[2] Online reputation management (ORM) involves overseeing and influencing the search engine results related to products and services.
In other cases, the ethical lines are clear; some reputation management companies are closely connected to websites that publish unverified and libelous statements about people.
[10] As of 1988, reputation management was acknowledged as a valuable intangible asset and corporate necessity, which can be one of the most important sources of competitive edge in a fiercely competitive market,[11] and with firms under scrutiny from the business community, regulators[vague], and corporate governance watchdogs; good reputation management practices would to help firms cope with this scrutiny.
Good reputation management practices are helping any entity manage staff confidence as a control tool on public perceptions which if undermined and ignored can be costly, which in the long run may cripple employee confidence, a risk no employer would dare explore as staff morale is one of the most important drivers of company performance.
[18] A major part of reputation management involves suppressing negative search results, while highlighting positive ones.
[24] According to Susan Crawford, a cyberlaw specialist from Cardozo Law School, most websites will remove negative content when contacted to avoid litigation.
that ran advertisements in various news outlets in print and online, which attempted to draw attention to the voluntary withdrawal of the case.
A scandal erupted when it was revealed that 11 million of its vehicles globally had been fitted with devices designed to mask the true levels of harmful emissions.
The automotive giant had to bring in four PR firms led by Hering Schuppener, a German crisis communications and reputation management agency.
The company released print media and published pieces in top publications to show its commitment to developing electric and hybrid vehicle models worldwide, which helped improve its CSR image.
[33] Starbucks, the coffeehouse chain, also faced reputation damage in response to the arrests of two African-American men at its Philadelphia branch.
In response to a request to use the bathroom, the branch's manager denied the two men's access since they hadn't bought anything, calling the police when they refused to leave.
[38] Maximatic Media, an online reputation management firm, was hired to identify the origin of the malicious reviews and found that they were being generated by a botnet.
Firms have been known to hire staff to pose as bloggers on third-party sites without disclosing they were paid, and some have been criticized for asking websites to remove negative posts.
[50] In 2007 Google declared there to be nothing inherently wrong with reputation management,[43] and even introduced a toolset in 2011 for users to monitor their online identity and request the removal of unwanted content.
The study found that the highest level of online reputation was easily achieved by engaging a small social group of nine persons who connect with each other and provide reciprocal positive feedbacks and endorsements.
[56] In 2007, a study by the University of California Berkeley found that some sellers on eBay were undertaking reputation management by selling products at a discount in exchange for positive feedback to game the system.
The court cases had similar language and the defendant agreed to the injunction by the plaintiff, which allowed the reputation management company to issue takedown notices to Google, Yelp, Leagle, Ripoff Report, various news sites, and other websites.