Good work deserves
visible proof.

£195 to set it up, then £29 a month at the founding-client price. The setup fee covers the build and proving it works. The monthly fee covers hosting, monitoring, maintenance, support and reporting. Anything beyond the standard build is quoted before you commit.

Only because parts of the system carry ongoing work: hosting the workflow, monitoring that it keeps running, maintaining it when connected software changes, support and reporting. Where that ongoing work is not needed, it is not charged for the sake of it — the engagement is defined in the agreement.

There is no long-term lock-in contract — that is a site-wide guarantee, not a special offer. The workflow is documented and handed over, and your customer data remains your data. Ongoing fees continue only while the ongoing service is worth having.

If the fault is in the configured workflow, the guarantee applies: I correct it without charging you for the additional work. Third-party outages — an email provider, a CRM or a review platform going down — sit outside the workflow itself, which is why monitoring is part of the ongoing service where agreed.

It depends on the trigger and the software being connected — a clean CRM status change is quicker to connect than a process that needs a completion step building first. A realistic timeline is confirmed after the workflow review, before any build begins.

A job being marked as completed in your existing process. That can be a CRM status change, an update in job-management software, a new row in a spreadsheet, a completion form or a manual button — whichever event your business already produces reliably. The exact trigger is agreed before anything is built.

The final workflow depends on the system you currently use. I review that process first, then confirm the cleanest reliable trigger before any build begins.

A short, professional email sent in your business's name. It thanks them for their custom, asks for an honest review and carries one link to your review page. You see and approve the exact wording before launch.

The offer includes personalised SMS or email templates, so where SMS suits your customers and the agreed workflow it can be part of the setup. The email request is the core of the system; which channels are used is confirmed during setup.

One or the other, decided during setup based on where reviews matter most to your business. Google works hardest for most local trades, because customers compare firms through Search and Maps. Trustpilot is used where it forms part of the wider trust strategy, where technically supported.

Each request carries one clear action, because one link works better than a choice of competing links. Google and Trustpilot are separate platforms — a review on one is not copied to the other — so if both matter to you, the approach is agreed during setup rather than crammed into a single email.

The same thing you do now: mark the job as completed. The workflow takes over from there. What remains yours is the part no automation can do — the quality of the work the review will describe.

Where reminders are included in the agreement, a single polite follow-up is sent after an agreed period. It is one reminder, not a chasing sequence. Whether the follow-up can react to a review having been left depends on what the platform makes technically available — that is confirmed during setup.

The workflow records its own activity: the job entering the system, the request being sent and, where the email provider reports it, delivery. Where monitoring is part of the agreement, I watch the same record you do.

Review platforms do not generally report which review followed which request, so per-review attribution is only included where technically available. What the reporting always shows is that the process ran: jobs in, requests out, delivery where reported.

No, and no honest system will promise that. The automation guarantees that every completed job produces a professional request. The system is guaranteed to perform the agreed process. Customer responses remain their decision.

No. More consistent requests create more opportunities for genuine reviews — opportunities, not guarantees. Reviews are one signal among many in local rankings, and no honest provider guarantees either outcome.

No. Every eligible customer is asked for an honest review, and the system never suppresses or diverts legitimate negative feedback. Filtering by sentiment breaks platform rules and, more importantly, breaks the honesty the reviews are supposed to carry.

The automation does not hide it. If something went wrong, the right response is to put it right directly — the request asks for an honest review either way. A business that fixes problems well tends to be judged well, and the system leaves that judgement with the customer.

The customer's name, an email address, the job status and the completion date, plus optionally basic job information. It also needs a lawful basis for contacting the customer, which is confirmed during setup. The data is used only to run the agreed workflow.

The workflow uses only the data it needs, for the agreed purpose, and the lawful basis for contact is confirmed during setup. How data moves through the system is documented as part of the build, so you can see exactly what is held and why.

Start with the audit. I review how completed jobs are recorded and how reviews are collected today, then tell you honestly whether review automation is the right next step — and if it is not, what is. You get a personal review, not an automated report.