this wasn’t by design. The crux of their strategy, which is what surprised me the most, is that they administer a website called myreviewboost.com in which they post reviews collected from clients of their dealers. These reviews are then syndicated across about 40 online review directories through partnerships with them. I was surprised that such a syndication was allowed but I did some investigating and, not only is it allowed, but it is encouraged. Judysbook.com, in example, promotes review sharing partnerships openly.

I reached out to Google themselves. The fact that they syndicate reviews is telling about their policies but they did point out within their Review Posting Guidelines that conflicts of interest, including misrepresentation and/or posting reviews on behalf of others is not allowed.

In essence, William’s company is soliciting reviews only from the customers which the dealer provides contact information to them. They do not edit the reviews – whether positive or negative. They will moderate a negative review, if received, allowing the dealer a chance to resolve the problem and then, when the dealer reports that the problem has been resolved, resurveying the customer to get an updated review. In my mind, this absolutely explains why almost every review is positive.

If I were a dealer who needed to increase my online reputation, I certainly wouldn’t hand over an unhappy customer’s e-mail address to be reviewed. In fact, I know many dealers that will occassionally RDR cars to the factory with incorrect information to avoid a potential negative CSI survey and/or “buy” surveys from their customers through offers of free oil changes or something to encourage their consumers to return the surveys to THEM and not mail them in to their OEM unscreened.

William’s strategy made perfect sense to me and the syndication accounted for the reason for the same review appearing on multiple sites. So while this practice may be viewed by some to be unethical, it’s not illegal or in violation of these directories terms of service. They’re simply taking advantage of existing online directories willingness to crawl their review site to maximize the SEO value of each review they collected from their client’s customers.

So, is this article about Review Boost? No. The real story is what is ethical in the online reputation management arena.

I’m sure that we would all agree that posting fake reviews is unethical and, in some cases, illegal.

What about these practices?

Posting REAL reviews, verbatim, by your customers on their behalf with their permission.

Screening WHO gets reviewed to avoid negative reviews.

Choosing which reviews get displayed (ie. avoiding sites in which negative reviews exist)

The fact is that online reputation management, and the process in which dealers are utilizing, are becoming more and more important for the many reasons I described above.

How do you feel about this? What’s ethical or unethical regarding online reputation management?

(Originally published on DrivingSales)

The Ethics of Online Reviews

By

This article started as an investigation into a company providing services to the automotive industry,Review Boost. I didn’t know much about the company, only that it had received some negative press and accusations of gaming online reviews. In fact, it even had a local San Antonio television station, KSAT, run a news segment regarding a dealership who used their services. There have been blog articles written questioning the authenticity of the reviews as well as articles written in both Automotive News and F&I Magazine.

The importance of reputation management has been increasingly on dealers’ minds, being, from the dealers I spoke with and interviewed for DrivingSalesTV, the hot topic of this year’s NADA convention. The FTC is cracking down on companies engaging in posting misleading reviews, legislators are pushing for stricter laws regarding this practice, legal advisors are reporting that a company exposes themselves tolegal risks by engaging in this act, and a California law went into effect Jan 1, 2011 making it a criminal activity. Add to these variables the fact that search engines are starting to increase the importance of online reviews in their algorithms and incorporating them into search results, naturally, when they popped up on my radar again after partnering up with an industry vendor, I was curious as to why the partnership happened and I started asking questions and doing some homework.

[Edit: After sharing my article with representatives from Review Boost, they informed me that they decided not to move forward with the partnership I referred to above.]

I spoke with William, the owner of Review Boost, at length. We spoke for upwards of an hour and he walked me through what his company does. First, to be clear, they deny all accusations of gaming reviews and/or writing the reviews themselves. William was very pleasant, if understandably nervous during our conversation but, in my opinion, sincerely wanted to clear the air regarding what his company does. Without revealing too many of his proprietary practices, which he shared with me, I didn’t get the impression that he is doing anything wrong at all. Now, given that there were already a ton of articles investigating and breaking down why other people feel that they are, I didn’t feel the need to rehash what others have already done and I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.

See, William isn’t in the car business. Review Boost began assisting local businesses like dentists, doctors, and such. It ended up that dealers account for about 30% of their current client base but this wasn’t by design. The crux of their strategy, which is what surprised me the most, is that they administer a website called myreviewboost.com in which they post reviews collected from clients of their dealers. These reviews are then syndicated across about 40 online review directories through partnerships with them. I was surprised that such a syndication was allowed but I did some investigating and, not only is it allowed, but it is encouraged. Judysbook.com, in example, promotes review sharing partnerships openly.

I reached out to Google themselves. The fact that they syndicate reviews is telling about their policies but they did point out within their Review Posting Guidelines that conflicts of interest, including misrepresentation and/or posting reviews on behalf of others is not allowed.

In essence, William’s company is soliciting reviews only from the customers which the dealer provides contact information to them. They do not edit the reviews – whether positive or negative. They will moderate a negative review, if received, allowing the dealer a chance to resolve the problem and then, when the dealer reports that the problem has been resolved, resurveying the customer to get an updated review. In my mind, this absolutely explains why almost every review is positive.

If I were a dealer who needed to increase my online reputation, I certainly wouldn’t hand over an unhappy customer’s e-mail address to be reviewed. In fact, I know many dealers that will occassionally RDR cars to the factory with incorrect information to avoid a potential negative CSI survey and/or “buy” surveys from their customers through offers of free oil changes or something to encourage their consumers to return the surveys to THEM and not mail them in to their OEM unscreened.

William’s strategy made perfect sense to me and the syndication accounted for the reason for the same review appearing on multiple sites. So while this practice may be viewed by some to be unethical, it’s not illegal or in violation of these directories terms of service. They’re simply taking advantage of existing online directories willingness to crawl their review site to maximize the SEO value of each review they collected from their client’s customers.

So, is this article about Review Boost? No. The real story is what is ethical in the online reputation management arena.

I’m sure that we would all agree that posting fake reviews is unethical and, in some cases, illegal.

What about these practices?

  • Posting REAL reviews, verbatim, by your customers on their behalf with their permission.
  • Screening WHO gets reviewed to avoid negative reviews.
  • Choosing which reviews get displayed (ie. avoiding sites in which negative reviews exist)

The fact is that online reputation management, and the process in which dealers are utilizing, are becoming more and more important for the many reasons I described above.

How do you feel about this? What’s ethical or unethical regarding online reputation management?

Originally published on DrivingSales.com

Contact Me