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 to legal 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?

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 to legal 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?

Charlie Vogelheim welcomes everyone to the 2010 DrivingSales Executive Summit and introduces Jared Hamilton, founder and CEO of DrivingSales, for his keynote speech.

Jared Hamilton, founder and CEO of DrivingSales, continues his keynote speech at the 2010 DrivingSales Executive Summit.

Jared Hamilton, founder and CEO of DrivingSales, concludes his keynote speech at the 2010 DrivingSales Executive Summit.

Charlie Vogelheim welcomes everyone to the 2010 DrivingSales Executive Summit and introduces Jared Hamilton, founder and CEO of DrivingSales, for his keynote speech.

Jared Hamilton, founder and CEO of DrivingSales, continues his keynote speech at the 2010 DrivingSales Executive Summit.

Jared Hamilton, founder and CEO of DrivingSales, concludes his keynote speech at the 2010 DrivingSales Executive Summit.

With today's announcement of the iPhone coming to Verizon, you have to analyze the mobile market and wonder if it's time to embrace mobile marketing (if you haven't already). 

The facts are that 85% (264 million) of the US population (307 million) has a cell phone. 

Smartphones accounted for about 30% of all phones as of Oct. 2010 but that number is projected to overtake non-smartphones in 2011 per Nielsen. That would take the number of smartphone users to 132 million across all cell networks - almost 1/2 the population of the U.S.

Android and iPhone users account for about 1/2 the total number of smartphones in use but the iPhone accounts for 65% of AT&T smartphone subscribers. I'm expecting that the chances that the percentage of Verizon smartphone users who have an iPhone will approach, if not eclipse, the percentage that AT&T has. Assuming this holds true, the iPhone will end up accounting for 86 million smartphones with the Android comprising 30 million.

A large percentage of the US population will have, and be using, smartphones. According to Morgan Stanley, mobile internet usage will overtake desktop internet usage within 4 years (by 2014). 

Getting the picture? This isn't even accounting for web traffic originating via iPads, iPod Touches and Android-based tablets. It also doesn't account for traffic generated through apps.

Bottom line is that you need to have a mobile website and/or make sure that you're existing website is mobile-friendly, at the very least. 

It's time to seriously re-visit a mobile marketing strategy if you don't have one. Don't play catch-up later.

With today's announcement of the iPhone coming to Verizon, you have to analyze the mobile market and wonder if it's time to embrace mobile marketing (if you haven't already). 

The facts are that 85% (264 million) of the US population (307 million) has a cell phone. 

Smartphones accounted for about 30% of all phones as of Oct. 2010 but that number is projected to overtake non-smartphones in 2011 per Nielsen. That would take the number of smartphone users to 132 million across all cell networks - almost 1/2 the population of the U.S.

Android and iPhone users account for about 1/2 the total number of smartphones in use but the iPhone accounts for 65% of AT&T smartphone subscribers. I'm expecting that the chances that the percentage of Verizon smartphone users who have an iPhone will approach, if not eclipse, the percentage that AT&T has. Assuming this holds true, the iPhone will end up accounting for 86 million smartphones with the Android comprising 30 million.

A large percentage of the US population will have, and be using, smartphones. According to Morgan Stanley, mobile internet usage will overtake desktop internet usage within 4 years (by 2014). 

Getting the picture? This isn't even accounting for web traffic originating via iPads, iPod Touches and Android-based tablets. It also doesn't account for traffic generated through apps.

Bottom line is that you need to have a mobile website and/or make sure that you're existing website is mobile-friendly, at the very least. 

It's time to seriously re-visit a mobile marketing strategy if you don't have one. Don't play catch-up later.

A new sales training service will be available soon that we wanted your opinion on. 

This is a REAL, subscription based service that will be solicited to dealerships. From what we understand, it will offer a short, sales training video on a daily basis for your salespeople to learn from. We have yet to see a finished "training" video so we can't comment on content. 

Is this how our industry wants to be known?

Does this fuel controversy? Further stereotypes? 

Would you subscribe to this? If you did, would it present any issues with your female employees?

Let us know what you think!

If you want to see more "teaser videos", you can visit the CarDoll YouTube channel, their Facebook page, or their website. 

A new sales training service will be available soon that we wanted your opinion on. 

This is a REAL, subscription based service that will be solicited to dealerships. From what we understand, it will offer a short, sales training video on a daily basis for your salespeople to learn from. We have yet to see a finished "training" video so we can't comment on content. 

Is this how our industry wants to be known?

Does this fuel controversy? Further stereotypes? 

Would you subscribe to this? If you did, would it present any issues with your female employees?

Let us know what you think!

If you want to see more "teaser videos", you can visit the CarDoll YouTube channel, their Facebook page, or their website. 

In analyzing the "Top Social Brands of 2010" list put out by Vitrue, you may notice a trend. (Keep in mind that this is a list compiled that includes every brand in existence and their social media presence and activity. That's huge.) The automotive manufacturers have stepped up their social media game.

Vitrue "analyz(es) online conversations on a daily basis across social networks blogs, micro-blogs, photo and video sharing sites using the Vitrue Social Media Index (SMI)."

A full 17% of the list is from the transportation industry. Ford was the highest ranked automotive industry representative at #11 followed closely by Mercedes (#12) and BMW (#13). General Motors scored the highest increased ranking amongst automotive manufacturers (2nd highest increase overall) jumping 31% from #85 to #54 over last year.

All of the OEMs showed an increase in their social media branding and presence except for Ferrari (-1%), Toyota (-2%), Porsche (-2%), Jeep (-6%), and Kia (-9%).  

All of these brands were on the list last year but the lowest ranked one in 2010 was at #62 (Kia) versus #85 in 2009 (General Motors).

Here's the annotated list of automotive manufacturers and how they ranked in 2010 as well as their 2009 ranking and percentage change. 

#11 Ford (#24 / +13%)
#12 Mercedes Benz (#17 / +5%)
#13 BMW (#20 / +7%)
#20 Honda (#25 / +5%)
#27 Ferrari (#26 / -1%)
#30 Nissan (#37 / +7%)
#35 Audi (#45 / +10%)
#40 Toyota (#38 / -2%)
#45 Suzuki (#61 / +16%)
#49 Volkswagen (#67 / +18%)
#52 Dodge (#57 / +5%)
#54 General Motors (#85 / +31%)
#57 Porsche (#55 / -2%)
#59 Chevrolet (#80 / +21%)
#61 Jeep (#56 / -6%)
#62 Kia (#53 / -9%)

(The complete list can be found here. The Vitrue 100 and, in case you were curious, the missing "transportation" company from my annotated list is Harley Davidson at #71.)

What do you read into these statistics?

In analyzing the "Top Social Brands of 2010" list put out by Vitrue, you may notice a trend. (Keep in mind that this is a list compiled that includes every brand in existence and their social media presence and activity. That's huge.) The automotive manufacturers have stepped up their social media game.

Vitrue "analyz(es) online conversations on a daily basis across social networks blogs, micro-blogs, photo and video sharing sites using the Vitrue Social Media Index (SMI)."

A full 17% of the list is from the transportation industry. Ford was the highest ranked automotive industry representative at #11 followed closely by Mercedes (#12) and BMW (#13). General Motors scored the highest increased ranking amongst automotive manufacturers (2nd highest increase overall) jumping 31% from #85 to #54 over last year.

All of the OEMs showed an increase in their social media branding and presence except for Ferrari (-1%), Toyota (-2%), Porsche (-2%), Jeep (-6%), and Kia (-9%).  

All of these brands were on the list last year but the lowest ranked one in 2010 was at #62 (Kia) versus #85 in 2009 (General Motors).

Here's the annotated list of automotive manufacturers and how they ranked in 2010 as well as their 2009 ranking and percentage change. 

#11 Ford (#24 / +13%)
#12 Mercedes Benz (#17 / +5%)
#13 BMW (#20 / +7%)
#20 Honda (#25 / +5%)
#27 Ferrari (#26 / -1%)
#30 Nissan (#37 / +7%)
#35 Audi (#45 / +10%)
#40 Toyota (#38 / -2%)
#45 Suzuki (#61 / +16%)
#49 Volkswagen (#67 / +18%)
#52 Dodge (#57 / +5%)
#54 General Motors (#85 / +31%)
#57 Porsche (#55 / -2%)
#59 Chevrolet (#80 / +21%)
#61 Jeep (#56 / -6%)
#62 Kia (#53 / -9%)

(The complete list can be found here. The Vitrue 100 and, in case you were curious, the missing "transportation" company from my annotated list is Harley Davidson at #71.)

What do you read into these statistics?