The franchisee reputation drill-in

What opens when you click an office tile

Every tile in every row on the Reputation page, Below Threshold, Declining Trend, Top Performers, Most Reviewed, opens the same slider when clicked: a per-franchisee reputation detail that expands the tile's headline numbers into a composite score, a BBB letter grade, four per-platform ratings and review counts, and a peer comparison against the rest of your network. This article covers that drill-in in full. For the tiles and rows that lead into it, see Reputation: network review health at a glance and The network reputation hero.

Nothing in this slider is a customer review, a reviewer's name, or a franchisee's private business record. Every number here is an aggregate the franchisee's own connected Google, Yelp, and BBB listings already make public, rolled up the same way for every office in the network. That boundary holds throughout the slider, and it is covered on its own further down.

Where to find it

Open Reputation from the HQ sidebar at hq.verinode.ai/reputation, in the Revenue group. Click any tile in the Below Threshold, Declining Trend, Top Performers, or Most Reviewed row. The slider opens over the page as a right-hand panel; closing it (the panel's close control, or clicking outside it) returns you to the Reputation board with nothing changed, this is a read-only detail view.

While the slider is loading, it shows the same header block described below with the franchisee's name already in place, and a plain "Loading…" line underneath while the rest of the data resolves. If the load fails, the panel instead shows: "Couldn't load this franchisee's reputation data." with a Close link beside it.

The header block

Every per-section franchisee slider on HQ, Facilities, Fleet, Equipment, Commercial, and Reputation, shares this same identity header, so the drill-in always frames what you're looking at before you read a single number:

• An eyebrow line reading "Reputation", so you always know which section's drill-in you're in.
• The franchisee's name as the headline.
• A metadata line underneath: city, state (when your network's entity model exposes real locations), or "Location anonymized" when it doesn't, followed by the franchisee's status, Seeded, Invited, or Active, and then an optional colored pill.

The pill carries whichever signal is more useful right now:

• If review trend data is available for this franchisee, the pill reads "Trend: improving" (green), "Trend: stable" (amber), or "Trend: declining" (red).
• Otherwise, it falls back to review volume: "N reviews" in green when the franchisee has at least one review on file, or "No reviews" in neutral gray when it has none.

The three sections

Below the header, the slider is organized top to bottom exactly the way the tile rows above it are: composite standing first, platform detail second, and the peer comparison control that governs both.

1. Composite reputation

Two tiles side by side:

• Composite score, the same 0-100 composite that drives every row on the Reputation page, shown here to one decimal place (for example "82.4") rather than the rounded whole number used on the tiles. Below the value sits the peer comparison line described in the next section.
• BBB rating, the franchisee's Better Business Bureau letter grade (for example "A+"), shown as-is with the caption "Letter grade · external assessor" underneath. This tile has no peer comparison, since BBB grades aren't a comparable numeric scale the way star ratings are, it is simply reported, not benchmarked.

Either tile shows a dash (, ) when the underlying value isn't on file yet.

2. Per platform

Four tiles in a 2x2 grid, each with its own peer comparison:

• Google rating, the franchisee's Google star rating to one decimal place.
• Google reviews, the total count of Google reviews on file.
• Yelp rating, the franchisee's Yelp star rating to one decimal place.
• Yelp reviews, the total count of Yelp reviews on file.

All four read a dash when that platform isn't connected yet for this franchisee. A franchisee that only has a Google listing shows real numbers in the two Google tiles and dashes in the two Yelp tiles, exactly matching how its composite score is built from whichever platform ratings it actually has.

3. The scope switcher and peer comparison

A row of pills above the two sections lets you choose what this franchisee is being compared against: Group, Regional, or National. This is the same scope control used across every HQ per-franchisee drill-in.

• Group compares this franchisee against the other active franchisees in your own network. Its pill label shows the size of that comparison pool, for example "Group (18)", so you always know how many peers the number beside it is built from.
• Regional and National are visible in the switcher, so you know the dimension exists, but neither is turned on yet for reputation metrics. Selecting either one shows: "Industry benchmarks not yet seeded for reputation metrics. Coming in the next slice." Group is the only working scope today.

What each peer-compared tile shows, once Group is selected:

• The franchisee's own value (already shown as the tile's headline).
• Median N, the peer group's median value for that same metric, formatted to match (a decimal for ratings, a whole number for review counts).
• p-N, a percentile marking where this franchisee's value ranks against the peer group, when both a value and a median are available.
• A colored delta line: "+N% vs median" or "-N% vs median", or "On par with peers" when the gap is too small to call meaningfully (roughly within a few percent either way). The color follows the metric's own direction of good, every metric in this slider (composite score, both ratings, both review counts) reads higher as better, so a positive delta reads green, a materially negative one reads red, and a smaller unfavorable gap reads amber.
• Where HQ has set an active network program target for that specific metric, a small tag appears underneath the delta: "✓ Meets target" (green) or "✗ Below target" (red), with the target's value shown alongside it and the program's name available on hover. See Programs and The network target for how those targets get set.

When a tile's peer context has no median to compare against, it shows a short reason instead of a delta: "Cohort too small" when there simply aren't enough active peers reporting that metric yet to make a safe comparison, or "Pending benchmark seed" at the Regional or National scope, since those aren't live yet.

The footer line underneath both sections ties the whole comparison together in one sentence:

• At Group scope, once enough active peers are reporting: "Within-network comparison · [confidence label] · n=[cohort size]". The confidence label steps up as more active peers feed into the comparison, from Low confidence, to Directional, to High confidence, so you can read at a glance how much weight the median beside each tile deserves. The n= figure is the literal number of active peers behind that comparison.
• At Group scope, when the peer pool is currently too small: "Peer cohort too small", with a note that more active franchisees are needed in the network before a within-network comparison is safe to show without risking exposing any single franchisee's number by elimination.
• At Regional scope: "Regional industry benchmarks pending, reputation metrics will seed via the benchmark data in the next slice."
• At National scope: "National industry benchmarks pending, reputation metrics will seed via the benchmark data in the next slice."

The privacy boundary

Everything in this slider comes from a network-wide aggregate table that HQ's own group already rolls up nightly, not from any franchisee's private business records and not from the text of a single review. A few specific protections worth naming:

• No review content, ever. The slider shows a composite score, star ratings, and review counts. It never shows what a customer actually wrote, who they were, or which specific review moved the number.
• Location and name anonymization. In most franchise and association networks, this slider shows a stable anonymized label, "Franchisee #XXXX", in place of the franchisee's real business name, and the location line reads "Location anonymized" instead of a real city and state. Only networks configured as a single same-entity operation (one company operating multiple locations under common ownership) see the real name and real city and state here, since in that configuration there's no separate business to anonymize from itself.
• No peer identification by elimination. The Group comparison only renders a median once the active peer pool is large enough that a single franchisee's number can't be reverse-engineered from it. Below that floor, the tile shows "Cohort too small" rather than a number, the same protection used on every other HQ peer comparison.
• Program targets are network policy, not surveillance. The ✓/✗ target tag reflects a standard HQ itself set for the whole network (see Programs), not a judgment Verinode is making independently.

How to use it

1. 1Open the slider from whichever row on the Reputation page brought you here, Below Threshold and Declining Trend are worklists, Top Performers and Most Reviewed are proof points.
2. 2Read the composite score against its Group median first. A franchisee below median on composite but comfortably above the network's 70-point threshold is a different conversation than one that's below both.
3. 3Check both platforms separately. A franchisee can read fine on the composite while one platform, usually the one with fewer reviews, is quietly dragging the average down.
4. 4Check the confidence label before treating any delta as a firm signal. A High confidence "-15% vs median" is worth a call. The same delta at Low confidence is worth a second look next month, not a decision today.
5. 5If a network program target is active for this metric, use the ✓/✗ tag as the standard, not the peer median, that's the number the network has already agreed to hold every office to.

Best-practice example

Say you click a franchisee sitting in Below Threshold. Its composite reads 64.2, colored against a Group median of 78.6 at High confidence, a real, well-supported gap. The per-platform tiles show Google at 4.1 with a healthy review count reading roughly on par with peers, but Yelp at 2.9 with a small review count reading materially below median. The BBB tile reads "B". Read together: this isn't a broad reputation problem, it's a Yelp-specific one, likely worth a look at how the office is handling Yelp reviews specifically, rather than a general "reputation is bad" conversation with the franchisee.

Related reading

• Reputation: network review health at a glance, the section overview and the four tile rows that open this slider.
• The network reputation hero, how the composite score is built and how the below-threshold and top-performer lines are set.
• Programs and The network target, how a network program target gets set for a metric like composite score or Google rating.
• Network health, the aggregates-only privacy doctrine that runs through every HQ surface, including this one.
• HQ compliance, which reads this same composite score into its own Brand Health hero with a different set of cut lines.

Data sources