What 26 reviews taught me, including the one that stung
Twenty-six reviews is not a lot. It is enough to be useful and nowhere near enough to be pleased with yourself about, which is roughly the right amount for reading them honestly.
I spent ten years in marketing, where reviews were something you generated, encouraged, and displayed. Now they are something that happens to me on a Saturday afternoon and I have no control over at all. Reading them properly has changed how I guide, and not in the way I expected.
The numbers
On FreeTour the tour currently sits at 9.8 out of 10 across 26 reviews: Content 10.0, Guide 9.9, Atmosphere 9.9, Organisation 9.9, Usefulness 9.8.
Those are good numbers and they are also not very informative. At this sample size a 9.8 mostly means I have not been properly tested yet. What is informative is what people chose to write about when nobody asked them to.
The thing guests understood before I did
The single most common thing in my reviews is not about me. It is about what the tour is not.
Over and over, unprompted, people write some version of: this was not the usual Berlin tour. Every other walk they had done was the Wall, the Cold War, the twentieth century. Mine starts eight hundred years earlier and moves forward. One reviewer wrote that what surprised them most was how much of old Berlin is simply gone.
I designed the route that way because it was the history I actually wanted to tell. I did not fully understand that it was the thing distinguishing me until the reviews told me, in plainer language than I had ever used on my own website. That is slightly humbling for someone who did this professionally for a decade: my customers wrote my positioning statement better than I did.
The second thing I had backwards
Small groups. I thought of them as bad mornings.
The reviews disagree, clearly and repeatedly. The warmest ones are from the smallest tours, and several of them name the size as the reason. One says there were three of them and that this made it "very intimate and interesting." Another pair found themselves on a tour with only two guests, and they wrote one of the longest reviews I have.
So the mornings I was quietly counting as failures are the ones producing my best work. I have written about what that changed elsewhere. It is the single most useful thing this exercise gave me.
The one that stung
A guest wrote that I am "not a native Berliner which reduces the background information."
I have thought about that line more than any compliment on the page.
My first instinct was the defence you would expect, and I am not going to make it here, because it is a marketing move rather than an answer. The truth is he is right. I did not grow up in this city. I do not have a grandmother who remembers the airlift, I did not go to school in these streets, and there is a category of knowledge I simply do not have and cannot acquire by trying harder.
What I have instead is that I read, constantly, for more than ten hours in a normal week, and that I refuse to say anything on tour whose source I cannot name. That is not the same thing as having grown up here. It is what I have, it is a real amount of work, and if a visitor weighs those and prefers a Berliner, that is a legitimate choice and I would not argue with them.
I have not changed anything because of that review. I am not sure there is anything to change. But it is the most honest sentence on the page and I would rather point at it myself than have you find it.
The one that made me laugh
Another guest wrote that the tour "could be with more humor but no problem."
What makes this useful is that two other reviews call me funny. Same tour, same person, same jokes, three different verdicts. There is a version of me that reads that and starts trying to be funnier, and I think that version gives worse tours.
Some feedback tells you to change something. Some tells you that you were in a room with a human being who wanted something slightly different, which is not a defect in the tour. The skill is telling the two apart, and I do not always get it right.
What actually changed
Three things.
I stopped covering more ground. Fewer stops, longer at each. Every time I have cut something, the feedback improved.
I say when I do not know. It costs nothing, and it makes everything else I say more credible.
I treat a small group as its own format. I no longer give two people the same performance I would have given twenty. I leave more room for questions and let those questions change the order.
None of that is a marketing insight. It is what twenty-six people told me, once I read what they wrote instead of the number at the top.
You can read all of the reviews, including the critical ones, on my FreeTour listing.
Comments