An established brand owns hundreds of customer reviews. It is the cheapest material it has ever produced, it is already written, and it sleeps.
The temptation is obvious: turn them into videos. It is a good one, and it carries a trap almost nobody anticipates. A review belongs to its author and commits only them; the same sentence taken up by the brand in a video becomes a commercial communication, with everything that implies.
Taking up a review changes its status
That is the one point to really understand, and everything else follows from it.
When a customer writes "I have worn it every day for six months", they are expressing their experience. Nobody asks them to prove it. When the brand edits that sentence into an advertising video, it takes it on: it is no longer a customer speaking, it is a brand choosing to have that said.
The consequence is easy to remember: from the moment you select, edit and distribute, you answer for what is said as if you had written it.
This guide covers that, on the brand side. What reviews do for a creator's credibility is another subject, covered by reputation and reviews for UGC creators, and the mechanics of getting more of them do not belong here.
What selection does, and why it is not neutral
Choosing five reviews out of three hundred is an editorial act. Keeping only the five star ones produces an image of the product the three hundred do not give, and that image is the one the brand distributes.
That is not forbidden, it is communication. What becomes a problem is when the selection gives cause to believe something false about the product or about the body of feedback: a recurring flaw made invisible, an exceptional result presented as typical.
The rule of conduct that avoids the bulk of it: select representative reviews rather than the most flattering, and never take up a sentence you could not defend if you signed it yourself.
| What you want to do | On what condition | What it becomes |
|---|---|---|
| Display reviews as they are on the site | display them without sorting in the product's favour | consumer information |
| Quote an extract in a visual | author's agreement, extract not distorted | a commercial communication by the brand |
| Have a creator read a review aloud | author's agreement, and the reading presented as such | a performed commercial communication |
| Re-enact a situation described in a review | assert nothing the product does not deliver | a commercial communication, entirely on you |
| Take up a rating or an average | that it is accurate and current on the day it runs | a numerical claim, to be proven on request |
By contrast with a review displayed as it is, each row further down this table adds a layer of fabrication, and each layer shifts responsibility toward the brand.
The author's agreement, which is not a formality
A review published on your site or on a platform is not permission to reuse it elsewhere. Two distinct things are at play.
The text
It has an author. Taking it up in an advertisement requires their agreement, and that agreement is asked for simply: a message saying where the sentence will be used, for how long, and on which placements.
The person
If the review is signed with a first name, a photo or a recognisable handle, the question of likeness and identity is added. Anonymising settles that and weakens the proof; it is a trade-off to make knowingly, not by default.
What works on video, and what falls flat
The perfect review inspires no confidence. A sentence without reservation, well turned, read with enthusiasm, looks like what it has become: advertising copy.
What works is nearly always the review that hesitates. "I was not convinced at first, and then" carries more than three superlatives, because it contains an objection and its resolution, that is to say a story.
What also works is the review giving a useless detail, the hour, the place, the circumstance. That detail is what makes the person real, and no copywriter would have written it.
The temptation to correct the language
A review contains typos, repetitions, sometimes an awkward turn of phrase. Correcting them improves readability and removes exactly what proved authenticity.
The workable rule is to touch only what hinders understanding, and to flag any cut. An extract in brackets is honest; a rewritten sentence is not, and it stops being anyone's review.
What to do with negative reviews
They do not go into videos, and they are not ignored either. A recurring negative review names a real objection, and it is the best material there is for answering objections on video.
The difference is that the customer does not speak there: the brand handles the point, with a demonstration rather than a justification.
The procedure, in four steps
- Extract the reviews containing a resolved objection, a concrete detail or a duration of use. Set aside purely laudatory ones, which prove nothing.
- Ask the author's agreement, stating the use, the duration and the placements.
- Check what is asserted: any sentence with a figure, a comparison or an effect must be defensible by the brand, not merely sincere on the customer's part.
- Decide the form: an acknowledged reading, a re-enactment, or a plain display of the text. The three do not commit you to the same degree.
Where these videos work best
A video built on a review does not do the same job as an acquisition creative, and distributing it the same way wastes the material.
It works first where someone already hesitates: on the product page, in an abandoned basket follow up, in retargeting. That is the moment a doubt exists and where a peer speaking is worth more than a brand asserting.
It works badly at the top of the funnel, in front of people who do not know the product yet. A recommendation only has value for someone considering the purchase; before that, it looks like one more advertisement.
Its shelf life is long, and that is its main economic advantage. A review that carried a year ago still carries, as long as the product has not changed. A series of three review videos gets reused across several seasons, which no acquisition creative allows.
What not to do
Writing the review yourself and having it performed. Modifying a sentence to make it sell better. Presenting a re-enactment as a spontaneous testimonial. Taking up an average rating without checking it is still the right one on the day it runs.
Those four gestures have one thing in common: they turn authentic material into a fabrication that looks like it, and that is exactly what costs the most when it comes out.
Sources
- DGCCRF, misleading commercial practices
- French Consumer Code, unfair commercial practices
- ARPP, professional standards
Checked on 12 September 2026. This guide is not legal advice. Where this guide and the official source disagree, the source prevails.
