PRACTICAL GUIDE · 9 OCTOBER 2026

Ask for genuine reviews after a completed service

Two people in a business conversation; illustrative stock photograph

Illustrative stock photograph by Amy Hirschi on Unsplash. It does not show our team, customers or software.

Choose a completion event you can explain

A review request is easier to make responsibly when the service is genuinely complete. Write down the event that makes somebody eligible: a visit has ended, an agreed job is finished or the customer has received the order. A planned booking or an unresolved cancellation is not the same event.

Choose a person to handle exceptions. If the record is wrong or work remains outstanding, pause the invitation and correct it. Keep the operational record in the business’s approved system; this public guide does not collect customer details.

Invite an honest account, without testing satisfaction first

Send the same neutral invitation to the eligible group rather than selecting only people who sound happy. Google prohibits incentives for reviews and discouraging negative reviews or selectively soliciting positive ones. A private satisfaction question must not become a gate that sends only positive respondents to Google.

The FTC’s United States rule has its own scope: incentives conditioned on a particular sentiment are prohibited. That distinction does not make incentives acceptable on Google, and it does not settle every jurisdiction’s rules. Check both the platform rules and the rules applicable to the business.

Write a short message with one clear destination

An illustrative request is: ‘Thank you for choosing us. If you would like to share your experience, you can leave an honest review here.’ Use the real business name and the correct public profile link. Test the link yourself before sending it; do not assume a copied shortened URL still resolves to the intended profile.

Avoid ‘Please give us five stars’, promises of rewards, staff scripts that pressure the customer, or suggestions that a critical review should be removed. The invitation should leave the decision and the wording with the customer.

Make timing and follow-up considerate

Choose timing that lets the customer judge the completed work. There is no universal best hour or guaranteed conversion rate. A business can start with a limited, documented sending window, observe actual delivery and adjust without repeatedly contacting the same person.

Decide in advance whether one follow-up is appropriate, what stops it and how somebody can opt out. Do not resend after an objection. Permission and stop requirements depend on the chosen communication channel and location; an existing phone number is not automatically permission for every kind of message.

Keep a small, useful record

Record the genuine completion event, destination profile, approved message version and sending status. Keep access limited and avoid collecting more data simply because automation makes it possible. A separate customer-service issue should go to the responsible person rather than disappear into a request campaign.

Review the process using eligible services, real delivered requests, duplicate prevention and customer responses. These are observations, not proof that a rating or search position will improve. Do not buy reviews, invent customers or reuse someone else’s experience as your own.

Use the checklist before choosing software

A basic manual workflow can establish the completion event, neutral wording, verified profile link, permitted channel, stop rule and exception owner. Software should then support those decisions, rather than set a hidden satisfaction filter or send unapproved messages.

ProofNivo’s review collection module is planned and unavailable. Its proposed workflow must still be implemented and tested. This guide is practical information, not a legal compliance guarantee. Primary references: Google’s guidance on getting reviews and the FTC consumer reviews and testimonials rule Q&A.

Product and contact status

This is a planned software concept. Accounts, subscriptions, trials and operational tools are unavailable. No customer messages, bookings, payments or documents are accepted. Read the current contact status.

Related workflows and practical guides

Browse all workflow resources · Reputation management, built around genuine customer evidence · A review collection workflow that asks everyone honestly · Draft thoughtful review responses with a person in control · Customer testimonials with permission and context · Draft a factual response to a critical review

PRACTICAL GUIDE · 9 OCTOBER 2026

Draft a factual response to a critical review

Two people discussing a laptop in a cafe; illustrative stock photograph

Illustrative stock photograph by LinkedIn Sales Solutions on Unsplash. It does not show our team, customers or software.

Read the specific concern before choosing a template

A critical review may describe a delay, unclear communication, disappointing work or something the business cannot verify. Start by identifying the actual concern in the reviewer’s words. Do not assume the reviewer is dishonest or that a positive-sounding reply resolves the issue.

Keep a separate note of facts that need checking. A responsible colleague can investigate through approved internal systems. Customer files and payment details should not be copied into a public response or into an unapproved assistant tool.

Acknowledge the experience without inventing facts

A calm opening can acknowledge that the customer describes a disappointing experience. It should not claim the team has investigated when nobody has, or promise a refund or replacement that has not been approved. An acknowledgement is different from accepting every unverified allegation.

Illustrative wording: ‘We are sorry to read that the timing and communication did not meet your expectations. We would like to understand what happened.’ Adapt it to the actual concern. Do not treat this example as a response sent by ProofNivo or a verified customer case.

Move private details to a real approved route

A public reply can point to the business’s actual authorized contact channel when one exists. Confirm that the channel works, who monitors it and what information is appropriate to request. Do not publish a made-up email address or tell somebody that a form is available when it is not.

Avoid asking the reviewer to post an order number, phone number, health details or other identifying information publicly. If no suitable channel exists, the business needs to resolve that operational gap before promising a private follow-up.

Check the draft with a person who can act

An approver should check the facts, tone, private information, promises and next step. The reply should address the concern, use plain language and avoid arguing about how many other customers were happy. A response assistant can suggest wording; it cannot establish what occurred.

Escalate threats, safety incidents, legal disputes and sensitive allegations through the business’s appropriate process. Do not let a routine template make commitments or admissions outside the writer’s authority.

Do not bargain for removal or suppress criticism

Resolving a service problem and requesting a different review are separate matters. Do not pressure someone to remove criticism, condition a remedy on a positive rating or use a threat to silence a customer. Google prohibits incentivized reviews and selective positive solicitation.

The FTC’s United States consumer-review rule addresses practices including specified review suppression and sentiment-conditioned incentives. Platform policy and applicable law have different scopes. A short guide cannot establish worldwide legal compliance or decide a particular dispute.

Close the loop without exposing the investigation

After the responsible person handles the issue, record the approved action internally and update the public response only when there is something accurate and appropriate to add. Do not disclose confidential correspondence to demonstrate that the business won an argument.

ProofNivo’s response assistant is planned; it does not currently publish replies or access review accounts. Use this checklist manually while assessing the proposed workflow. Sources: Google review guidance and the FTC rule Q&A.

Category: Uncategorized