Putting a discount code in a review reply is advertising, and Google rejects it

Google’s whole published explanation of why a reply is rejected as advertising is one sentence: “Advertising and solicitation includes promotional or commercial content, or content posted in exchange for benefits.” A discount code offered to an unhappy customer is both halves of it. The code is promotional, and if the point of it is to get the review changed, it is content posted in exchange for a benefit.

What the API publishes

ADVERTISING_AND_SOLICITATION is one value in the PolicyViolation enum returned by the v4 Business Profile API. In full:

Content that violates our policy on advertising or solicitation isn’t allowed. Advertising and solicitation includes promotional or commercial content, or content posted in exchange for benefits.

It arrives in a field documented as “Optional. Output only. The policy violation that resulted in rejection. Only populated if reviewReplyState is REJECTED.”

That is everything the API says. The description points at “our policy on advertising or solicitation” without linking to it. One of its two nouns is defined in Google’s glossary:

Solicitation is the act of asking somebody for something in exchange for posting content, such as free services, discounts, or other similar benefits.

A reply offering money off if the customer revisits their rating is “asking somebody for something in exchange for posting content”, with the discount as the something, and the definition names discounts outright.

The policy has one rule for customers and another for you

The category sits on Google’s prohibited and restricted content page under the heading Advertising & solicitation, and opens with its reasoning:

Contributions to Google Maps should reflect genuine experiences or define a business’s permanent identity. This helps users discover listings and ensures the platform remains reliable rather than a marketplace. Therefore, don’t post content for advertising or solicitation purposes.

Prohibited content is then listed in two halves. For users it is “Promotional or commercial content” and “Posting email addresses, phone numbers, social media links, or links to other websites in your reviews”. For merchants it is scoped to two named surfaces:

In the listing: Promotional or commercial content that contains any of the following: Time-bound promotions, pricing, or direct calls-to-action.

In posts: Email addresses, phone numbers, social media links, or links to other websites in your posts that are not related to your business. Offers and updates that may be seen as promotional or commercial content are otherwise permitted in posts.

A review reply is neither the listing nor a post

The merchant half is narrower than the user half, not broader, and neither of its two surfaces is a review reply. That is the gap, and it is worth stating plainly. The value is returned on rejected replies, so the category applies to them, while the policy text behind it never mentions one.

So promotional content is prohibited as a category, an offer is explicitly permitted in posts and prohibited in the listing, and Google does not say which line applies to a reply. We have not tested it and we are not going to assert an answer we cannot show you.

Google does address replies, once, and not in the policy

One page tells an owner what to do about promotion in a reply: the tips page linked from Manage customer reviews. It is guidance, not policy, and it is not ambiguous.

Be conversational, not promotional: Your reviewers are already customers, so avoid using your response to offer deals or promotions. Instead, share a detail that reinforces their experience and encourages a return visit.

The same page states that “Like reviews, replies must follow our policies.” The reason it gives is the useful part: your reader has already bought from you, so the offer is aimed at the wrong audience before moderation sees it.

The discount can trip a second reason as well

Two of the published reasons can catch the same sentence, and the second is more serious than a rejected reply. If the offer is attached to the review rather than to the next visit, FAKE_ENGAGEMENT is in scope, which Google describes as covering “incentivized content, content intended to manipulate a place’s rating”. The tips page puts the same prohibition in plain terms:

Offering incentives, like free or discounted goods or services, in exchange for customers to post reviews, change reviews, or remove negative reviews is considered fake & misleading content and is strictly prohibited.

“change reviews” and “remove negative reviews” are the owner’s intention exactly. The pattern to retire:

Sorry to hear this. Take 20% off your next visit with code SORRY20, and please update your review once we have made it right.

“Take 20% off your next visit with code SORRY20” is the promotional half. “please update your review once we have made it right” is the incentive half, and it is the one that reaches a policy about rating manipulation rather than tone. Google links that sentence to a page on “Business Profile restrictions for policy violations”, which we have not read.

Your phone number is not the problem

Two sections of the same page pull against each other, and the resolution favours you. The personal information section says: “We do allow merchants to post contact information related to their business including phone, email, or social media handles.” The advertising section prohibits phone numbers and email addresses for users in reviews, and for merchants in posts when they are “not related to your business”.

Neither sentence prohibits your own number. One of them allows it in terms, with no surface attached, and the merchant half of the other one never reaches a reply: its two surfaces are the listing and posts, and in posts the ban is scoped to contact details “not related to your business”. What the rule catches is contact details that are not yours and links pointing off Google. The tips page goes further than permitting a contact route, it asks for one:

Never share a reviewer’s private information or engage in personal attacks. If a situation is complex, politely request that the reviewer contact you via phone or email to resolve the issue privately.

So “call us on” is not the risky half of that pattern. The offer is.

The version with nothing to reject

The offer is doing a job a sentence can do instead. It is buying back goodwill, and what buys goodwill back is an admission and a change:

You are right that the order went out wrong and nobody checked it before it left the kitchen. That was our error on a short-handed night, and the pass is now checked by a second person at handover. The number and email on this profile reach us directly and we would like the chance to put it right.

No code, no percentage, no link, no request to revise the rating, and no digit typed, because the number and the email are already on the profile the reply is published under. If you want to give them something, do it privately after they contact you, without mentioning the review.

Getting it wrong is not corrected quickly: “Replies usually take up to 10 minutes to review, but sometimes a review can take up to 30 days.” The reasons are listed in what Google publishes when a reply is rejected, and the method itself in how to respond to a negative review.

The short version

The rejection reason covers promotional content and content posted in exchange for benefits, and a discount code is both. The policy behind it never mentions replies, so the only Google sentence written about your case is guidance: avoid using your response to offer deals or promotions. Your own phone number and email are expressly allowed. Asking for the review to be changed in return for the discount is the part that stops being a moderation problem and becomes a rating one.