Our blog
Accounting Firm Reputation Management: A Guide for CPAs and Advisors
Accounting firm reputation management is the ongoing process of monitoring, requesting, and responding to reviews on Google, Yelp, Facebook, BBB, Clutch, and other platforms clients check before hiring a CPA, bookkeeper, or financial advisor — handled carefully enough that a reply never confirms a client relationship or reveals a single tax or financial detail. That last part is what makes this different from reputation management in almost any other industry. A restaurant can thank a reviewer by name and describe exactly what they ordered. An accounting firm reputation management program can't do that — not for a tax client, and not for a financial advisory client, though the specific rules that limit what you can say are different depending on which kind of firm you run. This guide treats those two cases separately, because conflating them is where most generic reputation advice for this industry goes wrong. Why reputation works differently for accounting and advisory firms Clients hand a CPA their Social Security number, their full financial history, and sometimes years of messy bookkeeping they're embarrassed about. They hand a financial advisor their retirement savings, their risk tolerance, and often their anxiety about whether they'll have enough money later in life. That's a different kind of trust than hiring a landscaper, and it changes how people behave around reviews. Most clients who have a good experience with their accountant or advisor don't rush to post about it. Publicly confirming "I use this CPA" or "this advisor manages my money" means publicly disclosing, by implication, that you have money worth managing or a tax situation worth discussing — not something most people volunteer casually online. That reluctance shows up as low review velocity across the entire industry: a busy, well-regarded firm might still have far fewer reviews than a mediocre restaurant three doors down. The firms that stand out aren't the ones with the most dramatic reviews — they're the ones that ask consistently enough to overcome that natural reluctance, one client at a time. Two regulated audiences, two different rulebooks "Accounting and financial services" isn't one industry with one set of rules — it's at least two, and a reputation program that treats them the same will eventually get one of them wrong. CPAs, accountants, bookkeepers, and tax preparers If you prepare tax returns, do bookkeeping, or hold a CPA license, the relevant guardrails are the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct — specifically Rule 1.600 on advertising (no false or misleading claims) and Rule 1.700 on confidential client information — plus your state board of accountancy's own advertising rules, and, for anything that touches an actual tax return, IRC §7216 and its implementing regulations. Section 7216 makes it a federal offense to disclose or use tax return information without the client's consent, and a careless reply thanking someone for "the great refund we got you" can brush up against exactly that, even if the client mentioned the refund first. Financial advisors and RIAs If you're a registered investment adviser, the SEC Marketing Rule treats reviews as testimonials and has specific disclosure requirements — this isn't a vague norm, it's an active federal rule (206(4)-1) that applies whether the testimonial shows up on your website, a social platform, or a public review site. Broker-dealer representatives face a separate rulebook, FINRA Rule 2210, which governs retail communications including testimonials and is enforced through your firm's own compliance department rather than the SEC directly. We cover the advisor side in detail in Financial Advisor Google Reviews and the SEC Marketing Rule; if you're a broker-dealer rep, loop in compliance before you touch review requests at all, since many firms restrict or prohibit them outright. None of this is legal advice — it's a starting map. Firms in either category should route any review-request program or reply policy through their own counsel or compliance officer before rolling it out, not after. A note on state board advertising rules Beyond the AICPA Code, every state board of accountancy maintains its own advertising rules for licensed CPAs, and they're not all identical — some restrict specific claims about outcomes ("we'll get you the maximum refund") more tightly than others . A review-request template that's fine in one state can brush against another state's rule on implied outcome guarantees. If your firm operates across state lines, it's worth having whoever reviews your marketing language check it against each relevant board, not just the one where your main office sits. The review sites clients actually check before hiring you A prospective client rarely checks just one site, and the sites that matter differ somewhat between a CPA practice and an advisory firm. Google Business Profile is the starting point for almost everyone — it's what shows up in a Maps search for "CPA near me" or "bookkeeper near me," and it's usually the first thing a referred prospect checks to confirm a friend's recommendation. Yelp gets real traffic for tax prep specifically, especially from consumers comparing a few local options. Yelp's terms prohibit asking customers for reviews, so your only job there is responding to what shows up on its own. Facebook recommendations round out the local picture, particularly for smaller practices and sole practitioners. BBB matters less for star ratings and more for a clean complaint history — business clients evaluating a bigger engagement often check it specifically for red flags. Clutch is a B2B-focused platform that matters for outsourced accounting, fractional CFO work, and other services sold to other businesses rather than individuals. QuickBooks ProAdvisor directory lists reviews for firms that hold ProAdvisor certification , which can be a meaningful source of new client inquiries for bookkeeping-heavy practices. Two more things clients check that aren't review sites at all, and shouldn't be confused with them: CPAverify lets the public confirm a CPA's license status, and FINRA BrokerCheck or the SEC's IAPD system surface Form ADV filings and disciplinary disclosures for advisors and brokers. Neither is a place to collect stars — they're verification tools, and conflating them with reputation management is a common mistake on firm websites. Replying without revealing client information For CPA firms, this is the single highest-risk part of the whole practice. AICPA Rule 1.700 on confidential client information and IRC §7216 both point the same direction: don't disclose or confirm tax return information in a public reply, even information the client has already volunteered themselves. If a client writes "they got me a $6,000 refund I didn't expect," the safe reply doesn't elaborate — it stays general: "Thank you — we're glad we could help, and we appreciate you taking the time to share your experience." A good reply policy for a CPA or bookkeeping firm follows a few rules consistently: never confirm that the reviewer is actually a client (even implicitly, by thanking them by a name that matches your client list), never reference a dollar amount, a return outcome, or a specific service performed, and move anything that needs real detail — a dispute about fees, a misunderstanding about what was filed — into a private channel immediately. "We'd like to understand what happened — please call our office directly" does more good than any public explanation ever will. A fee dispute, not a bad job, is the most common bad review Most negative reviews for accounting firms don't describe sloppy work — they describe a client who was surprised. A small-business owner expected a $1,200 bill and got a $2,400 one because their books were messier than they realized. A couple expected a refund and owed money instead, because their withholding didn't match their actual tax situation, through no fault of the preparer. The work was correct. The client is still upset, and upset clients post reviews. The instinct is to explain the math in public — to lay out exactly why the bill was higher or the outcome different. Resist it. Explaining the math means disclosing the math, and the math is tax return information or confidential client data either way. A steadier reply stays general and moves the real conversation private: "We take billing concerns seriously and would like to walk through this with you directly — please call our office," or, for a tax-outcome complaint, "Tax outcomes depend on each client's full financial picture for the year; we'd welcome the chance to go through yours together." Neither reply confirms a number, a client identity beyond what the review itself already states, or a specific cause — and both signal to anyone else reading that the firm responds like a professional rather than a defensive one. Tax season: turning the rush into steady reviews Tax season creates a natural, repeatable moment to ask: the week or two after a return is filed and accepted, when the stress is over and the outcome is known. The same logic applies to the October extension deadline for firms that handle a lot of extensions. Building the request into your actual filing workflow — triggered automatically when a return closes, by SMS or email — beats relying on someone remembering to send it by hand during the busiest stretch of the year. Two rules matter more than timing, though. First, every client gets asked the same way, regardless of whether their return was simple or complicated, or whether they owed money or got a refund — review gating, where only the clients you expect to be happy get asked, is both against platform terms and a real legal exposure; see our guide on why review gating is a legal risk for the specifics. Second, no incentive ever gets tied to leaving a review — not a discount on next year's filing fee, not a small gift card — both because the FTC's rule on fake and deceptive reviews (16 CFR §465) prohibits conditional incentives and because, for a licensed CPA, an incentivized review sits uncomfortably close to advertising that isn't strictly accurate about how the review came to exist. A tool like Tailwind's review inbox can send that request automatically to every client once a return closes, without anyone having to remember during the last week of April. . The same approach — ask everyone, on a predictable trigger, with no incentive — works for engagement-based work outside tax season: a completed audit, a business valuation, a bookkeeping cleanup, a successful resolution with a taxing authority. Each of those has a natural closing point that works as well as April does. Financial advisors: reviews under a testimonial rule For RIAs, the version of "asking for a review" that works for a CPA firm doesn't transfer cleanly, because the SEC Marketing Rule treats a client review as a testimonial — a category of marketing content with its own required disclosures (client vs. non-client status, any compensation involved, and material conflicts of interest) and its own recordkeeping obligations . Simply asking every client for a Google review, the way a CPA firm would, can work, but the firm's own written policies and procedures and its compliance oversight need to account for testimonials before the request goes out, not after reviews start appearing. The full breakdown of what the Marketing Rule requires, and how replying to a review can itself become a compliance event through adoption or entanglement, is in Financial Advisor Google Reviews and the SEC Marketing Rule. B2B credibility: Clutch, BBB, and referral partners Firms selling outsourced accounting, fractional CFO services, or advisory work to other businesses rather than individual consumers lean more heavily on Clutch and BBB than on Google alone, since B2B buyers tend to do more structured vendor comparison before a decision. A handful of detailed Clutch reviews describing a specific engagement — scope, outcome, working style — tends to carry more weight with a business buyer than a large pile of generic one-line Google reviews, even if the Google reviews help with local visibility. Showing up when clients ask AI for "a CPA near me" Clients increasingly ask ChatGPT, Gemini, or Perplexity some version of "find me a good accountant near me" or "financial advisor for small business owners in [city]" before they ever open Google Maps. Those answers lean on the same signals that drive your map ranking — review volume, recency, and specific, detailed text — plus how clearly your services and specialties are described across your web presence. Our guide on how to get recommended by ChatGPT covers the mechanics in more depth; for accounting and advisory firms specifically, a complete, accurate ProAdvisor or Clutch profile and a steady base of specific reviews both feed into the same visibility. What a review management setup needs to do for an accounting or advisory firm Strip away the industry-specific compliance detail, and a working setup needs to do four things reliably, without depending on any one person remembering to do them during the busiest weeks of the year. Ask every client, on a predictable trigger. After filing, after an engagement closes, after a milestone on an ongoing retainer — the trigger matters less than its consistency and the fact that it never skips a client based on how the work went. Bring every platform into one place. A partner checking Google, Yelp, Facebook, and BBB separately will eventually miss one of them for a week or two. A single inbox for new reviews closes that gap. Keep replies on a short leash. Whoever drafts a reply — an office manager, a partner, an AI drafting tool — needs the same constraints: no confirmation of the client relationship beyond what's already public, no dollar figures, no filing or performance details, and an easy escalation path to a partner for anything that needs real judgment. Keep a record. A simple log of what was asked, what was said publicly, and what moved to a private conversation protects the firm if a dispute ever escalates further, and it's the same habit a compliance review or state board inquiry would expect to see. For multi-partner firms or firms with more than one office, the same four jobs just need to run consistently across every partner and every location — one partner who's diligent about replies and another who lets reviews sit unanswered for three weeks creates an inconsistent public record that a prospective client, comparing partners before choosing one, will notice. Frequently asked questions Can we respond publicly when a review complains about our fees? Yes, but stay general. Acknowledge the concern without restating the bill, the hours, or the scope in public, and invite the client to a direct conversation where the specifics can actually get resolved. A public back-and-forth about an invoice rarely helps either side and risks disclosing information that should stay private. Can a CPA reply to a review without breaching client confidentiality? Yes, with care. A reply that thanks the reviewer generally, never confirms they're actually a client, and never references a dollar amount, filing detail, or specific outcome stays within AICPA Rule 1.700 and IRC §7216. The moment a reply gets specific about what was done or what the client paid, the risk starts. When is the best time to ask accounting clients for reviews? Right after a return is filed and accepted, or right after any defined engagement closes — an audit, a valuation, a bookkeeping cleanup. Pick a predictable trigger and ask every client the same way at that point, rather than waiting for a moment that feels special. What happens to our Google reviews if we merge with or acquire another firm? Reviews are attached to a specific Google Business Profile, not to a firm name, so a merger or acquisition raises real questions about whether to merge profiles, rebrand an existing one, or start fresh . This is worth raising with Google support directly as part of merger planning, well before the transaction closes. What happens if a review comes from someone who was never actually a client? It happens more than you'd expect — a disgruntled former employee, a competitor, or someone who confused your firm with a similarly named one. Most platforms have a process for disputing a review that violates their content policy, including reviews from non-customers . That dispute process is separate from your public reply, and the two aren't mutually exclusive — you can both file a dispute with the platform and post a calm, factual public reply while the dispute is pending, since a dispute can take time to resolve and the review stays visible in the meantime. Keeping it all in one place For a closer look at exactly how and when to ask accounting clients for reviews, see our companion guide, Accounting Firm Reviews: Reputation in a Referral Business. Whichever side of this industry you're on, the mechanics that matter are the same: ask every client, on a predictable schedule, with no incentive and no gating, and keep every reply general enough that it couldn't accidentally disclose something that should have stayed private. Every review from Google, Facebook and Yelp in one inbox → Try Tailwind free. Tailwind runs $5 a month per tool, or $50 a month for the Full plan covering every tool, with the first month free and no card required to start.
Financial Advisor Google Reviews and the SEC Marketing Rule
SEC Marketing Rule testimonials are client reviews, endorsements, and other statements about a registered investment adviser's services that Rule 206(4)-1 permits in advertising only when the adviser provides specific disclosures — whether the person is a client, any compensation involved, and material conflicts of interest — and maintains written policies, oversight, and records to support them. That means a five-star Google review left by a happy client isn't just a nice thing that happened — under the Marketing Rule, it's a testimonial, and testimonials are regulated advertising content. For an RIA, the gap between "clients can leave reviews" and "clients can leave reviews the way our firm is handling them" is where compliance risk actually lives. Building a Marketing Rule-aware review workflow for advisors means getting that gap closed before reviews start accumulating, not after a compliance exam flags it. Nothing here is legal advice. This is a general map of a specific, currently-active SEC rule, written for advisors trying to understand the shape of the problem before they talk to their CCO or outside counsel — which is a step every firm should take before changing anything about how it handles reviews. What the SEC Marketing Rule actually says about testimonials Rule 206(4)-1, which took effect with a compliance date in November 2022 , replaced the SEC's old, much stricter advertising rule — the one that effectively banned testimonials outright — with a conditional allowance. Advisers can now use testimonials and endorsements in advertising, including on third-party review sites, but only if the advertisement discloses: Whether the person giving the testimonial is a client or a non-client. Whether the person was compensated, directly or indirectly, for the testimonial, and the material terms of any compensation arrangement. A brief statement of any material conflicts of interest resulting from the adviser's relationship with the person giving the testimonial, or from any compensation arrangement. The rule also requires a written agreement with any testimonial-giver who's being compensated above a de minimis threshold, oversight of the testimonial and endorsement program by the adviser, and specific books-and-records requirements to document how the program is run . None of that is a reason to avoid reviews altogether — it's a reason to have a documented process before you start actively collecting them. Can financial advisors have Google reviews? Yes. Nothing in the Marketing Rule prohibits clients from leaving reviews on an advisor's Google Business Profile, Yelp page, or Facebook page, and plenty of RIAs have an active, healthy review presence on all three. The rule doesn't stop reviews from existing — it governs how an adviser uses, responds to, and potentially benefits from them once they do. The practical distinction that matters is between a review simply existing on a third-party site and an adviser adopting or entangling itself with that content. Adoption and entanglement: when a reply turns into an endorsement "Adoption" and "entanglement" are the two concepts the SEC has used to describe when third-party content — like an unsolicited client review — becomes the adviser's own advertisement, subject to the full Marketing Rule, rather than remaining purely the client's independent speech. Broadly: entanglement happens when the adviser is involved in creating or shaping the content (helping draft a glowing review, for instance); adoption happens when the adviser affirmatively embraces content it didn't create, for example by sharing a positive review on its own website or social media, or by replying to it in a way that endorses its substance . In practice, this is why a reply to a client review needs the same care from an advisor that it needs from a CPA, just for a different reason. A generic "thank you for your trust" reply is low-risk. A reply that restates or amplifies specific performance claims from the review — "and yes, that 22% return was real" — risks turning a client's independent testimonial into the adviser's own advertised performance claim, which brings a whole separate set of Marketing Rule requirements around performance advertising into play. Our general guide on how to respond to negative reviews covers tone and structure; for an RIA, the added rule is simple — keep every reply, positive or negative, general enough that it doesn't add new substantive claims to what the client already said. A worked example: a glowing review that goes too far Consider a fictional registered investment adviser, Hartley Wealth Partners. A long-time client posts a five-star Google review: "Hartley Wealth has managed our retirement accounts for eight years and got us 14% returns last year — better than any advisor we talked to before switching." The review itself is the client's independent speech, and the firm didn't solicit or shape it. Left alone, with no firm action, many advisers would treat this as outside the full disclosure machinery of the rule. Now suppose the firm's social media manager reposts that review on the firm's own LinkedIn page with a caption like "Our clients see the difference." That repost is adoption — the firm has affirmatively embraced third-party content and, in doing so, turned it into the firm's own advertisement, performance claim included. At that point, the Marketing Rule's testimonial disclosures apply, and so do its separate, stricter rules about advertising specific performance numbers . The safer version of showing appreciation for the review is a short, generic reply directly under it — "Thank you for your trust over the years" — with no repost, no amplification, and no echoed performance figure. Required disclosures and recordkeeping, in practice For an unsolicited, uncompensated client review on Google or Yelp that the adviser doesn't adopt or get entangled with, many firms treat the review itself as outside the full disclosure machinery of the rule — but the moment the firm starts actively soliciting reviews, highlighting them, or responding in ways that amplify their claims, the compliance picture changes . A workable starting framework looks like this: Written policy first. Decide, in writing, whether and how the firm will solicit reviews, where disclosures will live if testimonials are used in actual advertising, and who signs off before anything goes live. CCO or compliance review before any active request campaign. Even a simple "please leave us a Google review" email program should go through compliance before it launches, not after reviews start coming in. Documented oversight, not just a one-time policy. The rule expects ongoing oversight of the testimonial and endorsement program, so a policy that's written once and never revisited doesn't satisfy the spirit of the requirement . Records retained per the firm's books-and-records obligations. Screenshots or exports of reviews, along with records of any related compensation or agreements, should be retained consistent with the firm's recordkeeping policy . Where RIA clients actually leave reviews Google is the default — most clients checking out an advisor start with a Google Business Profile the same way they'd check any other local business. Beyond Google, Yelp and Facebook pick up some review activity, though volume for advisors tends to run lower than for consumer-facing businesses, for the same privacy-related reasons that depress review volume for accountants: most people don't want to publicly signal how much money they have or how they're managing it. A newer category worth knowing about: platforms like Wealthtender and IndyFin are built specifically as review and marketing platforms for financial advisors, designed with the Marketing Rule's disclosure requirements in mind from the start . That's different from directories like NAPFA's "Find an Advisor" or the CFP Board's "Let's Make a Plan," which list advisors but don't host reviews at all, and different again from the SEC's IAPD system, which surfaces an adviser's Form ADV and any disciplinary disclosures rather than client reviews — useful for a prospective client to check, but not a reputation channel in the sense this guide means. A hybrid firm — one with both an RIA and a broker-dealer affiliation, which describes a large share of independent advisory practices — should treat its review policy as the stricter of the two rulebooks rather than picking whichever is more permissive for a given piece of content. If any part of the business touches brokerage activity, FINRA's restrictions apply to that part regardless of how the RIA side would otherwise handle the same review. What about broker-dealer representatives? If you're a registered representative of a broker-dealer rather than, or in addition to, an RIA, FINRA Rule 2210 governs retail communications including testimonials, and most broker-dealers have their own internal policies — sometimes restricting review requests significantly more than an independent RIA would need to. That's a separate rulebook from the SEC Marketing Rule, and it's not this guide's focus; the short version is that a broker-dealer rep should get explicit sign-off from their firm's compliance department before adopting anything described here. A portfolio-performance complaint is the advisor version of a fee dispute For a CPA, the most common negative review follows a surprising bill. For a financial advisor, it's more often a market downturn — a client whose portfolio dropped in a bad year, even though the advisor followed the agreed-upon strategy and the client's own risk tolerance exactly as documented. The client isn't wrong to be upset about the number. They may be wrong that it reflects bad advice, but that's not an argument to make in a public reply. A fictional example: a client of Hartley Wealth Partners posts a two-star review after a year where their portfolio was down 8% in a broad market decline, writing "I'm paying for advice and my account is down — not what I expected." The instinct to defend the strategy publicly, with specifics about asset allocation or benchmark comparisons, both risks looking defensive and risks drifting into exactly the kind of performance discussion the Marketing Rule treats carefully. A steadier reply stays general: "We understand market downturns are frustrating, and we'd welcome the chance to review your portfolio and strategy together — please reach out to your advisor directly." The real conversation, including any actual performance numbers or benchmark context, happens in a private meeting, not in a comment thread. Building a Marketing Rule-aware review workflow A workflow that holds up under compliance scrutiny tends to share a few features, regardless of firm size: No gating. Every client who's asked for a review gets asked the same way, regardless of recent portfolio performance or how a conversation went — selectively asking only satisfied clients is review gating, which carries FTC exposure under 16 CFR §465 for any business, and adds a Marketing Rule wrinkle for an RIA since a curated set of testimonials can itself become a misleading advertisement. See our broader guide on why review gating is a legal risk for the general mechanics. No compensation tied to the review. No fee discount, no gift, nothing exchanged for a positive review — both an FTC issue generally and, for an RIA, a compensation arrangement that triggers its own Marketing Rule disclosure requirement if it exists. Compliance sign-off before the request goes out, not after. The CCO or compliance officer reviews the request language, the disclosure plan, and the response policy before any active solicitation campaign launches. A consistent, low-key reply policy. Replies thank the client generally, never add new substantive or performance claims, and route anything requiring real specifics to a private conversation. A record of what went out and what came back. Keeping a simple record of review requests sent, responses received, and replies posted supports both the recordkeeping requirement and a calmer conversation if a regulator ever asks about the program. A tool that brings every review into one inbox — rather than requiring someone to check Google, Yelp, and Facebook separately — makes it much easier to apply that reply policy consistently and to keep the kind of record a compliance review would want to see. Why review velocity is naturally low for advisory firms — and why that's fine If you compare an RIA's review count to a dentist's or a contractor's, the advisory firm will almost always look thin. That's not a sign something's wrong with your reputation program — it reflects the same privacy instinct that depresses review volume for CPAs. A client publicly confirming "I use this advisor" is implicitly confirming they have assets worth managing, which most people are reluctant to broadcast. A firm with 15 detailed, recent reviews can be doing just as well, reputationally, as a retail business with 150 — the right comparison is to other advisory firms, not to an unrelated local business category with a completely different disclosure dynamic. That said, low volume raises the stakes on each individual review. A single negative review sitting unanswered for months looks worse on a page with eight total reviews than it would on a page with two hundred. Responding promptly, and within the bounds this guide describes, matters more for an advisory firm precisely because there's less other content to dilute a bad first impression. Frequently asked questions Can RIAs use Google reviews under the SEC Marketing Rule? Yes, with conditions. Reviews can exist and can even be referenced in firm marketing, but doing so as a testimonial under the Marketing Rule requires the client/non-client, compensation, and conflict-of-interest disclosures the rule specifies, plus the underlying written policies and oversight. Loop in your CCO before building any active program around collecting or showcasing reviews. Can broker-dealer representatives ask clients for reviews? It depends entirely on the firm. FINRA Rule 2210 and each broker-dealer's own internal compliance policy govern this, and many firms prohibit or significantly restrict review solicitation for their reps. Check with compliance before sending a single request — this isn't a rule an individual rep can interpret on their own. I'm a CFP® professional — does that change anything here? The CFP Board's own Standards govern how you can use the CFP® marks in advertising, separate from whatever applies to your firm under the SEC Marketing Rule or FINRA 2210. If you hold the marks, that's a third layer of rules worth checking alongside whichever of the other two applies to your registration. Do paid lead-generation platforms like SmartAsset count as testimonials? No — platforms like SmartAsset's SmartAdvisor or WiserAdvisor are paid matching and lead-generation services, not review or testimonial platforms, and they raise a different compliance question: whether the arrangement counts as a compensated solicitation that needs its own disclosure under the Marketing Rule's separate rules for paid promoters . That's a distinct question from the testimonial rules this guide covers, and worth a separate conversation with compliance before signing up for one. Does firing a client who leaves a bad review create its own problem? It can, separate from the Marketing Rule entirely — terminating a client relationship in apparent retaliation for a negative review can raise its own issues around client treatment and firm policy, and it rarely looks good if it ever surfaces during an exam or a dispute. The better response to a negative review is almost always a calm, general public reply plus a genuine attempt to resolve the underlying complaint privately, not a reaction aimed at the review itself. If you're a CPA or accountant instead The rules in this guide are specific to registered investment advisers and the SEC Marketing Rule — accountants, bookkeepers, and tax preparers answer to a different set of obligations entirely, built around AICPA guidance and IRC §7216 rather than testimonial advertising rules. See our companion guide, Accounting Firm Reputation Management: A Guide for CPAs and Advisors, for how that side of the industry handles review requests and replies. Every review from Google, Facebook and Yelp in one inbox → Try Tailwind free. Tailwind runs $5 a month per tool, or $50 a month for the Full plan covering every tool, with the first month free and no card required to start.
Subscribe to our newsletter
We send helpful materials once a month, along with information about discounts and special offers. No daily spam
We use your email only to send this newsletter. You can unsubscribe at any time from the link in every email. See our Privacy Policy.
How to unsubscribe from the mailing list?