Research
Canadian Trades Missed-Call Research: What 74,761 Google Reviews Reveal
An analysis of public Google reviews for Canadian plumbing and HVAC businesses, showing how often customers report calling a competitor after failing to reach a business — and how that rate changes with review rating.
Published · Updated
Summary
We analyzed 74,761 public Google reviews across 2,936 Canadian plumbing and HVAC businesses in 13cities. Plumbing businesses had the highest negative-review rate of the trades covered (7.8%), followed by HVAC (7.0%). 769 reviews explicitly stated the customer called or hired a different business after failing to reach the one they reviewed — a pattern that occurs roughly three times more often on below-average-rated businesses (2.9% of reviews) than on 4.8+ star businesses (1.0%). Applying an assumed $350 average job value to those 769 mentions puts the revenue represented by explicit “went elsewhere” complaints at roughly $269,000 CAD across the dataset.
Dataset scope
- Collection period: Public Google Business review history through April 2026
- Cities: Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Kitchener, London ON, Halifax, Saskatoon, Regina, Victoria
- Categories: Plumbing, HVAC
- Businesses: 2,936
- Reviews: 74,761
Findings
Each figure below is classified by how it was produced. Observed values are counted directly from the dataset. Calculated values are deterministically derived from observed values. Estimated values are modeled from stated assumptions. External values come from a named third-party source rather than this dataset.
| Metric | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Public Google reviews collected across the dataset. | 74,761 | Observed |
| Canadian plumbing and HVAC businesses covered by the dataset. | 2,936 | Observed |
| Share of plumbing-business reviews in the dataset rated 1–2 stars, the worst negative-review rate of the trades covered. | 7.8% | Observed |
| Share of HVAC-business reviews in the dataset rated 1–2 stars. | 7.0% | Observed |
| Reviews in the dataset whose text explicitly states the customer called or hired a different business after failing to reach the reviewed one. | 769 | Observed |
| Reviews in the dataset citing after-hours unavailability as a reason for a negative experience. | 918 | Observed |
| "Went elsewhere" mention rate among reviews of 4.8+ star plumbing and HVAC businesses in the dataset. | 1.0% | Observed |
| "Went elsewhere" mention rate among reviews of below-average-rated plumbing and HVAC businesses in the dataset — roughly triple the elite-business rate. | 2.9% | Observed |
| Estimated lost revenue represented by "went elsewhere" mentions (plumbing and HVAC only), calculated as 769 mentions × an assumed $350 average job value. | ~$269,000 CAD | Calculated |
| Share of plumbing/HVAC businesses in the dataset whose Google Business listing advertises 24/7 or emergency service but whose posted hours end by 6pm. | 49% | Calculated |
| Modeled annual missed-revenue estimate per business, derived from observed missed-call mention rates, an assumed weekly inbound call volume, and category-average job values. Not a directly measured figure. | ~$15,000 CAD/year | Estimated |
| Share of inbound service calls to Canadian trades businesses that go unanswered. Sourced from third-party call-answering industry benchmarks, not directly measured in the Google-review dataset described above. | 33% | External |
Methodology and definitions
Reviews were collected from public Google Business listings for plumbing and HVAC businesses in the cities listed above. Each review was scanned for phrases indicating (a) explicit mention of contacting or hiring a different business, and (b) after-hours or emergency unavailability as a reason for a negative experience. Businesses were grouped by their overall Google star rating to compare mention rates across the rating spectrum. “Went elsewhere” revenue is calculated by multiplying matched mentions by an assumed $350 average job value; it is not a measurement of actual lost revenue for any individual business.
Limitations and selection bias
- The dataset is built from public Google Business reviews, not call-tracking or CRM data. It measures what customers chose to write about, not every missed call — most missed calls never produce a review at all.
- Selection bias runs in both directions: dissatisfied customers are more likely to leave a review than satisfied ones, and the specific phrase-matching used to detect "went elsewhere" and after-hours mentions will miss reviews that describe the same experience in different words.
- The $15,000/year missed-revenue estimate is a model, not a measurement — it combines observed mention rates with assumed call volume and job-value figures and should be read as directional, not exact, for any single business.
- The 33% unanswered-call figure is an external industry benchmark included for context. It is not derived from this dataset and carries its own methodology and limitations, which Azarix AI has not independently audited.
- Coverage is limited to plumbing and HVAC businesses in the 13 listed Canadian cities. Findings should not be generalized to other trades or to US markets without independent verification.
Update history
- — Initial publication of dataset findings.
- — Published as a standalone research report with methodology, fact classification, and limitations disclosure; consolidated from prior in-product and machine-file summaries.
Citations
Primary dataset: Azarix AI internal analysis of public Google Business reviews (see dataset scope above). The 33% unanswered-call figure cited elsewhere on this site is an external industry benchmark, not derived from this dataset — see the limitations section above.