Reviews site allAgents yesterday reinstated most of the Purplebricks reviews on its site, possibly triggering a new legal tussle.
This morning, there were 74 reviews on the site, some of which are accompanied by the message that Purplebricks challenged that particular review, together with confirmation by the reviewer that their review was genuine.
allAgents said it has also reinforced the process for the posting of Purplebricks’ 5-star reviews, claiming that this was after 50% of those reviewers failed to respond to allAgents’ checks.
allAgents has been involved in a long-running dispute with Purplebricks over the validity of negative reviews posted on the allAgents site, with allAgents claiming that Purplebricks has repeatedly threatened legal action against the Glasgow-based company.
allAgents suspended the Purplebricks review profile pages from its site in September, to prepare for any possible litigation, but has now decided to put them back on. A crowdfunding campaign to raise money to cover the cost of any litigation fell just short of its £50,000 target.
Purplebricks has repeatedly questioned 26 reviews about the company on the allAgents site, claiming they were fake.
Yesterday allAgents said it has re-contacted all the Purplebricks reviewers.
Of the 26 negative reviews Purplebricks claimed were fake, allAgents said it has been unable to verify just three.
It said: “Three genuine reviewers regrettably asked their post be taken down, two had already been removed as part of allAgents’ usual moderation process and the remaining 18 will be going live, together with the rest of the reviews.”
allAgents’ Martin McKenzie said: “‘We stand behind the reviews, which have been proven to have been written in good faith.
“‘Fakegate’ has been shown to be just what it always was – the bully-boy tactics of a company unwilling to deal with the concerns of genuine customers.
“Our reinstatement of Purplebricks’ review profile and the disputed reviews has shown how solid our process is, and we sincerely hope Purplebricks will accept this and not threaten further legal action.
“We were unable to verify just three of the reviews – not surprising as some of them were two years old – and three genuine reviewers have asked for their post to be taken down.
“A number of reviewers were very angry at having their authenticity questioned and we have decided to add their additional comments to the site.”
allAgents said it is also making a marked tightening to the process of posting 5-star reviews after 50% of the reviewers failed to respond to their checks.
McKenzie said: “From now on we will only be accepting 5-star reviews from vendors who have either sold their property or withdrawn from the agreement with Purplebricks. We will continue not to allow duplicate postings by the same client for the same transaction.
“This will give a more complete picture of Purplebricks’ service, as customers may feel very different at the end of the process than they do at the pre-sales stage. This will also eradicate the possibility of fake 5-star reviews.
“If Trustpilot used the same criteria as this, potentially perhaps 50% of their 32,000 5-star reviews would no longer qualify.”
allAgents had originally warned that it would be making a major announcement last week, with journalists told to expect a news release as early as Sunday evening.
While this did not materialise, yesterday’s announcement came within hours of Purplebricks’ revealing its results this morning to the stock market.
Comments (34)
It should be made a legal requirement, if a company wishes to ride off the back of reviews it should be made to show beginning and end of contract period, comments from the customer. If it can’t get the later, then the review should be removed. Better still only allowed to post at the end like other reputable companies and review sites.
really and who is going police this?
im sure trading standards would be delighted to be checking reviews being credited at a specific time.
this has to be the most ridiculous comment I have read today and this is PIE.
Dom: I’m not one of your regular ‘knockers’ but if you think no-one is interested in how companies harvest reviews you (or rather the businesses concerned) are in for a rude awakening. The CMA (Competition & Markets Authority) is the responsible body. I would be very surprised if they don’t have a burgeoning case-file as a result of this sorry saga.
So your attitude is … let the public be fooled, misled, deceived and allow a company to defraud. You need to take a long hard look in the mirror before you post again. This has to be the most ridiculous comment I have read today and this is PIE, really!
If Purple Bricks are so confident about their success and the scale of it, why are they so exorcised by a tiny number of negative reviews, when they have 32,000, 4 and 5 star ones on TP. Could it be that some uncomfortable truths slip out? It would be good to see reviews from only PB customers who have completed their contract, either a completed sale or a withdrawal and then we might get closer to a true picture. I can’t see any High Street Agent asking for a review until after completion. Obviously, unsolicited reviews will only be forthcoming if the Buyers or Sellers are either very pleased, or very angry, so 32,000 happy customers, seems a little too good to be true.
…why are they so exorcised by a tiny number of negative reviews…
Well, some people do seem to think PB reviews are the devil incarnate so a good exorcising should come in handy.
To give PB their due – they, from senior management right down to the LPEs, have realised the power of reviews, and harnessed it, BIG TIME. Look at the numbers – 32,000 reviews/1000 LPEs – 32 reviews per LPE, less than one a week (month?).
Agents need to take a leaf out of PBs success – but also learn from their mistakes: don’t use an independent site – get reviews to Google, and ask for reviews on completion, not on appointment.
Can we speak about google reviews….. in@agentv.co.uk
What is so suspicious about TP reviews is the volume they receive for PB. Unheard of numbers for a company and do not reflect the full service, so are therefore manipulated? I would like to see how a PB customer can be so consistently made to make a review, without manipulation by PB/LPE’s.
Of course PB ‘ask’ for reviews – you call that manipulation, but it is only manipulation in the sense that PB LPE’s have been working the Trustpilot system by asking for reviews on instruction rather than completion.
LPEs are, it is widely believed, targeted for 5-star reviews. According to many sources who have commented on the subject, there is a monthly(?) competition and the winner is whisked away on a holiday.
No. There is no set target and there is no monthly comp. They just know the power of positive reviews.
All the sales team in my office always ask for reviews on completion. We have 78 on TP. All are all 4* & 5*…..BUT without doubt I’ve had clients that would leave 1*, they just haven’t (yet…he says with fingers crossed!)
Agents who don’t ask for or don’t have any reviews tend to be the ones that are negative about PB’s love of positive reviews and the numbers they have.
Re: your first point – agreed, as soon as businesses have experienced the power of reviews there’s no looking back.
I have an issue with what you say next ‘though – and please take this as a constructive comment from someone who is familiar with the CMA regs and the way competitors can undermine a flawed reviews policy…
You say ‘All the sales team in my office always ask for reviews on completion’, but then go on to say ‘without doubt I’ve had clients that would leave 1*’; I completely understand why you are doing this, but it leaves you open to a potential breach of the CMA regs (which, put simply, state that if you invite any customers to leave a review you must allow all customers to do so) and you are also, just as importantly, leaving yourselves open to having the credibility of your reviews undermined by your competitors” “Oh, they only invite happy customers to leave a review.” If that’s right – then the whole point of reviews, as a relaibale guide for consumers, is lost.
That’s what’s happened – and been highlighted by this whole sorry Purplebricks/Trustpilot/allAgents/Feefo saga – faith in reviews has been undermined (see today’s FT and Saturday’s Times) – and that serves no-one – consumer nor business.
If any good has come out of this it is the slow but sure realisation that the only credible solution to reviews going forwards (please forget testimonials!) is Google – imperfect as it is. But resist the temptation to do what one high-profile London agent has done – cherry-picked all its 5* reviews from a reviews site and asked that select band of customers to copy their reviews across to Google (and people wonder why the great British public mistrust estate agents!).
OK to put it another way. Are the reviews being posted at the time of the instruction and the LPE is present. To get so many reviews from the public to rave 5 star days or weeks later!!! you normally have trouble getting someone to either remember or be bothered. I struggle to see how any company can create that many genuine reviews, very suspicious and how PB in particular use the stats is misleading as it is not disclosed as a “review based on limited service and only at the very beginning”. As any business knows, its what comes out the other end that matters, unless the customer has been made to pay regardless and that is where the public are being hoodwinked?
Just a word of advice: you say “you normally have trouble getting someone to either remember or be bothered” – it’s up to the agent to ‘remember’ (remind the client) and ‘be bothered’, not the client.
Agreed, however just about everyone knows that no matter how many calls you make to a client, will they bother? PB success rate is far to good to be beleived and so many irrergularities. IF they are that good WHY WILL THEY REFUSE TO PROVE IT. It is time that someone with authority started to looked into if fraud is being committed, that would settle the matter once and for all. So much effort is put into consumer protection, but this is the wild west?
Here’s the thing about reviews.
If someone’s happy with the service they’ve received whether it’s an estate agent, a hotel or a plumber people do not naturally go onto a review site and post a review….they simply show gratitude and thank the business at the time. Who of anyone reading this posts reviews? Hardly anyone……
….UNLESS the service was bad. Then if we’re aggrieved we’ll shout it from the rooftops usually via the internet and social media.
In the main, unhappy people post reviews not happy people…..
UNLESS they’re asked. And this is where PB have cracked it and this is the reason for the amazing number of reviews on Trustpilot. They ask happy clients to review them.
And PB only ask people to review on Trustpilot not allAgent
The reviews on TP are genuine. You may not like that idea but it’s a fact. PB are pretty meticulous in making sure that every review is genuine, good and bad. They don’t remove the bad. They do not want to run any risk of their 33k reviews being discredited.
As of this morning PB had 33,094 reviews.
3% 970 were poor or bad.
1% 382 were average.
96% 31,742 were either great or excellent.
I think it is very fair to say that if you took any high street agent and asked their last 100 vendors to review their service more than 3 would say poor or bad.
I run a successful high street branch and pride myself with the high level of service we offer. But I’m sure that I’d get 3%+ that weren’t happy. We sell about 70% of what we list. That’s 30% that could potentially be peed of at not having sold through us. We all know what some vendors are like and even amongst the ones who’s houses we’ve sold they’ll be some unhappy ones. C’mon guys and girls…we all know those high maintenance vendors, and they’re not that rare!
So anyway, allAgents provide a list of negative reviews, because that’s the nature of review sites. Unless you ask!
At last; a sensible, factual comment on the subject.
Really, really genuine reviews: https://twitter.com/Agent_PeeBee/status/940578505649160197
Look at the number of reviews that are sent for verification by Purplebricks and they are predominantly for the lower scoring ones.
The vast majority of their high scoring reviews are not verified.
Purplebricks continue to refuse to supply evidence to back up publicly made statements of <>88% listing to sold which, if true, might go some way to explaining so many good ratings.
Many of the reviews are nonsensical, such as a glowing report using the LPEs full name repeatedly in the review, for returning a phone call or turning up to a viewing on time. Not in the least bit suspicious.
There are a significant number of negative reviews where the posters have complained that they have been made to go through hoops before having their review reposted. Most consumers won’t bother with such a process. A fact many firms use to their advantage.
Purplebricks have a good business model but the way they operate is highly questionable as run-ins with the ASA, admitting the ‘auditing’ of listings after the Portal Juggling issues in the industry were reported and, knowingly false claims have shown. The reviews are a key part of their business plan and anyone who believes 100% of them are genuine, needs to take a cold shower.
MrLister / PJ / whoever else you post as…
“They don’t remove the bad.”
uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5a30df97495a4e050c5dc8ba – 1-star review #NUKED within minutes of my posting it on Tw@tter
uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5a29603067953007402e9449 – 1-star review #NUKED this morning
uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5a292a7f67953007402e7c6b – 1-star review #NUKED yesterday
uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5a2293cd38516e0724c7a6f7 – 2-star review #NUKED 2 days ago
uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5a26e51b67953007402dca1d – 1-star review #NUKED 2 days ago
uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5a271424495a4e0d5c8816ee – 1-star review #NUKED 2 days ago
uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5a291a2a495a4e0d5c88abd5 – 1-star review #NUKED 2 days ago
uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5a205bf7495a4e0450ef1c00 – 1-star review #NUKED 2 days ago – THIS WAS THE SECOND REVIEW THE MAN POSTED – BOTH REMOVED
And then something like THIS pops up and explodes in your ever-so-trusting ickle face:
uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5a2fbdbf6795300b28c0af2d – 1-star review posted yesterday – AMENDED THIS MORNING TO THREE STARS – “Purple Bricks have offered some compensation for the situation and I appreciate the gesture.”
If you want another few hundred examples please ask at the desk.
“The reviews on TP are genuine. You may not like that idea but it’s a fact.”
Looks like you are another that believes firmly in “alternative fact”.
It will be interesting to see what happens under the post-Jan 1 2018 regime. Frying pan/fire?
Good work – the flaw in the PB system is, as highlighted by PeeBee, that they ask for a review before the outcome of their service is known – the review is ‘genuine’ but only in the sense that it is a genuine review of the reviewer’s expectation. This is patently misleading for potential clients – they want to know the outcome, not the expectation.
It will be interesting to see what happens after the change of site – from the open Trustpilot, where anyone can write a review, to the closed Feefo, where only invitees can. If you look at most – all? – closed systems they have had the effect of making the business look great of the reviews platform but pretty awful on Google (simply because those not invited are most likely to post a review there – and even those invited see the system for what it is and post to Google, knowing that’s where their review will have most visibility).
The question for agents who use any reviews site will always remain: Why not Google?
DonShore93…..It would be good to talk. We are trying to use google reviews (from our clients), but are having problems. Can you contact me at in@agentv.co.uk as you seem to be a great advocate for the system.
well done Allagents for standing upto these bullies. No doubt since Purplebricks have been humiliated here then they will no doubt make up something else like ‘it’s not those reviews that were fake, it was the other ones’… on behalf of both the consumers and the industry , well done
>“If Trustpilot used the same criteria as this, potentially perhaps 50% of their 32,000 5-star reviews would no longer qualify.”
Perhaps most of the reviews on their own site wouldn’t qualify?
Do they now check every 5* review or just every one of PurpleBricks’ 🙂 Given that it’s a comparison site and they’ve removed 5* reviews for one agent then surely their review site is completely useless if they don’t have the same process for every agent?
>We were unable to verify just three of the reviews – not surprising as some of them were two years old
It looks to me, in a quick check, that 4 1 star reviews since 14th June have been taken down and 3 of these are since 17th August. So this means all the people who asked to have their reviews removed were among this group.
So they’ve now done what they were supposed to do in compliance with the Defamation Act 2013, by removing negative reviews for customers who they couldn’t contact, but have they provided details of the person posting the review to PurpleBricks? If not they are responsible for any fake reviews. It’s not just whether the person exists, it’s whether they are telling the truth and AllAgents are going to have to prove this if they don’t hand over the info. requested.
Duckster his point about 50% of the 32000 reviews is duplicate reviewers. It’s ridiculous that someone can leave 2,3,4 or sometimes 5 reviews for the same company, and this can screw with the overall result/appearance. Yes i completely agree that all review sites need to be looked at with a pinch of salt, Allagents, Trustpilot and no doubt Feefo will be open to abuse. With such small admin teams, no site is going to be able to monitor all of the postings and vouch for their authenticity good or bad.
ArthurHouse02
Have just checked the last 200 reviews – there are at least FOURTEEN other reviews posted on the site from these people on previous occasions. That’s a quick-view count, indicating some 7% of reviews are duplicates of some form or another.
It also doesn’t take into account those that are posted by the same person under different accounts… or where two or more people in the same family/household post startlingly similar reviews… the list goes on.
Good comment – Google allow reviewers to edit their review as often as they like, but not post multiple reviews of the same business.
I was asked to verify my 5 star review, I responded saying i was a genuine customer, which they then asked for a copy of contract.
I said this was unreasonable and they have not reinstated my review.
Yet all the 1 star reviews just a mere yes in an email is sufficient.
No contract then?
It was a click in a box contract, and do i really need to supply them with this much information when they do not ask others?
‘Click in a box’ – to sell your home???
come on it’s not that hard to understand.
you can sign a contract online by clicking a box confirming you have read and agree to the terms of conditions.
it is 2017 and contracts can be on something other than a carbon copy.