Melpomene/Depositphotos.com
October 3, 2025
Are Incentivized Reviews Here To Stay?
There’s little doubt that customer reviews are a mainstay in today’s retail environment, often used by consumers as a key decision-making metric when eyeing up a new purchase.
Research reinforces this premise: According to a recent consumer study from AMC Global, consumer reviews were among the top two decision-influencing factors (with product reviews being described as “table stakes” by EVP Miriam Konz); and Retail Dive’s Dani James cited Bazaarvoice research suggesting that “over half of shoppers cite real customer reviews as the biggest factor in their final purchase decisions.”
However, there’s a bit of nuance to consider in this equation — AMC Global noted a preference for “verified purchaser reviews” versus “incentivized or promotional reviews” coming from shoppers, while Bazaarvoice, by contrast, took the position that even incentivized reviews weren’t necessarily coming from a place of inauthenticity.
“We encourage our reviewers who participate in sampling campaigns to leave their real, honest opinion,” Bazaarvoice stated.
“Good or bad. They are not penalized from participating in another campaign if they leave a negative or low-star review. This ensures that the [user-generated content] our clients receive is authentic, trustworthy and useful for those who will read them,” it added.
Retail, Especially Beauty, May Have an Ongoing ‘Love Affair’ With Incentivized Reviews — For Good or Ill
And as James outlined, there’s a bit of a double-edged sword in play when it comes to retail’s “love affair” with incentivized reviews — particularly in the beauty segment, which heavily relies on these. While incentivized reviews quickly pump the numbers up on a product, offering a sense of safety and trust to potential buyers, the question of whether or not these reviews are entirely ethical (via score inflation) is left on the table.
James cited Professor of Marketing at the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business, Kaitlin Woolley, on the subject. Woolley argued that two primary outcomes often emerge from the proliferation of incentivized reviews.
“One is [that] they increase the volume, like the number of people reviewing,” she told the outlet.
“[Second,] the incentive itself changes the content of what people write and then also the rating that they apply to it,” she added, perhaps going against Bazaarvoice’s position.
James provided two examples, using red-hot beauty retailer Sephora as a case study. When looking at Sephora’s BB and CC cream makeup category, across 16 listings, nearly two-thirds (19,866 out of a bit more than 30,000 of listings, as of Sept. 22) of customer reviews were marked as incentivized. Concerning the eye primer makeup category, more than three-quarters of the ~37,000 reviews were labeled as incentivized.
Caroline Weintraub, vice president at True Beauty Ventures, spoke of the reality concerning the current state of customer reviews in beauty retail.
“Although it is better to have nonincentivized reviews, that often takes longer to build, and brands want the launch to be successful out of the gate,” she said.
“For smaller or emerging brands, incentivized reviews have become increasingly important. When you are competing with legacy players that already have thousands of reviews, launching with a ‘zero review’ product page puts you at a disadvantage… Some retailers even connect brands with approved third-party platforms that help seed products and capture reviews, so there is an implicit expectation that brands will invest in this area,” she added.
As for the consumer take? There could be a cautionary tale brewing. With James pointing to two bulky threads in which redditors on the r/Sephora subreddit flamed the sheer mass and nature of incentivized reviews, a third thread (titled “878 reviews and not a single one is verified, only 18 non-incentivized”) also provided a highly upvoted nugget of shopper opinion.
“Brands really do themselves a disservice when they allow for so many incentivized reviews. There are so many products I won’t give another look due to the amount of incentivized versus non-incentivized reviews there are,” one user wrote.
Discussion Questions
Will incentivized reviews continue to proliferate apace? Why or why not? Will there eventually be measures, from top-down or from the bottom-up, to curtail this practice?
Are incentivized reviews harmful in terms of customer trust? Will customer distaste for incentivized reviews materialize in any serious way, or will shoppers simply accept them as part of business as usual?
Should steps be taken by retailers, or government actors, to curtail the practice of incentivized reviewing?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Mohamed Amer, PhD
CEO & Strategic Board Advisor, Strategy Doctor
Gene Detroyer
Professor, International Business, Guizhou University of Finance & Economics and University of Sanya, China.
Scott Benedict
Founder & CEO, Benedict Enterprises LLC
Recent Discussions
More Discussions
Would Recording In-Store Associates Help as a Training Tool?
Ethosphere is banking on AI-driven recordings of in-store associate practices as the next big thing in…Some Retailers Are Trimming Holiday Sales Discounts: Is This a Dangerous Play?
Some retailers are pulling back from deep discounts this holiday season. Is this a dangerous play?Has Kroger Discovered the Limits of Automated Warehouses?
Kroger is winding down its relationship with Ocado, citing cost overruns and a reorganization of its…
I don’t think incentivized reviews will disappear, as they remain a useful way of nudging buyers to leave feedback. However, in some jurisdictions, such as the UK, regulations around their use have tightened. The key requirements are to be transparent that a review is incentivized and to ensure the incentive is never dependent on giving a high rating. Naturally, consumers may view incentivized reviews with more skepticism, and that’s something retailers need to consider in how they use them and the balance of reviews on the site.
Should steps be taken by retailers, or government actors, to curtail the practice ?
You missed an opportunity to shoot down more meddelsome interference…I’m appalled ! 🙂
You are quite right to be appalled! It is an unequivocal NO from me!
Let’s answer the hardest part first (are “incentivized” reviews harmful to trust?)
that depends on what the incentive is, of course, and how it’s given: if it’s payment, regardless of what the review says, then I think it’s “fair”; however, if the reward is more of whatever was consumed, then it’s clearly biased toward positive reviews (why would you want more of what you didn’t like?) Bottom line, since a typical viewer won’t know what was offered, or how: “Yes, it’s harmful”.
Now for the easier parts: should government intervene? > No (or maybe NO!!!, depending on one’s values) and, will they contune to grow? Of course! (“Proliferate” seems all too appropriate a term).
The incentivized review phenomenon is a textbook case of what economists call “the tragedy of the commons” applied to digital trust. Each brand acts rationally by gaming reviews to compete, but collectively they’re poisoning the well from which everyone drinks. There’s a vast difference between priming the pump and manufacturing consensus. The solution requires neither government mandates nor wishful thinking.
Incentivized reviews will continue until the consumer backlash reaches critical mass—and those Reddit threads suggest we’re closer than retailers think. The brands that win in the long term won’t be those with the most reviews, but those with the most credible ones. Authenticity is becoming the new scarcity in an attention economy drowning in manufactured consent. The real solution comes from intelligent platform design and empowering people with the tools to distinguish signal from noise, not more noise disguised as signal.
Excellent and insightful comment!
“with the most credible ones”
My pet peeves re: credibility are:
1) review platforms that allow “stars” only. It says nothing about retailer or product. Or maybe it was just the delivery service!
2) Retailers who block publication of negative product reviews. (Positive & neutral, but withholding negative). A UK company just did this to me. Out of curiosity I audited their reviews as a whole. Many products without any reviews & none showed displeasure with product quality.
Incentive is best when it’s tied to the business (e.g % off next purchase. Vs. cash or general gift cards, which attracts abuse).
An incentive to leave an honest review is different from an incentive to leave a favorable review. Unfortunately, the perception of a “bribe” for a good review has tainted the review experience for some.
My annual customer experience research (www.CustomerExperienceResearch.com) found:
Given the importance of reviews in building consumer trust, I think that incentivized reviews are here to stay. As long as the incentive isn’t tied to the actual review rating, I think customers feel comfortable being honest. That feedback also becomes an important source of input especially when a product is not doing well and gives plausible insight into why.
Incentivized reviews are here to stay. Honest reviews are the victims.
The internet and now AI are filled with misinformation, and this is just another nail in the coffin of honesty.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/genedetroyer_the-uns-ai-turning-point-activity-7378452614520414208-dYmY?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAA_ImUBL5xVKdQokTmfb65bfBt_wKuBqBc
Incentivized reviews are unlikely to disappear anytime soon—they offer a fast, scalable lever for brands to jump-start social proof and visibility, particularly for new products. At the same time, we are already seeing mounting pressure, both from consumers and regulators, to curb the more egregious forms of these incentives. The FTC’s new rules, for instance, now forbid conditioning incentives on giving a favorable review or suppressing negative feedback. Over time, marketplace platforms and governments may tighten rules further, or shift incentives toward more transparent reward systems or reviewer-curated programs.
Yes, incentivized reviews carry the risk of eroding trust—and many consumers already view them skeptically. Research shows that even when disclosed, incentivized reviewers tend to award higher ratings on average than non-incentivized reviewers, suggesting a built-in bias in how people respond when rewards are on the line. That said, many shoppers may tacitly accept them as part of the digital commerce landscape, especially when disclosure is clear. But if review authenticity is suspect, the long-term credibility of a brand (and the value of UGC broadly) is at risk.
Because review trust is the foundation of user-generated content’s value, retailers should proactively guard it. That means only offering incentives that are unconditional—not tied to positive sentiment—and clearly disclosing when they exist. Platforms should build tools to flag review patterns that suggest manipulation, encourage a healthy balance of organic and incentivized reviews, and promote programs (e.g. vetted sampling, loyalty-driven review journeys) that preserve transparency. Regulators also have a role: policies demanding disclosure, penalizing undisclosed manipulation, and enforcing fair review treatment help raise the bar. In sum: incentivization isn’t inherently wrong—but it must never compromise perceived or actual review authenticity, because once trust erodes, all that remains is noise.
Incentivized reviews are a good tool in getting a snapshot of feedback from the wider and valuable middle majority who won’t act otherwise. Retailers should want feedback from their more loyal primary customers on what could go better, and to learn from their secondary customers for what would make them change their shopping habits. Built-in encouragement and incentives help spur those insights.
The alternative in not pursuing feedback from the middle could result in a yelp-like outcome, hearing mostly from the 10%-20% who love things and/or those who are extremely unhappy.