One smart yet incomplete approach to responding to negative online reviews

Organizations and individuals take different approaches to problem solving reputation damage. Some wise and helpful, some reckless, foolish and costly. There are responsive actions (including doing nothing) and then they are smarter strategies. Which are you, as an organization or person, choosing?

Today, I noticed something interesting about a medical facility, a healthcare organization with more than one location. What matters most is not the type of organization it is because I see this with many different types of them, from healthcare to business, and also public figures. 

What matters is the mindset and subsequent behavior.

Is mitigation the sole objective or is it thorough, protective, corrective, relationship beneficial, profitable problem solving?

"According to Lee Resource for every customer complaint there are 26 other unhappy customers who have remained silent." (CSB)

This medical facility has poor online reviews and a negative overall score on its service, and on multiple review sites. Damaging. Revealing. And it's not just the cost of being in business or the nature of the beast or any other rationalizing platitude.

Yet as is common in healthcare and business, there is little to no effort being shown to communicate with those who have had a negative, and maybe painful experience, with empathy, urgency and skill to problem solve, starting online.

This is a self destructive belief system and strategy. It is, however, what rigid, myopic leadership thinking, and overly insular approaches ("we got this!") look like.

"U.S businesses annually lose and estimated $ 83 billion due to poor customer service." (NewVoiceMedia)

Yet leadership in this particular instance has decided to do something that is rare and thought provoking.

It has devoted significant "real estate" on its home page, in an aesthetically pleasing layout, to show glowing reviews of patient satisfaction. It is doing something, which makes this leadership different from the masses, in healthcare and business.

Using a horizontal layout to accommodate more reviews (without scrolling), leadership of the healthcare facility were able to show 8 positive reviews (with more available by pressing a button).

This layout didn't detract from the home page communication or appearance in the slightest and pursuing this approach is patient, or consumer friendly.

However, reputation problems remain.

All is not well though. If the organizational leadership believes this, then it is mistaken and choosing denial. The list of negative reviews about reputation are still out there. Unaddressed. On multiple review sites.

Does leadership believe people are not going to do due diligence with research, not see the list of problems mentioned in the reviews? What could be the fallout of that?

Maybe not choosing the facility? Or coming, but with a lower level of trust, meaning a heightened level of scrutiny and distrust and raised level of cynicism, possibly displayed to the medical professionals if any small negative perception arises?

Does this increase the likelihood of bigger problems, legal, if something very displeasing to a patient or their family occurs?

Another problem is this - the mixed messages.

The organization's website shows all positive reviews of course yet search engines show significant negativity.

This can be confusing cognitively to the public and research shows that 1) people give more weight to the negative than the positive and 2) within a situation with what we see as having an elevated risk, human beings are prone to loss aversion, meaning we favor protecting against loss more than we are motivated by gain.

That means people will be hesitant about being influenced or persuaded by you and engaging in any sort of transaction.

So just assuming that we can load up a website with positive, wonderful reviews without attending to the garbage on our front lawn (figuratively speaking) is self deceit and honestly, kind of ridiculous, isn't it?

This kind of belief results in lost opportunity in trust, relationship building, revenue, reputation capital building and profit.

To be effective problem solvers we most benefit by putting out all (figurative) fires, and diving deep to go below the surface to problem solve skillfully.

Dressing up a problem or painting over it (hiding it) is considered dishonest and unethical usually. People regularly find out who you are and what you're about. That's reputation cost.

Michael Toebe is a communications solutions practitioner, specializing in reputation, risk and crisis, serving organizations and individuals.

Consulting. Coaching and Do It for You services. Connect with him on LinkedIn or here on beBee. Writing on Medium and broadcasting short-segment podcasts at Communications Solutions Leadership.