\u201cLet’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.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The team first identified the factors which shape consumers\u2019 understanding, namely: personal values, perceived identity, perceived audiences, relationships with companies\/other reviewers and stakeholders, and a feeling of empowerment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Then, using these factors, the authors identified three main groups (in terms of understanding) which they labelled \u201creviewing orientation\u201d, each leading to a different way of reviewing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Three reviewing orientations: communals, systemics and competitors<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The authors examined each of the three \u201creviewing orientations\u201d to characterize and find a suitable label for each group, which they defined as: communals, systemics and the competitors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reviewers reflecting a communal sharing orientation (referred to as \u201ccommunals<\/strong>\u201d) imagine themselves as part of a consumer collective, a \u201ccommunity\u201d. They view themselves as ‘ordinary consumers’ (rather than experts) and aim to help other consumers in making their own choices rather than persuading others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThey 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In terms of motivation, communals review to recommend positive experiences, voice complaints, and warn others, thereby increasing the collective\u2019s well-being and counterbalancing the power of companies marketing goods\/services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This profile of reviewer perceives themselves as part of a system\u2014a set of interrelated components that work together \u2014that 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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 \u201cfor friends,\u201d whereas platform reviews with ‘strangers’ should be succinct and objective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This profile of reviewers views themselves as part of the attention economy, in which they compete to attract the audience\u2019s attention. Consequently, their objective is to gain recognition and influence others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One reviewer in the study stated she reviewed \u201cfor the \u2018likes\u2019 of other consumers and comments from managers, while another viewed the platform as an \u201cauditorium\u201d to talk in front of everyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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\u201d. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The competitors look to establish authority by using assertive statements and directions for action (\u201ctry the chocolate and raspberry cake\u201d\u2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTo 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,\u201d the expert adds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n To solicit competitive punditry, meanwhile, platforms should focus on authority, recognition, and expertise. \u00a0Influenster, a review platform that sends its users free products to review, has offered some relevant features for eliciting reviews from this profile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Managers can more efficiently encourage and reply to reviews by adjusting to customer\u2019s orientation. For example, companies can engage personally and empathize with communals\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When interacting with systemics, marketers instead could craft responses that address all reviewers simultaneously and deal with specific issues using objective, data-driven evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For competitors, marketers should recognize and respect each reviewer\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The authors argue that these findings can also support companies’ product development efforts. Marketers can benefit from communals\u2019 insights into the emotional and experiential aspects of a consumption experience, which can be useful for marketing campaigns or improving customer experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/insights.ieseg.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Table-Online-reviews-3.png\")
Communals \u2013 ordinary consumers<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Systemics – cogs in the reviewing machine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Competitors \u2013 would-be experts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Online reviews: practical applications for managing review platforms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How can marketers use reviewing orientations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n