Measure the reach of a review-request process by separating eligible jobs, contactable customers, requests actually sent and available delivery results. A send log does not prove that a person received or read the invitation. Record visible new Google reviews separately: without a valid attribution relationship, their count does not establish how many recipients responded. The worksheet below helps a South African business find process failures while preserving those limits.
Define what “reaches a customer” means
Use several states rather than one success label. An eligible job meets your neutral invitation rule. A contactable customer has a usable contact route and the necessary authority for that communication. A sent invitation has a recorded dispatch event. A delivery result is what the actual provider reports, which may include delivered, failed or unknown. A read event, where supported and appropriate, is a further observation; it is not established by a successful send.
Each state answers a different operational question. Eligibility checks selection consistency. Contactability checks whether the business has a suitable route. Sending checks whether the team or authorised automation completed the handover. Delivery checks technical failures. None of these states proves that a review appeared because of the invitation.
Google permits a review link or QR code that allows customers to describe their experience independently. Its guidance supports sharing that destination, not an assumption that every displayed poster was seen or every link produced a review. Source: Google review request guidance
Set a neutral cohort before counting
Choose a documented period and a consistent event, such as completed jobs. Apply the same eligible-customer criteria regardless of satisfaction. Record exclusions with a reason, for example a duplicate invitation already sent or no appropriate contact route. Do not exclude unhappy customers to improve the apparent result.
Google prohibits incentives, selective requests for positive reviews, prescribed review content, staff review quotas and pressure to review onsite. A neutral optional reception QR code is different from requiring customers to scan it before leaving. Source: Google Maps contribution policies
The article’s suggested weekly checks and worksheet categories are proposed operating choices. They are not Google reporting requirements or published conversion benchmarks. Select a cadence that fits the volume and the actual communication system, then document changes so later periods remain comparable.
Use this review-reach worksheet
| Field | Record | Evidence and owner | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Period and branch | Start/end dates, local time zone, branch ID | Operations owner’s approved scope | Keep branch and period definitions consistent |
| Eligible completed jobs | Job count after the neutral rule | Service ledger, operations owner | Defines the operational cohort |
| Contactable customers | Count with an appropriate usable route | Contact record, authorised communications owner | A missing route is a coverage gap |
| Requests sent | Recorded dispatches for this cohort | Send ledger or provider record | Sent does not establish delivery or receipt |
| Delivery outcomes | Delivered, failed, unknown, using actual definitions | Provider result, technical owner | Preserve unavailable results as unknown |
| Identifiable handovers | Direct link/QR handovers actually recorded | Staff handover log | Separate from passive poster exposure |
| Passive QR display | Location, active dates, destination checks | Branch manager’s inspection | No recipient denominator established |
| Visible new reviews | Count and observation date from the public review list | Reviewer, separate observation ledger | Do not automatically join to the invitation cohort |
| Exceptions and recovery | Reason, responsible owner, next check | Internal issue log | Explains what the team can fix |
Keep the minimum necessary customer identifiers in the private operating ledger. The public reporting summary can use counts and branch IDs. Do not publish telephone numbers, sensitive job details or screenshots exposing customer records to substantiate the article’s process.
Follow the recorded handover step by step
- Define the period, branch and neutral completion event before extracting jobs. Write the eligibility rule so another team member can reproduce the count.
- Remove genuine duplicates using a stable private job or customer reference. Keep a reason for each exclusion instead of changing the cohort to favour likely positive reviewers.
- Check the appropriate contact route and communication authority. Record missing or unusable routes separately from technical delivery failures.
- Record each authorised dispatch, including the actual destination template and branch review link. Manual and automated sends can both be counted when genuinely recorded.
- Read the provider’s actual result. Preserve its meaning: a delivered status may describe technical delivery, while the customer’s attention remains unknown.
- Test the review link on mobile and confirm the intended branch. Include a signed-out session so the team understands any Google-account prompt encountered by customers.
- Record visible reviews in a separate observation sheet. Check any apparent policy issue against specific evidence; publication and a balanced rating distribution do not prove authenticity.
- Assign recovery work for process failures and repeat the same definitions in the next period. Retain an audit trail when a template, trigger or provider changes.
Use the reviews and reputation guide for the wider workflow and the review management glossary for terminology. The local SEO audit guide provides related profile checks.
Interpret a hypothetical branch ledger
Suppose an imaginary Durban repair branch records 100 eligible completed jobs in one month. Ninety-two have an appropriate contact route. The team records 80 invitations sent. Its provider reports 72 delivered, five failed and three unknown. Separately, the public review list contains 14 new reviews during the month.
The operational findings are concrete: eight eligible jobs lack a suitable contact route, and 12 contactable jobs have no recorded dispatch. The five failed sends need investigation under the provider’s actual failure reasons. Three sends have an unknown delivery outcome. The business cannot turn those unknowns into successful delivery or assume that 72 delivered messages were read.
The 14 reviews may include people invited earlier, walk-in visitors or customers using a different destination. Dividing 14 by 80 would not establish an invitation conversion rate. The cohort and the review observations have no demonstrated recipient-to-review relationship. This hypothetical example illustrates worksheet interpretation; it is not a client result or an expected performance level.
Appropriate next actions are to investigate the missing routes, check the 12 handovers and correct any verified delivery issue. The review count remains a separate observation. A later increase cannot, by itself, prove that those corrections caused more reviews or improved ranking.
Compare process coverage without inventing conversion
A recorded dispatch coverage calculation can use 80 sent invitations divided by 92 contactable eligible jobs, provided these counts refer to the same defined cohort and duplicate handling. Label it “recorded dispatch coverage,” with the numerator and denominator shown. It describes an internal handover, not review completion, message reading or a Google ranking outcome.
If a denominator is zero, report the rate as undefined and explain why. If a provider supplies no delivery results, mark that state unavailable rather than assign zero failures. When comparing months, retain the same trigger and branch scope and disclose changes in customer mix, channel or recording practices.
Google Business Profile Performance reports describe interactions such as call-button clicks and directions requests. These are not completed calls or visits, and the documented report does not supply a review-request delivery or recipient-to-review conversion metric. Source: Business Profile performance and insights
Diagnose failures and assign an owner
Missing contact details belong with the service-record owner. Unrecorded dispatches belong with the communications process owner. Failed sends belong with the technical owner and actual provider evidence. A wrong branch review destination needs a tested correction by the profile manager. A passive reception poster needs inspection of placement and destination; it cannot be assigned a customer-response rate without a valid exposure measure.
Use a proposed issue review after each reporting period. Record the finding, evidence, responsible person, change made and subsequent readback. Avoid repeated invitations merely to increase the send count, and keep staff instructions neutral. A review policy concern should be assessed on its facts rather than handled by suppressing dissatisfied customers.
FAQs
Does a sent invitation prove the customer received it?
No. Record the actual send event, available provider delivery result and any separately supported read result. These states have different meanings. An unavailable delivery report remains unknown.
Can authorised automated invitations be included?
Yes, when the dispatch is genuinely recorded and the process follows the applicable communication authority and neutral review rules. Automation itself does not make a request invalid, nor does it prove delivery.
Can we count reviews divided by requests as conversion?
Only a valid, documented attribution relationship could support that interpretation. The ordinary aggregate counts in this worksheet do not provide one. Keep visible reviews and invitation coverage separate.
How do we measure a reception QR poster?
Record its placement, active dates, correct destination and any actually available observations. A poster’s presence does not identify everyone who saw it. Direct handovers and passive exposure are different records; neither automatically identifies review authors.
How do we know that a visible review is genuine?
A published review or Google account is not independent customer verification. Assess observable policy evidence and relevant operational records carefully. Preserve uncertainty and do not disqualify candid criticism merely because the business disagrees.
Bring a completed worksheet to the next discussion
If you need help applying the ledger, review our local business SEO service and local SEO services. Bring the completed fields and documented unknowns when you get in touch, so the discussion starts with actual process evidence.