Case Study #1

Client C23N99 is a successful communications entrepreneur who was named a defendant in a multiple defendant lawsuit and criminal proceeding. Charges were later dropped however existing content regarding the case was not ever going to be updated and thus would continue tarnishing the client’s reputation indefinitely. The client had specific information allowing him to conclude that the presence of this content at the top of search results for his name and related phrases had cost him substantial amounts of business and resulted in lost and irrecoverable revenue.

During our analysis it was determined that 13,220 searches were conducted per month for the 4 phrase variations the campaign was targeted at. Further analysis revealed that more than 11,000 searchers were being exposed to negative content on the first page of their search results per month. In essence that means over 130,000 potential revenue generating opportunities were being poisoned each year.

In order to determine the scope of the negative press the client was facing a detailed technical and contextual analysis of search results and individual web pages was conducted. By the client’s own admission the damaging publicity was very visible however upon further review the extent was further than anticipated.

Client C23N99’s Overall Scoring Matrix:

• # of Name/Keyword Variations: 4
• Targeted Search Engines: 3 (Google, Yahoo!, and MSN)
• Targeted Search Depth: Top 20 Results (first two pages)

*Unique Results are the number of results which generally appear repetitiously across the various search engines for the same keyword search.

Scoring Metric #1: Negativity Visibility Score

The most important metric to a client is generally what we refer to as their Negativity Visibility Score (NVS) . This score translates to a realistic view of what percentage of people searching for the targeted phrase (a client’s name, business name, etc) are likely to find negative content. In plain language this number will tell you if 8 out of 10 people researching you will find bad content.

*Overall NVS could be adjusted to factor in search engine market share. For example, in some demographics Google may receive over 80% of search volume which means significant emphasis should be added in before determining an overall (average) NVS.

Scoring Metric #2: Negativity Authority Weight

Internally, we rely on a proprietary scoring algorithm we refer to as the Negativity Authority Weight (NAW). This score takes into account a number of important factors which search engines and other ranking related sites use to determine content positioning. For example, a domains extension such as .com, .gov, .edu can impact a page’s placement, as can a domain’s age or the number of inbound links pointing to the offending page.

This scoring enables us to have a high degree of confidence that our customized strategy can achieve the project goals in the allotted timeframe.

Notations:

• Although Google returned fewer negative results the Negative Visibility Score was higher due to consistent negative results displayed on the first page of search results whereas both Yahoo and MSN contained no negative results for one out of the four targeted Name Variations.
• Pages with higher Negative Authority Weight tend to rank much higher on Google and thus the NAW score is highly important to evaluate in order to determine the campaign difficulty factor for what is by far the most used search engine in the world.

The Process

Upon campaign initiation the process we refer to as the Online Reputation Management Setup begins. Generally, as well as for Client C23N99, during the first 2-3 weeks there will be little to no noticeable effect on the targeted range of search results. However, this time is amongst the most labor-intensive and long-term result producing period of the campaign. This foundational period consists of finalizing the specifics of the customized strategy and plan of action, beginning the creation of fresh positive content, the creation of social media profiles, registration of domains to be used throughout the campaign, development of blogs and mini-websites including content creation, graphic design, templating and uploading of content, and foundation link building.

Once foundation work is completed client campaigns move into the on-going status which involves various levels of additional content development including updating or refining previously developed content, adjusting content elements related to search engine optimization, further blog/mini-site development, press or article releases, and continued targeted link building which alert the search engines to the importance and relevance of positive content related to your name.

Results Delivered!

During a period of 45 days the Online Reputation Management Setup was completed. Allowing for an additional 15 days for search engines to re-index and adjust rankings based on our implemented strategy an astounding improvement on the Negativity Visibility Score was achieved. The result at 60 days was a 40% reduction in first page negative results.

Going into the on-going phase continued to bring about dramatic improvements. An additional 25% reduction in first page negative results was achieved by month 3. Search results were now more accurately reflecting the client’s company’s brand positioning and results for his personal name were substantially less alarming.

During the course of the pre-set goal of promoting only positive and neutral content to within the top 20 results within 12 months steady progress was made; ultimately the campaign goal was achieved at the 8.5 month mark.

Like most clients, Client C23N99 opted to continue with a maintenance mode which enables us to continue monitoring and promoting positive results (though at a more relaxed pace) to ensure that the chance of any negative content gravitating back towards the top is dramatically lessened.

Case Study #2

Client D71Q13 is a prominent financial advisor who was involved in an SEC litigation. The matter was resolved years prior to our engagement but the case details lingered atop the search engine results for his name and his firm’s name. Although not a partner at the firm (so his name was not within the company name) and although the firm was not involved in the litigation, he was employed by the firm by the time the case was brought up. The result was that searches for the firm’s name ended up bringing up pages relating to the litigation – in this industry the mere relation of an “SEC Litigation”, which was part of the page’s title in the search results, is enough to dissuade a potential client. A single lost client can cost the firm millions of dollars in customer lifetime value.

In order to determine the scope of the negative press the client was facing a detailed technical and contextual analysis of search results and individual web pages was conducted.

Client D71Q13’s Overall Scoring Matrix:

• # of Name/Keyword Variations: 7
• Targeted Search Engines: 3 (Google, Yahoo!, and MSN)
• Targeted Search Depth: Top 20 Results (first two pages)

*Unique Results are the number of results which generally appear repetitiously across the various search engines for the same keyword search.

Scoring Metric #1: Negativity Visibility Score

The most important metric to a client is generally what we refer to as their Negativity Visibility Score (NVS) . This score translates to a realistic view of what percentage of people searching for the targeted phrase (a client’s name, business name, etc) are likely to find negative content. In plain language this number will tell you if 8 out of 10 people researching you will find bad content.

*Overall NVS could be adjusted to factor in search engine market share. For example, in some demographics Google may receive over 80% of search volume which means significant emphasis should be added in before determining an overall (average) NVS.

Scoring Metric #2: Negativity Authority Weight

Internally, we rely on a proprietary scoring algorithm we refer to as the Negativity Authority Weight (NAW). This score takes into account a number of important factors which search engines and other ranking related sites use to determine content positioning. For example, a domains extension such as .com, .gov, .edu can impact a page’s placement, as can a domain’s age or the number of inbound links pointing to the offending page.

This scoring enables us to have a high degree of confidence that our customized strategy can achieve the project goals in the allotted timeframe.

Notations:

• The presence of multiple .gov (government domain) results presents an especially difficult challenge for the campaign. Google, and other search engines to a lesser degree, favor “trusted domains” such as .gov, .mil, and to an extent .edu.

The Process and Results

The campaign setup stage was carried out and resulted in over 60 pages of content being created discussing the positive aspects of the client’s career and philanthropic endeavors. These pages were then formatted and uploaded into blogs and mini-websites, and social media profiles related to his industry and philanthropy work. Additionally, once online, new links were pointed towards this content along with some existing pages containing positive information. After a total of 65 days, the result was a 23% decrease in negative results on the first page of all three major search engines and 42% decrease in negative results within the top 20 of all three major search engines.

The on-going phase, which consists of updating blogs, sites, social media profiles and other content created to aid in achieving the campaign goals as well as continued link development continued to bring about rapid change in the result landscape. A total of 58% decrease in negative first page results was achieved along with a total of 79% decrease in negative top 20 results by the 6 month mark.

Client D71Q13 entered maintenance mode at month 11 with 100% clean top 20 results for all 7 phrase variations across all 3 major search engines.