Changelog

Have something to say?

Tell us how we could make the product more useful to you.

In Progress

Sales Intelligence – Critical calculation, data consistency, competitor matching, AI visibility & German localization issues that should be fixed early

Hi EMR team, I have now tested Sales Intelligence very extensively across the Self-Service Prospect Report, Full Analysis and Battle Plan, including several different businesses and the German/DACH customer-facing experience. First: the concept and design are genuinely strong. Sales Intelligence could become one of the most valuable features in EMR for agencies because it connects prospecting, diagnosis and sales in one flow. However, I have found a number of issues that I believe are important to address while the feature is still relatively new. Some are clear calculation or data-logic bugs. Others are wording, methodology and localization issues that make modeled or estimated data sound like verified business outcomes. This matters especially in a white-label environment: the prospect does not know these claims come from EMR. They believe they come from our agency. If a prospect notices one obviously incorrect calculation, trust in the entire report and therefore in the agency can disappear immediately. I have already sent Support a detailed report and screenshots. I am posting everything here as well because I think these issues are important enough to solve early, before more agencies build their acquisition process around Sales Intelligence. Environment Product: Sales Intelligence Areas tested: Self-Service Prospect Report, Full Analysis, Battle Plan Customer-facing language: German Market: Switzerland / DACH White-label agency use case 1. Battle Plan review target calculation is mathematically incorrect One tested business has: Current rating: 4.2★ Current review count: 398 Target shown: 4.5★ Battle Plan says: “2 Bewertungen benötigt” / “2 reviews needed” It also generates: “At 4.2 stars, just a few reviews away from 4.5 display threshold.” This cannot be mathematically correct. If the true average were exactly 4.20 and every future review were 5 stars: (4.20 × 398 + 5 × n) / (398 + n) ≥ 4.50 approximately 120 additional 5-star reviews would be required to reach a true 4.50 average. I understand Google may expose only a rounded rating. If EMR does not know the exact underlying average/rating distribution, then an exact number such as “2 reviews needed” should probably not be shown. Expected result: Calculate the requirement from valid underlying data and clearly state the assumption, or show an estimate/range instead. Example: “Based on the current review volume, sustained positive review growth is required to move toward 4.5★.” This is one of the most important bugs because agencies may quote this number directly during a sales conversation. 2. Equal monthly review velocity is incorrectly marked as a deficit Full Analysis shows: Prospect: 0 reviews/month Leader: 0 reviews/month Yet the prospect receives: “RÜCKSTAND” / “BEHIND” and: “0 frische Bewertungen monatlich mehr benötigt zum Aufholen.” 0 vs. 0 is equal, not behind. Expected logic: Prospect < benchmark → behind Prospect = benchmark → neutral/equal Prospect > benchmark → ahead 3. Competitor/entity matching appears incorrect In one Full Analysis for UM bio restaurant, the system selected “Europa” as the market-leading competitor and average Google Ma

Gean Occhiuzzi about 21 hours ago

💡 Feature Request

Change name of Search Grid Scans

Right now search grid just shows the name of the business location. With lots of locations, it’s impossible to tell which locations you’re looking at, causing a user to have to click on every single listing until they find the right one. Adding a “name” to each scan would make this much easier to search for the location we’re looking for. We can stick to a naming convention internally, since the search function doesn’t really work (because all the business locations may have the same name).

Patrick Brennan 1 day ago

💡 Feature Request

Avility to turn off white label website instead of deleting pages

Hi, while I really appreciate that a built-in white label website is part of the package, in some cases an agency may only need the login page because we already have an existing website. Right now, the only option is to delete all the white label pages to activate the login page redirect. In the future, it would be nice to have an on/off toggle switch instead. That way, if we decide to use the provided website later, we still can.

Mario Gonzalez 7 days ago

💡 Feature Request

Rewrite the subject line of AI Insights

Currently, it sounds like something urgent that they have to deal with instantly, instead I think it would be better if the subject line is much softer and aligns with its purpose their regular ai insights report is ready. Current version: “Action Required: Critical insights for organization name“ Even better, if the agencies get the option to set their own subject lines/content, for such report and insight emails.

Arun Saini 12 days ago

💡 Feature Request

Private mode only for regulated professions

For regulated professions that are not permitted to collect customer reviews for public display, would it be possible to offer them a secure, private collection method that prevents publication, so as not to be considered an illegal solution? This would allow them to collect reviews to improve their service. And responding to unsolicited reviews is not prohibited by law. Responding to reviews helps show Google that the GBP is active, and the keywords used contribute to local SEO.

Romaric 26 days ago

💡 Feature Request

You are currently impersonating another WORD user - bad translation 🇵🇱

Hi, I'd like to suggest changing the wording of the impersonation banner. The current message: „Obecnie podszywasz się pod innego użytkownika.” has a rather negative connotation. The phrase „podszywasz się” is commonly associated with fraud or unauthorized access, even though that's not what this feature does. I would suggest replacing it with: „Przeglądasz konto klienta: WORD Nauka Jazdy.” In my opinion, this wording is more natural, more user-friendly, and better describes the purpose of this feature. Thank you for considering this suggestion.

Paweł Maćkowiak about 1 month ago

📥 Feedback

🇫🇷 Request for French agencies

I noticed a translation trouble in the customer sidebar. "récolte" is an agricultural word. So it is really weird to read this. It sounds bad translation. So would you mind to say yes in order to replace "récolte" by "collecte". It is more accurate. Moreover, the initial name of the section in the English version is 'Review tools', so a more accurate translation would be 'Collecte d’avis'.

Romaric about 1 month ago

💡 Feature Request