Written one- and two-star Google reviews of at least five words, up to 60 per business, from high-review-count moving companies in eight US metros. A language model, with no human-coded check, classified the main reason in 6,837 of them: 65.0 percent how the business is run, 34.1 percent the physical move itself, 0.9 percent unclear.
Of the 3,687 reviews that report damage to belongings or lost or missing items, 51.5 percent also cite claims handling. Damage to belongings is the label the model assigned most often, to 46.9 percent of all reviews.
The study covers 6,838 written one- and two-star Google reviews of at least five words, drawn from the up-to-60 lowest-rated reviews retrieved per business, from 294 high-review-count moving companies in Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte, Columbus, Denver, Tampa and Kansas City. In each metro, up to 200 listings were screened and, after filters including a cap of two locations per brand, the 40 businesses with the most Google reviews were sampled. Exclusions then left 309 businesses, of which 294 have reviews in the corpus. Review dates run from 2009-08-19 to 2026-09-30. A separate multi-label model pass assigned at least one business-process label to 92.9 percent of the 6,838 reviews. Every figure below states its denominator, and none of them is a share of customers.
The model-classified main reason
The main-reason pass was run by a language model, Claude Haiku 4.5, which chose between how the business is run, the physical move itself, and unclear. It classified 6,837 of the 6,838 reviews.
| Model-classified main reason | Share of the 6,837 reviews labelled by the main-reason pass |
|---|---|
| How the business is run | 65.0% |
| The physical move itself | 34.1% |
| Unclear | 0.9% |
A second model, Claude Sonnet 4.5, classified 200 of the same reviews. On the binary question of how the business is run against every other main reason, the two models agreed on 85.5 percent of the 200, with a Cohen’s kappa of 0.678 (95 percent confidence interval 0.56 to 0.78). It is not validation against human coding, and no sample was checked against human coding.
Process and the move, counted label by label
A separate pass assigned theme labels, and a review can carry more than one. Some describe the business process, such as pricing, scheduling, communication or claims. Others describe the move itself, such as damage, lost items or the pace and quality of the work. A single review can carry both kinds.
| What the labels cover | Share of the 6,838 reviews |
|---|---|
| A business-process label only | 28.5% |
| Both a process label and a core-service label | 64.5% |
| A core-service label only | 5.1% |
| Neither a process nor a core label | 1.9% |
The model assigned at least one core-service label to 69.6 percent of the 6,838 reviews. The multi-label pass and the main-reason pass answer different questions. One asks what a review mentions, the other asks what the model classified as the main reason, and the two are not reconciled review by review.
The model-assigned themes
The table lists every label in the taxonomy. These are themes a model assigned to what reviewers wrote, not verified events. A review can carry several labels. The shares overlap and are not summed.
| Model-assigned theme | Share of the 6,838 reviews |
|---|---|
| Damage to belongings | 46.9% |
| Work pace and quality | 45.1% |
| Communication failure | 43.7% |
| Staff conduct | 42.3% |
| Price and estimate | 41.6% |
| Scheduling reliability | 32.7% |
| Claims handling | 29.5% |
| Lost or missing items | 16.5% |
| Other | 5.6% |
Damage, loss and claims handling
A total of 3,687 reviews, 53.9 percent of the 6,838, report damage to belongings or lost or missing items. Of those 3,687, 51.5 percent also cite claims handling. The model assigned the claims handling label to 29.5 percent of all 6,838 reviews. The three excerpts quoted here describe reviewers’ accounts of seeking a response, a valuation or a repair after reporting damage.
“We have tried calling their claims department, but it will go to voicemail and the inbox is full so we cannot even leave a message.”
“Two days later I get a call saying that I couldn’t prove anything and in the contract I agreed to $.60 cents per pound”
“No one ever offered repairs or to even send out a repair man to look at anything.”
The rate in the second quote is the reviewer’s own figure. The study did not read any moving contract and makes no finding about valuation terms or what any company owed.
Price and estimate
The model assigned the price and estimate label to 41.6 percent of the 6,838 reviews. In the two examples here, the reviewers compare the estimate they were given with what they were asked to pay.
“The total cost ended up being almost double the estimate”
“We were then informed there would be an additional $275 charge to mount the TVs, despite the service being included in our original estimate”
The study did not check any estimate or invoice. These are the reviewers’ accounts.
Scheduling reliability
The model assigned the scheduling reliability label to 32.7 percent of the 6,838 reviews. Both quoted excerpts describe a crew arriving after the agreed time.
“They arrived over 4 hours late on moving day, which immediately put us behind schedule”
“they were 40 minutes late for their 8 am appointment”
Communication failure
The model assigned the communication failure label to 43.7 percent of the 6,838 reviews. It is one of the two catch-all process labels in the taxonomy. The quoted excerpts describe messages that went unanswered.
“They no longer return my phone calls or emails either.”
“I have texted, called, and emailed with no response for days now.”
Disclosure: this study was produced by Sales Roadmaps, which sells operations consulting services. About the operations consulting service
The number that keeps this honest
The 309 businesses sampled after exclusions hold 212,753 lifetime Google reviews between them. Of those, 11,137, or 5.2 percent, are one or two stars, and 92.3 percent are five stars. Of the 309, 294 have at least one review in the corpus studied here.
Percentages in this study use the denominator stated with each figure. Main-reason shares are of the 6,837 reviews the main-reason pass labelled. Label shares are of all 6,838 reviews, except the claims-handling share within damage and loss, which is of those 3,687. The base rate and the five-star share are of all 212,753 lifetime reviews. None of them is a share of customers.
Operational questions these reviews raise
These are questions for an owner reviewing their own operation. They are not findings. The study reports what reviewers wrote and how models labelled those reviews. Related reading on Sales Roadmaps covers building a price book, dispatch boards and business process management.
What happens when damage is reported?
Among the 3,687 reviews reporting damage or loss, 51.5 percent also cite claims handling. The quoted examples describe unanswered calls, a valuation dispute and no offer of repair. An owner can ask who receives a damage report and how valuation terms are explained before the move.
How are estimate changes and added charges communicated?
The model assigned the price and estimate label to 41.6 percent of the 6,838 reviews. The quoted examples describe a final cost above the estimate and an added charge, situations the study did not count separately. An owner can ask how added charges are agreed before the work is done.
How is a late crew reported?
The model assigned the scheduling reliability label to 32.7 percent of the 6,838 reviews and the communication failure label to 43.7 percent. The quoted examples describe late crews and unanswered messages. An owner can ask how late arrivals are recorded and how notifications are documented.
How the study was done
Google reviews were retrieved through the DataForSEO business data API, sorted by lowest rating, up to 60 per business. In each of the eight metros, up to 200 listings were screened. After filters, the 40 businesses with the most reviews per metro were sampled, with at most two locations per brand. Eleven businesses were excluded after their names were read: 3 junk-removal firms, 5 portable-storage container rentals, 1 delivery app, 1 labor broker and 1 office-furniture installer.
The corpus consists of the retrieved reviews rated one or two stars with at least five words, after exclusions and deduplication. Identical review texts posted under two listings were counted once, which removed 9 reviews. Candidate review-theme codes were proposed by a language model, Google Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, on a seeded sample of 200 reviews, and the research team consolidated them into a fixed label set.
Labels were then assigned by the same model. A second model, DeepSeek V3.2, relabelled 200 reviews and agreed on process against not process in 97.5 percent of them, with a kappa of 0.749. Each label was asked to carry a verbatim span from the review, and 94.1 percent of labels carry one. The rest are counted without a span.
As a label-based sensitivity test, which is not a main-reason result, the two catch-all process labels, staff conduct and communication failure, were ignored. On that basis, 77.8 percent of the 6,838 reviews still carry at least one process label. Reweighted by each business’s lifetime one- and two-star count, the any-label process share is 93.9 percent. With equal weight per business it is 91.5 percent.
The stored review data carry a business key, the star rating, the date, the text and an owner-reply flag only. No reviewer names were stored. No reviewer or reviewed business is named in this article, and the quotes carry no reviewer names, review dates or ratings.
Limitations
Google reviews are self-selected. The sample covers high-review-count businesses in eight metros: after filters including a cap of two locations per brand, the 40 businesses per metro with the most Google reviews among up to 200 listings screened, before exclusions. Review dates run from 2009-08-19 to 2026-09-30, and the sample is sorted by rating, not by date, so the study makes no claim about trends over time.
All labels and main reasons were assigned by language models, and no sample was checked against human coding.
Contact: Get in touch with Sales Roadmaps
Frequently Asked Questions
In this study, which model-assigned themes are most common?
Damage to belongings, which the model assigned to 46.9 percent of the 6,838 reviews studied. Work pace and quality follows at 45.1 percent and communication failure at 43.7 percent. A review could receive more than one label, so these shares should not be summed.
In this study, how often do damage or loss reviews also cite claims handling?
Of the 3,687 reviews reporting damage to belongings or lost or missing items, 51.5 percent also cite claims handling.
In this study, what share of reviews was classified as mainly about the move itself?
In the main-reason classification, 34.1 percent of the 6,837 labelled reviews were assigned to the physical move itself and 65.0 percent to how the business is run. At least one core-service label was assigned to 69.6 percent of the 6,838.
Among the businesses sampled, what share of all reviews are one or two stars?
Among the 212,753 lifetime reviews held by the 309 businesses sampled, 5.2 percent are one or two stars and 92.3 percent are five stars. That is a share of reviews, not of customers.
How closely did the models agree?
On the binary main-reason question, how the business is run against every other main reason, a second model agreed on 85.5 percent of 200 reviews, kappa 0.678. For the theme labels, process against not process, a separate second model agreed on 97.5 percent of 200 reviews, kappa 0.749. No sample was checked against human coding.
Does the study verify whether what reviewers wrote is true?
No. It reports what reviewers wrote and how often the model assigned each theme. No estimate, contract or claim was checked against company records.
Related studies
- The negative dental reviews study
- The negative plumbing reviews study
- The negative electrician reviews study
- The negative law firm reviews study
- The negative auto repair reviews study
- The HVAC profit benchmark review
- The negative veterinary reviews study
- The negative pest control reviews study
- The negative towing company reviews study
- The negative property management reviews study
- The negative gym reviews study
