How to reply to Google reviews

Replying to reviews is the cheapest marketing most practices never get round to. It costs nothing, Google encourages it, and the person reading your reply is almost never the person who wrote it. It is the next patient, scrolling, deciding whether to ring you.

The mechanics are trivial. The judgement is not, and if you work in healthcare there is a rule that turns an ordinary reply into a problem. We will get to that, because almost every guide on this subject ignores it.

How to actually post a reply

1. Sign in to the Google account that manages the listing at google.com/business.
2. Open the business, then Reviews.
3. Find the review and choose Reply.
4. Write it, post it. It appears publicly under the review, labelled as from the owner.

You can edit a reply after posting and you can delete it. You cannot reply anonymously, and you cannot reply to a review that has been removed.

If you cannot see a Reply button, you are signed in with an account that does not manage the listing. That is the single most common reason people think the feature is missing.

The rule that catches out dental and medical practices

This is the part that matters more than everything else on this page.

A public reply must never confirm or deny that the reviewer was a patient. Not "thank you for coming in on Tuesday". Not "sorry your crown was uncomfortable". Not "we have looked at your notes". Every one of those confirms, in public, that a named person received care from you.

That is a confidentiality matter, not a marketing preference. The General Dental Council expects registrants to maintain patient confidentiality, and confidentiality does not lapse because the patient posted first. A reviewer can say whatever they like about their own treatment. You cannot respond in kind, and the asymmetry feels unfair precisely because it is.

The same applies to anything clinical. Do not correct the record on a diagnosis, do not explain what the treatment involved, do not say what should have happened. If the review is wrong on the facts, that is still not the place to say so.

What you can do is reply warmly, generally, and move the specifics offline. That is the whole technique.

Replying to a good review

Keep it short. Two or three sentences. The temptation is to write more for the five-star ones and it makes the page look staged, particularly when every reply opens the same way.

Thank you Sarah, that is kind of you to say. We will pass it on to the team, and we look forward to seeing you next time.

Use their first name if the review shows one. Vary the wording, because a column of identical replies reads as automated and undoes the point of replying at all. Skip the marketing: nobody reading a five-star review wants to hear about your new implant service.

Replying to a bad one

Four rules, in order of how much trouble breaking them causes.

1. Do not argue. You will not win, and the audience is not the reviewer.
2. Do not confirm they were a patient, however obvious it seems from what they wrote.
3. Acknowledge the feeling without conceding the facts. "I am sorry you had that experience" is safe. "I am sorry we rushed your appointment" is an admission.
4. Invite them to make contact directly, and name a route: a phone number, or an email address.

Thank you for taking the time to write. I am sorry to hear you were unhappy. I would like to understand what happened, so please do contact the practice on 01234 567890 and ask for the practice manager.

That reply says nothing confidential, admits nothing, and reads to a stranger as a practice that takes complaints seriously. Which is the only job it has.

Speed matters more than polish

A reply posted the same week does more than a better one posted in six. Reviews are read newest first, so a recent complaint sitting alone and unanswered is doing the most damage of anything on your listing.

Set a rhythm rather than relying on noticing. Once a week is enough for most practices. Once a day is unnecessary, and waiting for the quarterly marketing meeting is far too slow.

What not to do

• Do not offer anything in exchange for a review, or for changing one. Google prohibits incentivised reviews, and a reply offering a goodwill gesture in public reads exactly like that.
• Do not paste the same reply everywhere. It is visible. Anyone can scroll.
• Do not ignore the three-star ones. They are the most useful, because they usually contain the actual reason, and the reviewer is often willing to be persuaded.
• Do not reply while annoyed. Write it, leave it an hour, read it again. Most of the replies that cause problems were posted within ten minutes of the review landing.

Should you automate it?

Partly. The drafting is repetitive and the rules are consistent, which is exactly the sort of work worth handing over. The judgement on a complaint is not.

A sensible arrangement is to let something draft every reply, post the straightforwardly positive ones on your say-so, and hold anything below a threshold you set for a human to read first. That way the five-star reviews get answered within a day without anybody thinking about it, and the one-star review reaches a person before it reaches the public.

Whatever you use, check it understands the confidentiality rule. A generic tool trained on restaurant replies will cheerfully thank someone for coming in for their filling, and that is the one mistake on this page that is worth more than a lost patient.

The short version

• Reply to everything, briefly, in your own words.
• Never confirm in public that someone was a patient.
• Never discuss treatment, however unfairly you are being described.
• Acknowledge, apologise for the experience, move it offline.
• Speed beats polish, and consistency beats both.

None of this takes long. It is worth doing because the reply is not for the person who complained. It is for the several hundred people who will read the complaint afterwards, and who are deciding what kind of practice answers that way.