eWOM and Reviews Strategy
Designs a proactive electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) programme that gets satisfied East African customers to review, share and refer honestly, using the GST framework (Hanlon and Tuten, 2022) and measuring advocacy rather than follower counts.
Use When
- Satisfied customers stay silent; we want more Google, Facebook, TripAdvisor or Jumia reviews without faking or buying them.
- Testimonials, results, certifications and endorsements need collecting, permission checks and placing on the website, proposals and WhatsApp sales chats, with a proof asset register.
- We want superfans and a referral programme: Connectors, Mavens and Salespeople, WhatsApp referral codes and Mobile Money rewards.
- We need to measure electronic word of mouth (eWOM) and advocacy, not just follower counts.
Do Not Use When
playbook-reputation-management for responding to bad reviews, complaints and criticism.08-influencer-marketing-strategy for paid creator and influencer programmes.strategy-customer-value-journey for the full funnel from awareness to advocacy.- Stop before fabricating, buying or gating reviews, or offering incentives that break platform or consumer-protection rules.
Required Inputs
| Artefact |
Source/provider |
Required? |
If absent |
| Business name, industry, country/city and primary goal (Google review volume, referral programme, first NPS) |
Client |
Yes |
Default to Uganda / East Africa; ask for the goal before choosing tactics. |
| Active review platforms and current monthly review volume |
Client; platform profiles |
Yes |
Count visible reviews on Google and Facebook and mark velocity a baseline estimate. |
| Current NPS or CSAT score |
Client survey data |
If measured |
Confirm none exists and make an NPS survey to all active clients the month-one action. |
| Primary customer communication channel (WhatsApp, email, phone) |
Client |
Yes |
Default to WhatsApp for review and referral requests. |
| Existing reviews, testimonials, social mentions and consent records |
Client files; public profiles |
Yes |
Run the proof audit first; publish no testimonial without recorded consent. |
| CRM or enquiry-source records |
Client |
If available |
Add a CRM source field before reporting referral rate. |
Workflow
- Confirm the goal is proactive advocacy, not a response to live complaints (
playbook-reputation-management) or paid creators (08-influencer-marketing-strategy); run the intake in the eWOM programme method.
- Audit current proof: inventory reviews, testimonials and mentions, and identify the client's own peak satisfaction moments; stop any testimonial or proof asset from being placed until consent is recorded.
- Design Give, Seek and Transmit activation: a single-tap review link sent by WhatsApp within 48 hours of each peak moment, visible reviews where seekers look, and shareable assets for transmitters.
- Identify transmitters through social listening (
meta-social-listening), the NPS recommendation question and CRM data, and build the Advocate List from promoters (score 9–10).
- Design incentives for referrals and social sharing only, with every reward disclosed; for a full superfan or referral programme apply the referral design reference, and for proof placement the proof asset register.
- Set the negative-review response routine and the six monthly eWOM metrics, ranking platforms Google first, Facebook second.
- Check every request, incentive and proof asset against platform and consumer-protection rules; correct any incentivised Google review request or unconsented proof and rerun the check, then run the anti-slop gate before hand-off.
Outputs
| Artefact |
Consumer |
Acceptance condition |
| eWOM programme plan covering Give, Seek and Transmit with the client's peak satisfaction moments |
Client lead; customer-facing team |
All three behaviours activated; peak moments specific to the client, not generic timing. |
| WhatsApp review request template, short review links and team briefing |
Customer-facing team |
48-hour window stated; links tested on a mobile device. |
| Referral and advocacy incentive design with the Advocate List criteria |
Client lead |
Incentives target referrals and social sharing, never Google reviews; rewards disclosed. |
| Negative-review response routine and templates |
Named team member |
Response within 24 hours, private resolution channel, invitation to update the review. |
| Monthly eWOM measurement dashboard spec |
Client lead; analytics owner |
All six metrics with definitions, targets and monthly cadence. |
Evidence Produced
| Evidence |
Format |
Acceptance condition |
| Proof inventory and consent register |
Table |
Every testimonial or proof asset has source, date and consent status. |
| eWOM baseline |
Table of the six metrics |
Each value is sourced from a platform count, survey or CRM, or marked not assessed. |
| Incentive compliance check |
Checklist |
Each incentive is checked against Google's review guidelines and disclosure rules. |
Capability and Permission Boundaries
Read and search only; analysis is read-only. Publishing, spend, live account changes, outreach and personal-data processing need explicit, action-specific client authority. Sending review requests, NPS surveys or referral messages to customers is outreach and personal-data processing.
Degraded Mode
Without the client's current review counts and customer contact channel, return the narrowest qualified result and mark the affected checks not assessed. The GST design, request template, response routine and metric definitions can still be delivered with a baseline to be filled in month one.
Decision Rules
| Condition |
Action |
Failure or risk avoided |
| The goal is new advocacy rather than incident response |
Design ethical prompts and proof capture; route active damage control to reputation management. |
Manipulated reviews or a growth plan built on unresolved complaints. |
| An incentive is proposed for a Google review |
Redirect it to referrals and social sharing; Google's review guidelines prohibit incentivised reviews. |
Review removal and platform penalties. |
| The client wants to hide negative reviews to show a perfect rating |
Display them alongside positive ones and respond professionally (a 4.3-star mixed record is more trusted than 5.0, Rageh, 2026). |
A record that reads as manipulation or selective deletion. |
| eWOM effort is spread across many platforms |
Focus on Google and Facebook first; expand only after review velocity on both is strong. |
Thin, stale reviews everywhere. |
| The client needs proof collected, consented, placed by touchpoint or governed as a register |
Apply social-proof-asset-register.md: six proof sources, at least three per conversion page, consent before publishing. |
Unconsented, expired or single-source proof. |
| The client needs a full organic word-of-mouth or referral programme |
Apply word-of-mouth-and-referral-design.md: five pillars, advocate types, referral loop, dark-social tracking; disclose every reward. |
Accidental referrals, undisclosed incentives or untracked WhatsApp advocacy. |
| Evidence is contradictory or materially incomplete |
Pause the affected recommendation and request the accountable source. |
Confident advice built on an unresolved premise. |
| Authority is limited to analysis or planning |
Deliver a read-only plan and approval checklist. |
Unauthorised publication, spend, outreach, or data use. |
Quality Standards
- The GST Framework (Give / Seek / Transmit) is applied — the strategy activates all three eWOM behaviours, not just review generation.
- Peak satisfaction moments are identified for the specific client — not generic timing recommendations.
- The 48-hour review request window and WhatsApp-first request channel are specified.
- The objectivity principle is applied — the strategy includes negative review response, not just positive review generation.
- All six eWOM measurement metrics are included with monthly tracking cadence.
- Google's prohibition on incentivised reviews is flagged — incentives are directed at referrals and social sharing.
- Platform priority is ranked with EA context: Google first, Facebook second.
- Language is British English throughout; imperative in all instructional sections;
ai-marketing/anti-ai-slop is applied during drafting and release is blocked on an F from ai-marketing/ai-slop-audit.
Anti-Patterns
- Fabricating, buying or gating reviews. Fix: engineer authentic, voluntary advocacy from real customers.
- Asking for a review weeks after delivery or making the customer search for the platform. Fix: send a single-tap link by WhatsApp within 48 hours of the peak moment.
- Assuming top reviewers are the people who share. Fix: identify transmitters separately through listening, the NPS recommendation question and CRM data.
- Arguing with a negative reviewer in public. Fix: acknowledge without defensiveness and move resolution to WhatsApp or email.
- Measuring advocacy by follower counts. Fix: track review velocity, sentiment ratio, NPS, share rate, referral rate and platform spread.
- Stating the 80 % response-rate drop after 48 hours as fact. Fix: treat it as a legacy figure and verify before stating.
- Treating a missing consent record as a pass. Fix: mark the asset
not assessed and hold it.
References
- eWOM programme method: read when running the intake, applying GST, finding transmitters, planning review requests and incentives, handling negative reviews, setting metrics and platform priority, or building a programme from zero.
- Social proof asset register: read when collecting, verifying, placing or governing testimonials, endorsements, certifications and other proof.
- Word-of-mouth and referral design: read when designing a word-of-mouth, superfan or referral programme and its tracking.
meta-social-listening: read when monitoring unprompted brand mentions to find transmitters.playbook-reputation-management: read when complaints or criticism are already live.- AGENTS.md: read when routing to a neighbour skill or engine.
- Anti-AI slop production gate: read when drafting request templates, response templates and referral messages.
