Online reviews: here’s what companies need to know about consumer reviews
Consumers review hotels, restaurants, attractions etc., and other destinations via online platforms every day. TripAdvisor has already registered more than 1 billion reviews. Many top retailers and websites, ranging from Amazon to Google, have developed their own review platforms. These evaluations shape consumer opinions and intended behaviours.
01/23/2025
5 min
Share
A recent study* published by a team of international researchers sheds new light on how and why consumers review differently from one another. They find that reviewers can generally be classified into one of three reviewing profiles which companies and platforms can use to interact more efficiently with customers reviewing.
While prior research has assumed that consumers have a common understanding of what reviewing entails, this new study finds that the process is more complex than it seems.
Professor Gwarlann DE KERVILER (IÉSEG), one of the co-authors, explains: “In the past, differences in reviews have generally been attributed to reviewers’ motivations (e.g. advising others or highlighting one’s expertise), sociodemographic profile (gender, income, education etc), or whether they had a good or bad experience. In contrast, our new research shows that customers do not all have the same understanding of what reviewing is, which leads them to review differently.”
“Let’s take the example of Yoga. Those who share a spiritual understanding of this practice focus on spiritual and emotional well-being through breathing exercises, but those who share a fitness understanding consider it a physical workout through more intense movements.”
To gain a better understanding of the reviewing process, the authors analysed hundreds of reviews (on tourist experiences and books) and carried out interviews with more than 50 reviewers.
The team first identified the factors which shape consumers’ understanding, namely: personal values, perceived identity, perceived audiences, relationships with companies/other reviewers and stakeholders, and a feeling of empowerment.
Then, using these factors, the authors identified three main groups (in terms of understanding) which they labelled “reviewing orientation”, each leading to a different way of reviewing.
Three reviewing orientations: communals, systemics and competitors
The authors examined each of the three “reviewing orientations” to characterize and find a suitable label for each group, which they defined as: communals, systemics and the competitors.
Communals – ordinary consumers
Reviewers reflecting a communal sharing orientation (referred to as “communals”) imagine themselves as part of a consumer collective, a “community”. They view themselves as ‘ordinary consumers’ (rather than experts) and aim to help other consumers in making their own choices rather than persuading others.
“They generally write their reviews as laypeople,” explains Professor DE KERVILER. For example, a nutritionist in the study focused on the emotions and sensorial aspects of her restaurant experience rather than writing as a nutritional expert. Their reviews reflect how they would practice word of mouth with their family and real-life friends, openly sharing their experiences, emotions, authentically and transparently. Their reviews are often very narrative and convey personal accounts.
In terms of motivation, communals review to recommend positive experiences, voice complaints, and warn others, thereby increasing the collective’s well-being and counterbalancing the power of companies marketing goods/services.
Systemics – cogs in the reviewing machine
This profile of reviewer perceives themselves as part of a system—a set of interrelated components that work together —that is continuously improved through the participation of diverse stakeholders. For the (review) system to work efficiently, they expect other users to contribute in line with their use of the platform. For example, a heavy reader/user of reviews should also be an important contributor to review platforms.
“They believe the reviews that contribute best are those that offer an objective, standardized, and fair assessment,” explains Professor DE KERVILER. Comments that use subjective criteria should be left “for friends,” whereas platform reviews with ‘strangers’ should be succinct and objective.
Therefore, systemics adopt a more impersonal and impartial approach. They reveal little personal information (opinions, feelings, and tastes) when they write, nor do they personalize their evaluations. Whereas communals write reviews when prompted by the uniqueness of a consumption experience, systemics feel a sense of duty that leads them to regular reviewing.
In terms of style, their reviews are usually a factual presentation of a product or service, that can include descriptions of key features and use lists and arguments to support the evaluation.
Competitors – would-be experts
This profile of reviewers views themselves as part of the attention economy, in which they compete to attract the audience’s attention. Consequently, their objective is to gain recognition and influence others.
One reviewer in the study stated she reviewed “for the ‘likes’ of other consumers and comments from managers, while another viewed the platform as an “auditorium” to talk in front of everyone.
“Competitors try to sway opinions of consumers by tailoring reviews,” explains Professor DE KERVILER “but they also aim to influence or gain benefits from brands/companies”. Their self-identity as authorities mirrors the roles of other actors in the attention economy, such as paid influencers. Some even hope their reviewing will help them become professional reviewers and get paid to review.
Competitors use a strategic approach to their reviewing: how they construct their identity, the platform(s) on which they post, and how they respond to the ranking mechanisms of review platforms. Unlike communals and systemics, who view themselves as part of a collective or a system, competitors are primarily oriented toward self-empowerment.
The competitors look to establish authority by using assertive statements and directions for action (“try the chocolate and raspberry cake”…).
Online reviews: practical applications for managing review platforms
Review platforms can use or develop features to stimulate contributions from these three profiles. Certain types of interface, guidelines or social media features, may be more likely to provoke reviews from specific groups.
“To elicit reviews from the communals, a platform should emphasize kinship and solidarity. While not solely focused on communals, Letterboxd, a movie review platform blending reviewing and social networking, has included many features that can encourage this orientation,” the expert adds.
To target systemics, platforms can underline the benefits of regular contributions from as many contributors as possible. They can instill a sense of duty to review by recurrently asking for ratings following each transaction (e.g Uber). Instead of personalized profiles, platforms should favour reviewer anonymity to emphasize the systemic aspect of the platform (as platforms such as Shein have done).
To solicit competitive punditry, meanwhile, platforms should focus on authority, recognition, and expertise. Influenster, a review platform that sends its users free products to review, as offered some relevant features for eliciting reviews from this profile.
How can marketers use reviewing orientations?
Managers can more efficiently encourage and reply to reviews by adjusting to customer’s orientation. For example, companies can engage personally and empathize with communals’ experience and emotions. One strategy can be to express gratitude for the authentic sharing of a consumption experience and offer a sincere apology when necessary.
When interacting with systemics, marketers instead could craft responses that address all reviewers simultaneously and deal with specific issues using objective, data-driven evidence.
For competitors, marketers should recognize and respect each reviewer’s expertise and insights and consider different ways they can engage in co-creation activities. However, the study suggests marketers ‘take disputes offline’ with this profile of reviewers, because they are likely to leverage their status and audience to extract value from marketers.
The authors argue that these findings can also support companies’ product development efforts. Marketers can benefit from communals’ insights into the emotional and experiential aspects of a consumption experience, which can be useful for marketing campaigns or improving customer experience.
The focus of systemics on objective and fair assessments could be valuable for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of products/ services, while competitors’ expertise-based focus could give marketers insights into market trends, how their products relate to emerging innovations, and unmet consumer needs and expectations.
*Find out more in the full study:
“Why and How Consumers Perform Online Reviewing Differently“, Journal of Consumer Research, 2024; Gwarlann de Kerviler (IÉSEG School of Management, Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 9221 – LEM – Lille Economie Management), Catherine Demangeot (Independent researcher), Pierre-Yann Dolbec (John Molson School of Business, Concordia University).
