Since the Google changes of last March and the display of cross-platform reviews, you need to “water all the plants” with reviews, i.e. have a real multi-support and collection strategy. But you also need to monitor the quality of the media and the veracity of the collection methods over time, especially as very often these are paid solutions. Let’s take a look at the one I dislike the most: avis-verifies.com.

Who is Skeepers, the owner of avis-verifies.com?

Skeepers, previously known as Net Reviews, is a French company specializing in the collection, management, analysis and publication of post-purchase consumer reviews. Founded in 2012 in Marseille, Avis Vérifiés, a subsidiary of Skeepers, offers a platform that enables brands to collect customer reviews in a transparent and certified way. This solution is primarily used by e-tailers to improve customer satisfaction and engagement, while ensuring the authenticity of the reviews received, which are subject to rigorous moderation with no possibility of modification by companies.

Skeepers was created in 2019 following the acquisition of several French start-ups, including Avis Vérifiés. The company is now present in 44 countries and employs over 450 people worldwide. It positions itself as a leader in the field of customer engagement, focusing on trust and authenticity in interactions between brands and consumers.

Avis Vérifiés is certified by AFNOR (and certification is expensive!), guaranteeing compliance with quality and security standards in the management of customer reviews. This certification is a guarantee of the reliability of their services for both user companies and the consumers who leave their reviews.

Why do I have doubts about the quality of this service provider’s processing and collection?

Several indicators (as of 20/04/2024) not very glorious for a service provider who is supposed to master e-reputation and customer reviews:

3.4/5 Google rating (on 1.4k reviews) :

The google rating and reviews show many flaws in the review collection methods.

even worse 1.8/5 stars Trustpilot (out of 2431 reviews) :

https://fr.trustpilot.com/review/www.avis-verifies.com

1 Case Study more than contentious

I keep a close eye on the activity of service providers in the sector, and when I find them interesting, I even suggest that they publish on this site. In my follow-up and monitoring, one not-so-clean example came up:

Local.fr apparently excellent on verified reviews

https://www.etre-visible.local.fr/ WEB and SEO

  • 4.6/5 on verified reviews
  • 4.4/5 on Trustpilot
  • 4.1/5 on google Busines profil (with a very low profile – only 250 reviews – not based on Boulogne headquarters but on Bourg en Bresse)

Good marks apparently? with the best average on reviews-verified and the worst on google, but if you dig deeper :

https://www.60millions-mag.com/forum/communication-et-internet/local-fr-t54202.html?start=520

>>>> 53 pages of customer complaints on 60 millions de consommateurs! Current topic (last post less than a month old)

>>>> 57,000 Google results for trials and documents on Dalloz.fr

What does this case study tell us?

That the tools that call themselves NF AFNOR have a real flaw in the end-customers they survey. These end-customers are those submitted by their customer, and so their customer is not obliged to submit dissatisfied customers to them. I call this the reputation conversion tunnel.

What’s more, these reviews are often collected 7 days after purchase and/or receipt. In the case of Local.fr, the majority of complaints concern fraudulent contract renewals, where the service provider blocks the customer for abusive renewal or domain name ownership. Are these abusively renewed end-customers reintegrated into the notice collection process? I don’t think so, in view of the complaints and ratings, and this is one hell of a loophole that misleads small retailers and businesses.

So, be careful and always check the reputation of your service providers before signing a contract with them. Weak signals will appear, and at least you’ll be signing with full knowledge of the facts.

Of course this article is a personal position/vision, and I leave a right of reply to verified opinions if they wish within 3 months.