You know your own scheme better than anyone. The hard part is knowing how it reads against the destinations competing for the same visit.
The decision: Which tenants to chase, which to renew, and where the visitor experience is actually costing you.
The tenancies, and how each one is performing.
None of these are wrong. They each answer part of the question and then stop.
They tell you how many people came through the door and nothing about why, what they thought, or where else they considered going.
Accurate, late, and only about the tenants you already have. They cannot tell you what is missing.
Genuinely valuable and genuinely partial. It is one person's sample, and it is strongest exactly where they are already active.
Works for one unit. A scheme with 90 tenants and thousands of reviews a year is past the point where reading is a method.
People who will never answer a survey leave a public review. For a busy scheme that is thousands of pieces of first-hand feedback a year, naming specific units, specific staff and specific problems. It is the largest source of visitor opinion you have and almost nobody reads it systematically, because at that volume nobody can.
A tenant can hold a 4.4 average while the written reviews are steadily complaining about queues. The rating is an average over years, weighted by whoever bothered to rate; the text is what people are saying now. When the two disagree, the gap is the story, and it usually shows up in the text months before it shows up in the score.
Assets are usually benchmarked against schemes of a similar size or ownership. Visitors do not think that way. They compare where they went with the other places they could have gone that afternoon, which is a geography question, not a portfolio one.
How Workbench handles it
Every review of every unit in the scheme, read and scored, with the recurring themes named rather than counted.
The same treatment applied to the areas competing with you, so the comparison is like for like instead of your data against their press release.
Written sentiment tracked next to the star rating, so a tenant sliding in the text surfaces before the average moves.
A prospective tenant checked against the catchment before you sign, not after the first rent review.
Every one of these is a standard report in Workbench. You ask in your own words and get the written report back, formatted to forward on without explaining it first.
What is actually going on in my scheme right now?
The category mix, the rating distribution, the recurring strengths and pain points across every unit, and where the sentiment sits against the stars.
How do we read against the destinations we compete with?
Your area against up to three others on mix, performance, customer voice, pricing and momentum, ending on a ranked list of gaps with the evidence behind each one. Differences on thin evidence are reported as thin, not dressed up as findings.
Which tenant is the problem, and what exactly is wrong?
One unit's real customer feedback turned into strengths, recurring pain points and an operational priority list you can take into a tenant meeting.
Should we sign this brand?
The prospective tenant against your catchment: local competitors, customer experience, audience, pricing and category fit, on one page you can circulate.
Sign up free, draw the boundary you actually care about, and ask the first question in a few minutes.
Get started freeAlso written for