A review audit gives a local business an honest starting point. It checks not only ratings and volume, but also profile access, request fairness, response quality, website proof and whether customer feedback leads to service improvement. The benefit is focus: the team can stop guessing and direct effort toward the gaps that matter most.
Define the period, locations and questions
Choose a meaningful period, usually six or twelve months, and list every location and platform in scope. Decide what the audit must answer: Are customers invited fairly? Are profiles accurate? Are replies timely and useful? Which themes affect retention or enquiries?
Record the scope before collecting data so a convenient sample does not become the whole story. Include low-volume sources and closed issues where they reveal process weakness. A repeatable scope allows the next audit to show genuine change.
Confirm access and ownership
Check administrator accounts, recovery methods, permissions and backups. Remove former employees and suppliers, and avoid shared passwords. Name a primary owner and deputy for each profile. Ownership gaps can leave reviews unanswered and business details incorrect for months.
Keep a central register with platform, URL, location and access owner. Restrict sensitive credentials while making operational responsibility visible. This foundation is less glamorous than a campaign, but it protects every later activity.
Check profile information from a customer’s view
Compare names, addresses, phone numbers, hours, categories, service details, photographs and links with the real business. Test calls, booking routes and directions on a phone. Google’s guidance on how to edit a Business Profile helps owners maintain accurate information.
Prioritise errors that could create a wasted journey or missed enquiry. Check holiday hours and moved premises. Record corrections and completion dates so the audit produces an accountable action log rather than a list of observations.
Map the collection process
Follow the journey from completed service to request. Record trigger, timing, channel, wording, platform choice, reminders and exclusions. Look for manual steps that are forgotten, links that point to the wrong location and messages that sound pressured or overly promotional.
Compare the process with the CMA’s reviews and endorsements guidance. Remove incentives tied to sentiment and selective asking. The purpose is a fair opportunity for eligible customers to respond.
Assess coverage before judging results
Compare requests with completed transactions by location, service and team where appropriate. A low rating based on three reviews means something different from the same rating across three hundred. Look for months or customer groups missing from the request process.
Do not turn coverage into pressure on staff or customers. Use it to find operational gaps such as a disconnected booking system or inconsistent handover. A representative process creates more useful evidence than a campaign designed to improve the headline quickly.
Read themes behind the averages
Group comments into service themes such as communication, punctuality, care, value, cleanliness and aftercare. Keep links to original reviews and read examples that support and contradict each summary. Note urgency, frequency and business impact separately.
The guide to using review insights to improve service explains how to turn patterns into tests. Combine public reviews with complaints, questions and team observations so voluntary reviewers are not mistaken for every customer.
Inspect response quality and follow-through
Sample positive, mixed and critical reviews. Check whether replies acknowledge the specific experience, protect privacy and offer a deliverable next step. Measure overdue responses and unresolved escalations, but do not reward speed at the expense of care.
Trace a few concerns into the internal process. Did anyone investigate, contact the customer or change the service? The public reply creates confidence only when the promised action can happen.
Audit how reviews appear on the website
Check the homepage, service pages, location pages and enquiry routes. Are excerpts relevant, current, attributable and readable on mobile? Are combined counts explained? Remove dead widgets, distorted logos and old proof for services no longer offered.
Check consent and data minimisation. The ICO’s data protection principles provide a useful reference. Evidence should help a decision without exposing unnecessary personal information.
Choose a small number of owned priorities
Score issues by customer harm, commercial impact, frequency and effort. Choose three priorities rather than producing an unmanageable catalogue. Give each an owner, deadline, first action and success measure. Separate urgent corrections from longer service improvements.
The New Year reputation checklist can turn findings into clean foundations, while the reputation strategy guide connects them with business goals. Share the reasons, not only the tasks.
Set a monthly and quarterly review rhythm
Monitor access, profile accuracy, requests, responses and urgent themes monthly. Review location and service patterns quarterly. Record changes so the next audit compares against a real baseline. Celebrate service improvements, not merely higher scores.
Managing Reviews can organise supported sources and show relevant proof through the £300 Lifetime Deal. A good audit is complete when the team knows what to protect, what to change and when to check whether the change helped customers.
Keep the audit evidence in one controlled record: profile list, measures, theme notes, actions, owners and completion dates. Record uncertainty rather than filling gaps with assumptions. When the next review begins, compare like with like and explain material changes in service volume or collection process.
Share a short version with the wider team. Explain what customers value, which friction appears repeatedly and which three improvements were chosen. Invite operational context before finalising action. An audit creates more benefit when staff see it as a fair learning process, not a scorecard designed to criticise them.