By now, most apartment communities know the basic framework for managing online reviews.
Monitor all the relevant platforms. Respond to reviews in a timely fashion—within 24 hours, if possible. Use the feedback to improve the resident experience. For instance, if several reviews complain about the tour path, maybe it’s time to change things up.
While many properties have their reputation management processes firmly in place, new mandates from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have added a wrinkle. These new rules, which went into effect in October, feature an overarching theme of authenticity and transparency.
The key component of the FTC’s new approach is that properties can receive hefty fines for stocking their review pages with fabricated or incentivized feedback.
According to the FTC guidelines, “online reviews must be genuine, from real customers with actual experiences.” Additionally, “businesses are prohibited from creating, purchasing, or disseminating fake reviews, including those generated by artificial intelligence (AI), or incentivizing reviews with a specific sentiment (positive or negative).”
That means property teams are no longer able to engage in the following activities without facing potential consequences:
- Team with associates from different communities to leave positive reviews on one another’s pages;
- Post in-house reviews, in which an employee or someone associated with the property provides glowing feedback or leaves a positive star rating. However, while the FTC discourages this practice, it’s technically OK if the reviewer makes it transparent within the review that they represent the company. This should be relegated only to associates who experience the brand as a prospect or a resident, such as a leasing associate who lives on-site; and
- Incentivize residents or prospects to leave positive ratings or reviews for the opportunity to earn cash, gift cards, concessions, or other prizes. This has always been an FTC guideline but now is a mandate.
The new guidelines also prohibit review suppression, which occurs when a business misrepresents that reviews shared on its website represent all or most of reviews from a particular platform. For instance, if a property shares four positive Google reviews on its community website but does not share any neutral or negative feedback, the property must disclose that the reviews don’t represent all reviews from its Google listing. Under the review suppression umbrella, businesses cannot use legal or physical threats—or any other form of intimidation—to prevent someone from posting a negative review.
Confusion or gray areas surrounding the new rules might exist for property teams, who might opt to err on the side of being overly cautious. To be clear, teams can still ask satisfied prospects and residents if they’d be willing to share their experience on a review site. They just cannot offer anything in return. Inorganic feedback—such as one associate receiving dozens of positive reviews within a few weeks—could be looked upon negatively and lead to fines if the FTC investigates. It’s worth noting that the new rules, which officially went into effect Oct. 21, do not apply to any review activity from before that date.
Property teams often feel pressure to have a cumulative rating as close to 5.0 as possible, but the new guidelines might help the properties that take a slight hit to their overall score. Numerous studies indicate that consumers are skeptical of 5.0 ratings and often gravitate to businesses with ratings in the 3.8 to 4.4 range, simply because the scores seem more genuine. While they might read through the negative reviews, they’ll take them with a grain of salt if they seem outlandish or if the community responds effectively.
That’s why, even with the new FTC guidelines in place, property teams should maintain the tried-and-true process of responding to all reviews in a timely fashion. According to data from BrightLocal, 89% of prospects are likely or fairly likely to choose a property that responds to all reviews. Meanwhile, only 44% say they are likely to choose a business that doesn’t respond at all.
When prospects see a review page lacking responses from the community, that property instantly loses some of its appeal. They might immediately question how effectively the property will communicate with them, and perhaps fairly so.
While the primary components of effective reputation management remain in place, the updated FTC guidelines have added a significant nuance. More than ever, property teams must ensure that any feedback on review sites is authentic and not a byproduct of an incentive, not posted by an associate of the company, and not generated by an AI profile.
With authenticity and transparency such key components of the apartment sector to begin with, the new guidelines make sense and do not feel like an overreach. Positive reviews are always welcome, while negative reviews essentially serve as free market research and enable properties to make positive changes.
The good for property teams is that by focusing on organic feedback, rather than disingenuously attempting to elevate their ratings, they will meet the required recommendations, build trust, and exhibit the transparency demanded by today's consumer—and the FTC.
