So what happens when simply creating flattering content on your own websites isn't enough? What happens when you've really messed up and the SERPs are flooded with negative news when someone searches for your name?
A while ago, SEOmoz had an individual approach us for reputation management work. This person wanted us to "get rid of" the problematic links that showed up when one searched at Google for his company. Scott and I went to work researching this guy and his business, and the news wasn't good. Quite aside from the information that he wanted gone about his business, there were older links that detailed some of the really nasty stuff he'd been up to. To cut a gross story short, this wasn't someone SEOmoz wanted to work with, and we didn't.
However, as with everything, there appears to be a gray area. No pun intended of course, but this experience made me wonder how much bad news is too much? If someone comes to you for reputation management, it's highly likely that they're responsible for committing the sins highlighted in the SERPs. If they were innocent, they'd not be at an SEO firm, but in court, filing for libel.
However, if you've found someone who really doesn't deserve to be bashed on Google anymore, making headway isn't usually too hard. Your task is a combination of creating new content to move up the rankings, or to push existing positive content up instead. Either way, you're probably going to be creating some social media profiles and writing a fair bit of unique content about a person if you want to do the job well.
This is the second place where ethics come in, because you're just a rotten spammer if you're making dozens of MySpace profiles and linking to random forums. In which you've spammed the comments. If you're going to keep your white hat on, you have to create some real content about the person. You'll want to create a questionnaire for them before you begin so that you know where they're from, all the things they do professionally, some positive information about their personal life, where they went to school, etc.
Familiarize yourself with their occupation and company before you begin. If you find that they're one of those businesses whose mission statement and company description is nothing but meaningless eCommerce rubbish, try to make up something more readable. A brief poke around a website will tell you that someone is, for example, in the business of making very expensive project management software for Fortune 500 companies, not "providing monetary solutions and elegant interfaces for a streamlined web enterprise experience."
I'm interested to know what other people's experiences with reputation management have been like. I've only engaged in one campaign (although I recently dreamed up a theoretical one for an acquaintance who did something thoroughly scandalous in New Zealand once). I don't believe it to be a hard venture, but I still have questions about the ethics of "removing" negative news. Is it any difference to "un-tagging" embarrassing photographs of yourself on Facebook, or is it deceitful to bury information?
Excellent post! I actually went through this dilemma 6 months ago for a company I used to work for. One of the first projects was to help a client bury their "negative news." This particular client has all this negative news simply because he's been charged and convicted of several fraud claims all across the country. Whenever his company was caught scamming people, he'd simply close down that business and open a new LLC to do the exact same thing. I think he had literally over 50 business names that he's operated under, and apparently some people have figured this out and wrote up some articles exposing all the details of all the businesses. The scammer didn't like this website coming up first whenever somebody Googled his name, so he contacted the SEO company I worked for to help him with "reputation management". He claimed all this "negative publicity" was the work of bitter, former employees and they were simply not true.
After doing some initial research, I've found several legal documents on .gov domains, articles from reputable authorative news sites, and other websites which led me to believe without a doubt that this scammer was a crook and the "allegations" from his former employees was just another lie.
Ethically I didn't want anything to do with it. But since I had just started working at this SEO company, the boss pretty much didn't care if I didn't want anything to do with it, so I did it. (I have since left that company due to numerous, and I mean numerous, reasons... turns out they weren't the most respectable company around).
So basically that's what we did, we created MySpace profiles and blogs and other websites etc. for the sole purpose of taking over the top 10 in Google for his name... eventually it was successful, but it wasn't anything I was proud of.
And once we successfully managed his "reputation", guess what... he never paid! (Just another problem with the SEO company I used to work for... didn't really pay attention to bookkeeping so some clients never paid for work that was done... and the company never paid for several services, contractors, employees, etc...)
Anyways, I just have one question about all this...
Is there any kind of law that protects employees who wish not to participate in unethical projects? While my particular project was not illegal, it was as close to sketchy as it could be and I had to do it, otherwise I would have gotten fired. (Which in retrospect would have been a blessing in disguise so I wouldn't have wasted the 6 months I did stay with them...)
I don't know how the law words it, but I'd imagine you could make a case for wrongful dismissal if you were fired for not wanting to take on a task that was obviously dodgy.
My opinion is that reputation management should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but one rule should always apply: don't create spam to combat the negative links. Even if the content is boring, make sure it's real content.
I agree with Jane, and to add to vangogh99 opinion - I think it would be easier to prove the ethics if the client was already caught (quite a few times in your case) doing wrong things. But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer. I usually call a guy name Lui down at the piano moving company.
I think Jane is right that there is probably some legal protection you could fall back on if you were fired (depending on the circumstances), but I'd also guess it would be hard to prove since we're talking ethics.
For example setting up a lot of MySpace profiles and blogs and sites etc is something we all would say is unethical, but I'n not sure any of it would be illegal at all.
Also if you had ever engaged in something unethical for the company and later started refusing I'm sure they would defend the firing by pointing to all the unethical things you had done in the past.
I think you handled it the best way. You did what you had to while working for the company (We've probably all done things we wouldn't otherwise do because out employer told us to) and then left the company.
The best part of your story of course is how your company didn't get paid. I guess karma really does work.
It's actually pretty hard under ANY circumstance to prove a wrongful termination or wrongful dismissal, and the process can be truly painful as well. If the task is reasonable under your job description and legal, most employment attorneys wouldn't touch it.
Note: I am not a lawyer. I just optimize web sites for 'em.
Certainly, like everything else in SEO it's a case-by-case question. I have found that the majority of "reputation management" discussions I am brought in on are just individuals who aren't happy with the results that come up when you Google their name (Me and my partner hear this complaint so often we wrote an article on our website called "I Googled Myself - And I Don't LIke What I Saw! What Should I Do?"). And usually the content was once accurate but is out-of-date, things like ancient Google Groups postings. So there's no ethical issue here.Another case that I've run into is poor reviews. I certainly have no qualms about telling a client: "Hey, you've got 1 or 2 crappy reviews out there and you really need to encourage your happy customers to post some positive ones." Again, hardly an ethical issue.
So, is there something I'm missing that makes this have more ethical quandaries than any other SEO pursuit? Is it just because "bad guys" are more likely to seek this sort of help?
Best,
Gradiva Couzin
https://www.yourseoplan.com/
I actually spoke about online reputation management to some college students a few weeks ago. It was part of a larger speech on working in in advertising, but it was a definite hotpoint. People need to understand that online reputation begins with what they contribute to the internet. I've been turned off of job seekers before they interviewed based on what I found out about them online.
I wouldn't take on a client for the task of negative online reputation management unless I believed they were being misrepresented. (maybe the company had bad press two years ago for something, but they've since reformed or were targeted unfairly.)
Online reputation management isn't always about trying to overpower negative PR, but about establishing some presence to begin with!
Good topic, Jane!
SEOmoz apparently came across this issue when they were hiring. People pointed to their MySpace blogs as proof that they've written online content. One click later, Rebecca and Rand were often looking at pictures of someone's Pimps 'n Hoes party or reading about their alcohol-fueled fist fights. While we realise that no one's perfect, people who link to stuff like that when looking for a job should probably not be hired simply on the principle that they're stupid!
But pimps 'n hoes provide viral content!
It's one thing to be ignorant of the fact that employers check you out online, but it's another thing altogether to give them the direct links.
Which some people apparently did. I must say that before I began the job search, I Googled myself numerous times to make sure that nothing unsavoury turned up. I was always careful about what I contributed to the WWW, but you never know what other people have put out there :)
I do not think it is deceitful to bury information, because Google is doing it - not you. If Google finds your new content to be more relevant for the search inquiry, they will rank it higher. That is clean and fair. Deceit would be threatening the host of the negative news, or something of that sort.
Good point! I guess, aside from it being the morally correct thing to do, that is why your content need to be relevant and of a good quality. Although threatening others is sometimes more fun than doing real work, huh Rebecca? :)
haha..
"Deceit would be threatening the host of the negative news, or something of that sort."
Only if you're bluffing.
I've never had a problem personally with bad news (I don't have any clients) but I do sometimes worry about someone searching for me by name and finding another Jonathan Street. My site ranks well in yahoo and msn but not yet in Google.
Still, I haven't done anything about it yet so I guess I can't be too worried.
When I searched on Google for my own name, there is another Jane Copland who comes up as well, but she's a narrator for the BBC, so that's okay. If she was a criminal or something, I'd be kind of apprehensive, but posh British voice-overs, I can handle!
I see what you mean. She does have a very nice voice.
My BBC alter ego was neither seen nor heard. A writer for the sketch show though is something I can handle.
That's why the trick is to get yourself a name that only one other person in the world (alive) has. The only other Simon Heseltine that I found is a biographer, which isn't too bad a thing to have showing up anyway ;)
It could depend on your approach to burying the other content though. If you're burying some bad press about yourself or a client by promoting good press so it outranks the bad then I'd say that's perfectly fine. Isn't that in a sense what seo is all about.
On the other side if you're burying content by targeting that content and say trying to get it associated with 'bad neighborhoods' or get it banned in some way then maybe it's not so good.
I like your comparison of the SERPs to homepages. Ignoring the effects of SEO for a second, the SERPs are often a good overview of something's reputation. And considering the fact that most people don't know much or anything about SEO, they're likely to think of your first 10 listings as the most accurate, ubiased information about you.
Hate to bring up old discussions but I just PM'ed Sarah and asked her to comment on this....
Kudos, Jane, as it is refreshing for an "old timer" like me to hear someone younger say"... is it deceitful to bury information?" when trying to figure out, and know for sure, if anyone is totally right or totally wrong, along with learning anybody's motives for doing anything is a tall task. But, worth the effort, even if it doesn't turn into an immediate monetization opportunity.
After many years of online advertising sales/marketing, online sales/marketing management, customer service, and quasi consumer advocacy, my best advice is to not only do research on the potential client wanting reputation mgt., but see if the prospect has made an attempt to contact the person doing the negative attacks. If so, then ask what were the specifics of the attempts/results. Then, maybe even contact the "offended person", and get his/her side of the story. If you're blessed enough to have some of the "judgement of Solomon" (which you need if you have two or more children), then you can better judge if it "is it deceitful to bury information". In any case, suggest to the offended person that "to err is human, but to forgive is Divine".
I'm sick of trying to remove this little dickhead from Google, only for it to bounce back again a few days later due to some Google algo. Should I just create 150 new pages with [keyphrase] inside?
--
Let me first say that I liked your article. There was one section that I think is really misleading though. You made the statement that, “If they were innocent, they'd not be at an SEO firm, but in court, filing for libel.” There are several problems with that statement.
If the person making disparaging comments towards you or your company does it anonymously through a third party website you are going to have a hard time finding out who that person really is. If you can’t find the person you can’t bring them to court to sue them. The law also protects the third party sites from liability for comments made by users other than the owner of the site. So you are not able to drag the site owner to court and you’re not able to find the original comment poster. If that particular person applies a shampoo practice (rinse-repeat) to a hundred other third party sites and changes his or her username, you can’t even be sure if you are dealing with one person or a hundred different people.
The cost of a court case may be prohibitive. If your business is up and coming, or event established, can you really afford to spend upwards of fifty thousand dollars on a single case of libel? And what if those hundred posts were done not by one person but one person plus several relatives of his? That can get very expensive. Sure, you may get a judgment out of the legal action but the odds are this person ranting and raving on a website is not going to be able to pay you for your legal and court costs plus any damage your business would have suffered over the incidents.
So let’s say that you manage to find the person, it really is only one person and you have a large chunk of money you are willing to drop down the drain. Are you now ready to sit and wait for the next year while that court case drags on with that negative blemish in the middle of the search results for your company name? Are you also ready to lose business from potential clients reading that negative press and believing what was written? I can guarantee that some people will believe what is written regardless of how outlandish, improbable or even impossible that statements on the negative site are. I could even tell you quite a few stories about it!
I started doing online reputation management about three years ago with a background in web development and without knowing anything about SEO. It has been a very steep learning curve and quite honestly very eye opening.
Great article Jane!
Everyone has something turn up on Google that they're less than thrilled about. I just recently had to do some reputation management of my own when an Anglefire (free website folks) page I created at least ten years ago started turning up at the top of a search for my name. Gasp. Displaying my (then) ignorance of the Web. Thankfully I managed to get rid of it--or at least make it more prominent. I consider this normal procedure for someone who is trying to establish a professional reputation.
But I wouldn't work with anyone who was trying to hide something criminal.
Looking at the bad publicity from the user side of things a bad review here or there doesn't bother or prevent me from doing business with a company. People tend to be more vocal about their negative experiences than their postive ones.
But seeing a wealth of bad reviews certainly makes an impression.
I don't have any personal experience with this, but I would think one way to rebuild your rep is getting involved at the source. If the bad publicity occurred in a forum thread of some other social space where you could participate you probably should participate there directly. Maybe even offer some free service to other members of the forum and asking them for a review.
I've come across a few forum threads that started out as a believable complaint about a company, but later in the thread someone from the company responded in a very professional way while the person complaining handled themselves immaturely. The comparison put me on the side of the company quickly.
Usually if I'm interested in a company and see something negative about them in the SERPs I'm going to click on the link and read. I would think many would do that since it's natural to want to know. Perhaps if 7/10 results were showing negative I would make up my mind without look further, but for the most part I would check the source so it's a good idea to manage the reputation as close to the source as you can get.
Very good points. A client with a 70% bad result average would be very hard to manage; that a lot of links to move and the information could prove to be true in a circumstance like that.
It's true that people can make themselves look worse than the people they're trying to insult, probably due to fingers working faster than brains.
I started noticing that on forums where you'd see two people arguing with each other and mostly just insulting each other to try to make their point. Both to me end up looking bad because of the arguing.
I think you're right about the fingers typing faster than the brain.
I've also see someone make some very strong complaints against the customer service of a company and then later in the thread see the owner of the company or the specific customer service agent try very hard to work out a solution. The original poster just goes on and on about the bad service. When I see that the company always ends up looking good to me.
Obviously if there's so much negative said about a company it can be hard to manage and probably because the negativity is deserved.
Jane, I just noticed the picture on your profile behind "Home, Blog" etc. is Kiwis instead of the flower.
Is that a sort of Aussie reputation management?
Haha! Matt actually put that up there without me knowning. I was quite pleased :)
I think reputation management in the case where someone has done something unsavoury is really not within what I could manage with my morals and ethics (and hey - they are *not* strict) but others may choose to do so.
I googled myself and found that there are a lot of people in the world with my name - thus I decided on my nickname "Cabbit" which is from a character called Ryo-oh-ki in "Tenchi Muyo" but since it is there I chose deCabbit for 'The Cabbit'.
I'd like to be upset over a size 8-9 dress... In the UK I'm a 16 *sobs*
Sometimes, the hardest task is deciphering whether or not someone has done something wrong. When no source is more trustworthty than another, it's hard to determine whether the negative or positive press is accurate. With one potential client, we came to the conclusion that the negative press was true and since we had no proof apart from his word that he'd changed his ways, we turned him away.
I use the name JaneCopland (one word) as that doesn't appear to be in use by anyone else.
Oh, and dress sizes in the U.S. are nuts. Do you know they have a size 0? I told an NZ friend I was wearing size 4 pants and she was like "dude, eat something" when that's not particularly small. The U.S. is rather odd when it comes to clothes :)
One of our journalists has the same name as an arms dealer wanted world-wide! *laughs* I always know when the arms dealer has done something as our hits for his name go way up.
Size 0... *sighs* WHY?!?!?!? Size 4 - wow... It does sound like you need to just have a bit more food in your daily diet *winks*
I'll bet I should go clothes shopping in the States... I recon it'd do wonders for my self-esteem!
I think it really depends on a case by case situation too. For an individual, you have to be in charge of marketing yourself, and if you do have skeletons that have since left the closet, you obviously want to re-bury them in the SERPs. I look at a persons name as the most personalized and emotional brand out there. Your name and reputation is you. It's one thing to work for a shaddy company or organization and be wrapped up in that (guilt by association), it's another to have your name smeared around the web negatively. Not all people are evil. People are people though, they screw up from time to time, and I know I personally would prefer all the great things I've done in the past be out in the spotlight then the things that weren't as positive.
One example that is the absolute reverse of this is the Google Bombing campaign that went on during the November 2006 elections. That campaign targeted very specific individuals in office and directed you to a site outling some wrong doing they did. Regardless of political affiliation, it was well executed and lead to the turn of majority in both the Congress and Senate, as well as Governors. I'm sure in the next major election, you will see political figures consciously running positive campaigns about themselves online to try and combat the negative.
I don't think "removing" or "un-tagging" information is any less un-ethical than "adding" or "tagging" people's name to rank higher for one side or the other. That's just part of reputation management. It's no different the a celebrity who has a PR or other person who is in charge of their image and make sure there is always good and positive stuff in the news about them, especially when you go crazy, enter a rehab and shave your head...I mean, when you do less appealing things.
Reputation Management is most definitely case by case, but I think it's necessary and useful for individuals as well as companies trying to put their best (online) foot forward. The SERP's have become the new "home page" for a lot of brands. By doing a search in Google, a user is presented with a particular view of a brand in the SERP listings- and this is *before* they ever make it to the homepage of that brand. If 8 out 10 results are negative then that user may get a tainted view of the brand before the brand company (or individual) has a chance to engage that user with their website.
It's a slippery slope, for sure, because we've all seen the "dell hell", "killer coke" and "iams killer" examples, so your own moral compass has to be the guide. I agree with one of the above commenters who said that Google is the judge of what content is ranked highly, not the content provider. Therefore, I prefer the term "outcompeting negative brand messaging" to removing or deleting items. But then again, I'm probably a scoundrel.
I like your comparison of the SERPs to homepages. Ignoring the effects of SEO for a second, the SERPs are often a good overview of something's reputation. And considering the fact that most people don't know much or anything about SEO, they're likely to think of your first 10 listings as the most accurate, ubiased information about you.
Tell me more :D
That's a story to tell over a beer, all right. Probably NSFW though.