Negative SEO = Reputation Management?

Well, try to look for a an EMD domain with "reputation" in it ending with com = reputation dot com. Nah it is not mine. If it would be mine I wouldnt be posting this.
(The company is an online reputation management company.)
The only question I would like to ask, is ....

How the fuck is it possible to charge someone 15k a year for doing some shitty xrummer blasts even a child could do? Simply do some negative seo and put all these negative review sites to oblivion?

Now this has enraged me and I am sorry for the whole thread but .... At the same time internet is loosing its free speech value with negative seo and blah blah ....

How the fuck is this possible?

? This can be anything. Search for a EMD with reputation in it. Sorry but you lost me.

Ok, sorry, it is reputation dot com

How is it possible? Because it's valuable to someone else. Someone else doesn't know, or care, about how they can manage their reputation online.

The same thing pisses me off about the white hat SEO campaigns that deal with enterprise level clients. A good majority of the time they only some onsite factors for the client, and charge the same amount. We are talking about basic onsite changes. Then they sit back, and monitor the results. That's it.

The clients domains have so much link equity that the client thinks they performed some flipping miracle. A win/win and the enterprise white hat firm rakes in $xx,xxx/mo.

Now that's bullshit.

And a lot of ORM involves content creation, not spamming links.

I understand all of your points.

At the same time, seeing what happened with Google, possibilities are huge for this niche/market. I would also point out the fact that OMR is less known then SEO so the rapport building with the client may not be such a factor = getting clients may be easier, if they have the problem you are providing a solution for.

It is easier for the client to feel the pain when the 1st page of Google is ripping their company.

it is very painful for clients that we see with people attacking them. The company I believe your talking about is out there making 30 white hat bios but interlinking them and charging $3,000 to do so. Other more reputable companies (can I say this one?) typically do that work in the first 48 hours of a serious reputation campaign and than build out multiple websites, web 2.0's, press releases and than fire away all of the BST stuff that is than working.

If it was as easy as just firing xrumers at the unwanted posts the industry would be a lot different though.

Well I can literally spend the next few hours giving you examples of how my company (not reputation.com) justifies (very easily btw) charging 5-6 figures for a ORM campaign but I really don't have the time right now. So I will give a couple responses to your initial question.

Do you think that a negative SEO campaign will be effective on a negative New York Times article with 10,000+ backlinks? It won't, now think of what it takes to suppress these types of articles off of the first three pages. Clearly that justifies a $50,000 cost. If you can't see that then you have no clue what goes into an effective ORM campaign. 100 well written articles along can easily cost $2,000 (Content writers reading this, don't PM me your crappy $2 per article services; I'm not interested). How many high PR backlinks do you think it will take to suppress this article? Now times that by 29 as we aren't pushing it one position we are pushing it 29 more positions. Do you think we can use these crappy public or even many private blog networks for backlinks? They get shutdown left and right so we have to have our own and our own networks don't get shut down cause we actually develop them in the correct manner and maintain them correctly (Don't PM me asking to post articles on our network cause we only use them for our own clients).

A negative SEO campaign may be effective to kill off a hate site with no backlinks for some random nobody, however that is not an ideal client and negative SEO might be effective right now but tomorrow it may not be. Thus relaying on negative SEO is not a smart business move.

As for Reputation.com they are a joke, they don't run negative SEO campaigns cause they have VC money and there are a lot of eyes on them. I would love to meet their 'SEO' team cause I have a list of thousands of their clients and guess what? Only a tiny fraction of their clients actually have a clean online reputation. Reputation.com focuses on the software end and that is where they see the future of their company going, their service end of the business is just a way to up the revenue numbers that investors look at.

Anyways, most ORM companies don't deliver and that is sad to say. But the few companies that do deliver know that it costs a lot of money and resources along with a very tightly executed strategy in order to actually clean up an online reputation of a celebrity, government official or fortune 1000 company. Plus our services are in high demand so we are selective in who we take on.

As for defending the practice of ORM, well I could careless if people think that we are hurting free speech. We are not hurting free speech, our governments have already killed that off.

Anyways that is my quick 2 cents.

Aakon we should be friends think we think very alike. I believe I know who your company is and the issue is that too many clients and ppl dont realize that a truly successful long term ORM campaign really costs that much. A lot of douches will try to get the price down and than they are unhappy with the results. Reputation.com comes to us for a lot of help because well they need it in so many ways....There is nothing more annoying than an ignorant client saying they can go somewhere else for 3,000. The answer is always the same - you get what you pay for and you will be back if your serious about this I mean its only your reputation and all.

+1 Aakron.

Just google reputation.com scam

All they do is make a bazillion pages and try to rank them.

yea hate to belittle reputation.com but they do slack and treat their clients as a number in their cookie cutter approach.

aakon7 said:

I could careless if people think that we are hurting free speech. We are not hurting free speech, our governments have already killed that off.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, between the 'patriot act' and the 'ndaa act', we are well on our way for our gov. to be China 2.0.