Where Stars Rule

26 Nov 2025, by Linqin Huang - PhD graduate in Business Administration and Management, Bocconi University

Reviews and ratings shape tastes and decisions, but even experts observe, imitate and compete with one another. Understanding how a score or ranking is created means understanding the invisible power that shapes trust in the markets

In today’s world, we are constantly guided by evaluations. Whether we are deciding which restaurant to try, which film to watch, which hotel to book or even which employer to work for, our choices are rarely made in isolation. Instead, they are filtered through the opinions of critics, experts and platforms that rank, star and score our options. These evaluations do more than inform individual decisions — they shape reputations, influence transactions and ultimately determine which products and services thrive. In this sense, evaluators are not just advisors but powerful gatekeepers in society.

Most of us assume that when an expert organization publishes an evaluation, it is based on objective, independent judgment. We expect consistency, transparency and fairness. But what if the evaluators themselves are influenced by factors we rarely consider? What if their judgments are shaped not only by the qualities of what they assess, but also by the pressures of competition and survival?

This tension becomes especially clear in industries like fine dining, where evaluation carries enormous weight. Consider the Chinese restaurant market, where two heavyweight guides — the Michelin Guide and the Black Pearl Guide — have been rating restaurants side by side for several years. Both are seen as arbiters of taste and quality, but their coexistence raises intriguing questions. Do they evaluate restaurants in isolation, or do they watch each other closely? How much of what we see as an “independent” assessment is influenced by organization strategy?

My research suggests that the answer lies somewhere in between. Expert rating organizations walk a fine line: if they diverge too much from their competitors, audiences may question their credibility. If they converge too much, they risk becoming redundant. To stay relevant, they must find what scholars call “optimal distinctiveness” — being similar enough to be trusted, but different enough to stand out.

Looking at thousands of restaurant evaluations in China between 2017 and 2022, I found a telling pattern. Restaurant guides tend to “imitate” one another in both which restaurants they cover and how highly they score them. The timeline of their expansion across Chinese cities shows that the mere observation of a competitor’s evaluations can be highly influential. In some cities, such as Shanghai and Hong Kong, one guide entered first and the other followed later. In these cases, the newcomer’s initial coverage overlapped by around 40%. By contrast, in cities where Michelin and Black Pearl entered simultaneously, their first-year overlap was much lower, closer to 15%. In other words, simply observing a competitor’s evaluations can trigger “imitation,” shaping not only which restaurants are covered but also how independent judgements could be negotiated.

The broader lesson here extends far beyond food. It shows us that evaluations — whether in dining, movies, universities or even credit ratings — are not neutral mirrors of quality. They are socially constructed, shaped by competitive pressures and strategic considerations. Evaluators are actors in their own right, trying to survive and remain relevant, and this inevitably influences the judgments they produce.

Why does this matter? Because we often put immense trust in these systems without questioning them. We treat rankings and ratings as if they were scientific facts, when in reality they are negotiated outcomes in a competitive arena. Recognizing this does not mean dismissing them altogether — expert evaluations can and do provide valuable guidance. But it does mean approaching them with a more critical eye, and being aware of the dynamics that lie behind the stars, scores and seals of approval.

Ultimately, expert rating organizations wield power because we let them. Their influence depends on our trust. By understanding that their evaluations are shaped not just by what they assess but also by how they compete, we can become more thoughtful consumers of their judgments — and perhaps even push for greater transparency in how these gatekeepers operate.