Behind the Scene: How Businesses Respond to Online Reviews

In today’s digital marketplace, online reviews have become a critical factor in consumer decision-making across virtually every industry. From restaurants to healthcare providers, businesses face the constant scrutiny of amateur critics who share their experiences on platforms like TripAdvisor, Yelp and Google Reviews. With research suggesting that a one-star decrease in ratings can lead to a 5-9% reduction in revenue, organizations cannot afford to dismiss these evaluations as inconsequential.

While previous research has extensively documented how businesses respond to reviews online, there has been a notable gap in our understanding of what happens after the screens are turned off. When a restaurant manager posts a polite response promising to address an issue, do they actually implement changes in their operations? Or do they simply “look and pass”, to borrow a reference from Dante’s Inferno about ignoring remarks from critics one considers unqualified?

This question is the subject of a paper by Giada Di Stefano (Department of Management and Technology, Bocconi) and Saverio Dave Favaron (Université Côte d’Azur, France), published in Organization Science. Their study, “Let us not speak of them, but look and pass: Organizational responses to online reviews”, provides the first systematic evidence of how organizations navigate the complex terrain between public promises and private actions in response to online feedback.

The research approach

Favaron and Di Stefano tackled the methodological challenge of observing offline reactions to online reviews through an innovative mixed-methods approach. Focusing on the French restaurant industry, a setting where culinary tradition runs deep and online reviews have become increasingly influential, they combined three complementary research strategies.

First, they designed a lab-in-the-field experiment with restaurants listed in the French edition of the Michelin Guide. Participants were presented with vignettes describing hypothetical online reviews and asked how they would respond offline. Second, they analyzed these same restaurants’ actual online responses to TripAdvisor reviews, using both manual coding and machine learning classification to determine the extent to which these responses promised corrective action. Finally, they conducted qualitative interviews with restaurant managers, owners, and chefs to understand the reasoning behind different response strategies.

A broad spectrum of possible response strategies

The research revealed that organizational responses to online reviews don’t fall into simple categories of “sincere” or “insincere”. Instead, the researchers uncovered a spectrum of strategies.

In some cases, restaurants showed complete consistency between their online promises and offline actions – either they reported being genuinely intended to implement changes they publicly committed to, or they avoided to respond altogether, both online and offline, thus effectively choosing to “look and pass”.

Interestingly, however, the researchers also uncovered cases of misalignment between online and offline responses. In some cases, establishments posted online responses promising corrective action but had no intention to change their operations and disrupting established practices. Surprisingly, some restaurants avoided responding online but nevertheless took action offline to address issues raised by reviewers, making substantive changes without public acknowledgment. 

Factors influencing response strategies

The researchers also identified several key factors affecting the choice of one response strategy over another:

• Review-level factors: Certain features of the feedback itself—such as its specificity, tone, and the nature of the issue raised—influenced response strategies. For instance, actionable feedback about operational issues was more likely to trigger both online and offline responses compared to vague complaints about subjective matters.
• Restaurant-level factors: Organizational characteristics including a restaurant’s reputation, resources, and philosophy shaped response patterns. Establishments with strong reputations or distinctive culinary identities were more selective about whether to respond online and which feedback to incorporate offline.
• Respondent-level factors: The role of the individual handling the review (owner, chef, manager), their experience, and their decision-making authority significantly affected how reviews were handled both online and offline.

Strategic selection, not crowd micromanagement

Contrary to the popular narrative that online reviews force businesses to cater to every customer demand, the research paints a picture of strategic thinking: organizations actively select response strategies that balance short-term reputation management with long-term goals and values.

This idea challenges previous research suggesting that online reviews push organizations to prioritize immediate complaints at the expense of their long-term trajectory. Instead, the study reveals that organizations maintain considerable agency in how they respond to online feedback, strategically selecting which aspects to address publicly, which to address privately, and which to set aside.

The research also highlights the importance of consistency in building trust. When organizations make public promises of change, they create expectations that future customers will use to evaluate their experiences. Repeated failures to deliver on these promises can damage trust more severely than the original issues that prompted the reviews.

A worthwhile journey

As the authors put it, “Our journey among restaurants, chefs, and critics started with the goal of understanding how organizations respond, online and offline, to feedback provided in online reviews, a phenomenon that is growing in relevance by the day. Along the way, we could find that organizations modulate the way they address online feedback, as they are well aware that it is in their best interest to manage it and that they are doing so in a context in which their actions can be carefully scrutinized by a dispersed and pseudonymous crowd.”

In conclusion, Favaron and Di Stefano’s research offers valuable insights for both businesses and consumers navigating the world of online reviews.

For businesses, the study suggests there is no one-size-fits-all approach to handling online feedback. Different response strategies may be appropriate depending on the specific context, including the nature of the review, the characteristics of the business, and the individual handling the response. The research highlights that organizations can maintain their strategic autonomy even in an era of ubiquitous online evaluation, developing thoughtful frameworks for filtering and prioritizing feedback based on their core values and long-term goals.

For consumers, the research provides a more nuanced understanding of what organizational responses actually signify. A polite response promising changes doesn’t necessarily indicate that substantive improvements will follow. Similarly, the absence of a response doesn’t always mean the business is ignoring feedback—some may be quietly implementing changes without public acknowledgment.

As we move further into the digital age, the relationship between organizations and their online evaluators continues to evolve. The title of Favaron and Di Stefano’s paper references Dante’s approach to critics he considered unqualified. But their research suggests that most organizations are moving beyond this dismissive stance, recognizing that online reviews, despite their limitations, represent an important source of feedback and a critical component of their public image.