Online reviews are not just about businesses. Town halls, libraries, municipal swimming pools, tourist offices, recycling centres, public hospitals: people who use public services also leave Google reviews. A pool closed without notice, a welcome felt to be cold, a complicated procedure: everything ends up online, in front of other service users.
For a local authority or a public body, replying to these reviews is no longer optional: it is an expected sign of consideration.
Why reply to service users’ reviews
Service users expect the same responsiveness from a public service as from a private company. Governments themselves have made listening to users a modernization priority: in France, for example, under the Services Publics+ programme, administrations commit to taking users’ feedback into account to improve the service provided, and to replying to them publicly.
On Google, the stakes are the same:
- showing that the review has been read and that the service is attentive;
- providing useful information to everyone who will read the exchange (opening hours, procedure, contact);
- correcting wrong information circulating in a review;
- recognizing the work of staff, often praised in positive reviews.
The topics that come up in service users’ reviews
- Opening hours: unannounced closures, hours different from those shown on Google;
- the welcome, in person and on the phone;
- waiting and complicated procedures;
- the condition of facilities: cleanliness, maintenance, accessibility;
- information: finding the right contact, understanding the procedure.
The first topic is the easiest to deal with: accurate opening hours on the Google profile, including exceptional closures and summer hours, prevent a large share of negative reviews.
Replying: a tone specific to public service
A public service reply follows a few principles:
- neutrality and courtesy: no controversy, no defensive tone;
- concrete information: where to find information, which department to contact, which procedure to follow;
- confidentiality: never mention a user’s personal situation, file or procedures;
- directing to the right channel to handle a particular situation (front desk, form, email);
- an institutional signature: “The town’s sports department” rather than a first name.
A sample reply: “Hello, thank you for your feedback. The pool had to close exceptionally on Saturday due to a technical failure; we apologize for the inconvenience. Exceptional closures are now announced on this profile and on the town’s website. The sports department remains at your disposal at the front desk or through the contact form.”
Organizing replies within a local authority
The main difficulty is organizational: who replies? A simple organization works well:
- one point person per facility (or per department) responsible for following reviews;
- a shared reply charter (tone, signature, confidentiality rules);
- a target timeframe: reply within a few working days;
- escalation of recurring topics to managers, to improve the service.
It is this last step that gives the approach its full meaning: reviews become a continuous improvement tool. See our article on analyzing reviews.
Keeping Google profiles up to date
A local authority often manages many facilities: town hall, local offices, music schools, libraries, sports halls, swimming pools… Each has its own Google profile, with opening hours that often change during the year. Points to watch:
- special hours: school holidays, public holidays, technical closures;
- contact details: a number that reaches the right department;
- changes made by Google: public profiles receive many suggestions from internet users, sometimes wrong ones. See how to spot and correct changes made by Google.
A concrete example
A town of 30,000 inhabitants made each facility manager responsible for following their profile’s reviews, with a shared charter. Within a year, the response rate went from almost zero to more than 90%. Reviews about the pool’s opening hours have fallen sharply since closures started being announced on the profile, and several improvements (signage, extended reception hours) came directly from the reviews analyzed.
Mistakes to avoid
- replying in a cold administrative tone or with the same formula everywhere;
- going into the details of a user’s file;
- leaving wrong opening hours during the holidays;
- only replying to negative reviews, forgetting to thank people for positive reviews praising staff.
How Replik helps public bodies
Replik for public services suggests for every review a reply suited to public service: neutral, courteous, informative, never mentioning a user’s personal situation. Several facilities can be managed from a single account, with a consistent tone. Replik alerts you to new reviews, analyzes recurring topics, and keeps profiles and opening hours up to date from a single tool.
The local authority checklist
- List all the Google profiles of public facilities, and claim their management.
- Appoint a point person for each facility.
- Write a shared reply charter.
- Keep opening hours and exceptional closures up to date, especially during the holidays.
- Escalate recurring topics to department managers every quarter.
Frequently asked questions
Should an elected official reply personally? It is not necessary. A reply signed by the department concerned is more suitable day to day; the elected official can step in on substantive issues.
What about a political or controversial review? Stay neutral and factual, recall the useful information and direct the person to the appropriate channels. If the review breaks Google’s rules (abusive or off-topic language), it can be reported.
Should you reply to old reviews? Yes, especially if they contain information that has become wrong: your reply corrects it for today’s readers.
In short
Service users expect consideration from public services, online as at the front desk. Reply to their reviews neutrally and helpfully, keep profiles and opening hours up to date, organize follow-up by facility, and escalate recurring topics to improve the service. Start with the free audit of a profile.