Posts By: Curator
“So, I Googled myself and read the comments section, thinking I could get some tidbits of what people really think of me. No human being should ever read the comments sections or ever Google one’s self at any time.” – Sandra Bullock
Just like Bullock, many CEOs are often taken aback when they Google their own name or the name of the company they lead. What they find isn’t always flattering. It could be hostile and mean. It might not even be true. But there is it for the world to read. What they read could cost you in lost business or damage your brand’s reputation.
However, there are things you can do to manage your online reputation so you are not at the mercy of your company’s critics. Start by following these three steps:
Step No. 1: Accept the fact of online reviews.
Short of outright slander or libel by the reviewers online, people can say just about anything they want. You really don’t have much legal recourse to make the negative postings go away. People have a right to complain, and online it’s easy for unhappy customers to vent their frustrations and share their opinions with the whole world.
When you see a negative review about your company the instinctive reaction is to post a response to set the record straight. While it’s natural to want to respond and defend yourself, under most cases you should resist.
One way a search engine rank websites high is because it determines the site has relevant content that is fresh, or updated on a regular basis.When you post a comment on a website, you are adding new content. And if you get into a back-and-forth discussion with someone on a review website about your company it can hurt you.
Google will see the website has a lot of information about the company, so they will rank the website high for searches on their company name. When someone does a search on your company, they are even more likely to see the negative review. Your goal is the opposite—you want websites with negative comments to slip further down the Google rankings so they don’t appear on the first page or two of a search. The next two steps help you with that.
Step No. 2: Focus on getting positive content.
A major part of online reputation management is trying to push the negative websites off of the first page or two of a Google search. You can do this by posting positive content and getting those pages to rank higher than the negative websites.
Your marketing or PR department needs to make online reputation management part of their job. They should always be looking for, gathering or creating positive content that can be used to continually update your websites. Don’t put everything onto one corporate website. Instead, set up different websites for different purposes. Or, get interviews or articles about your company on highly respected websites. Social media sites usually rank highly for your company name so make sure to register your company name on all of the major sites.
Step No. 3: Push positive websites higher.
In the online world, your reputation is all about who owns the top-ranking results in a search for your company name. You want those results to be your websites—or at least be shared only with websites that have good things to say about you.
If you can do that, then the negative websites will be pushed off the first page of a Google search. And since very few people look past the first page of a search, those negative websites may as well not exist.
The best way to accomplish this is with search engine optimization to push the positive websites higher. Carefully review your websites’ content and the meta title tags to be sure they contain your company name. The magic of ranking higher in Google is relevant content and gathering a links from other websites that point to your websites.
While it’s not easy to get all of the positive websites to rank higher than the negative websites, it’s worth the effort. Online reputation management is not always easy and it can take many months of steady effort to achieve. Still, consider the alternative of letting complaints and negative reviews dominate the search results and destroy your online reputation.
If you choose to hire an agency or consultant, ask them to show you success they’ve had with other clients. This can be simple such as a before and after screenshot of Google results showing they have made a positive impact.
Of course, there are more details to managing your online reputation than this, but the above steps give you the basic outline of what you need to do. Just keep in mind that your company’s online reputation is one of the most important factors in determining its success.
Source: Big Blue Robot
If you have been posted on Thedirty.com and are looking to remove the picture(s) attached to the post, we can help you get them taken down. Oftentimes, individuals who are hesitant to pay for our “Thedirty.com post removal service” will opt to have the photos removed from The Dirty as an alternative. Removing your photo […]
Source: Reputation Resolutions
A new court ruling out of the Virginia Court of Appeals has dealt a blow to privacy advocates hoping to hide behind free speech protections.
Source: Submit Express
In my defamation practice I see lawyers continually making the same mistakes when they draft complaints. Unfortunately for their clients, these drafting errors often lead to partial or complete dismissals of their lawsuits. Here are just five of these common mistakes:
1. Pleading injunction as a cause of action. An injunction is a powerful remedy for a claimant in a lawsuit, and effectively can prohibit the publication of certain statements that have been deemed to be defamatory by a court. However, it is a remedy, not a cause of action. Still, many lawyers wrongly frame it as a cause of action. This allows a savvy defamation defense lawyer to argue to a court that this is a non-existent cause of action, and therefore should be dismissed. Even worse than framing an injunction as a cause of action, is not alleging it at all, which happens all too often. This prevents the client from seeking an order from the court prohibiting defendants from making certain statements in the future.
2. Blowing the SOL. In California, the statute of limitations in libel and slander cases is one year from the date of publication, generally speaking. In situations not involving the internet, courts may allow more time than one year to file a lawsuit under an exception. But this exception does not apply to statements that are published on the internet. In other words, once an alleged defamatory statement is published on the Internet, the statue of limitations begins to run. Yet even though this is a fairly easy issue to research, I see lawyers time and again incorrectly assuming that they have more than one year to file a lawsuit for defamation relating to statements that are published on the Internet, which is a huge mistake.
3. Failing to recognize potential privileges. When I use the word privilege I am referring to certain defenses that act as a conditional or absolute bar to a claim for libel or slander. The most common and sometimes least obvious is the so–called litigation privilege. As an example, not too long ago, I saw a complaint where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant made a false report to a state licensing board. However, the litigation privilege provides absolute protection for this kind of statement. Regardless of whether the report was true or false, the plaintiff could not plead a valid claim. Unfortunately the plaintiff had to learn the hard way, because we prevailed on an anti–SLAPP motion and was forced to pay my client’s attorney’s fees.
4. Failing to plead the alleged defamatory statement verbatim. Another common error I see is failing to state the exact alleged defamatory statement. For example, a plaintiff will allege that the defendant disparaged his character without specifying what was said or written. This is a problem because the law is that “words constituting an alleged libel or slander must be specifically identified if not pleaded verbatim in the Complaint.” As a result of this goof, a defense lawyer can request that the court strike the cause of action on that basis alone because the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action. This is especially true in the face of a dispositive motion.
5. Pleading derivative claims. Either due to ignorance or fear, I often see attorneys adding unnecessary and wholly derivative causes of action (intentional interference with prospective economic advantage or intentional infliction of emotional distress) when simply a claim for defamation would be enough. Not only does this practice frustrate judges, but it also violates the uniform single publication act. Restyling defamation claims as other claims might also violate important First Amendment defenses, which would also be prohibited. This is probably the most common mistake that I see.
If you think this information was helpful to you, please feel free to share it with others or comment about it below. Thanks for reading.
Source: Adrianos Facchetti
Hello and welcome to Searchreputation.net’s new website. On this site you’ll be able to learn more about our company, the services we offer, and how to Contact Us if you require those services. Our founder […]
Source: Search Reputation