Take Back Page One.

Both, depending on the review. Reviews that violate a platform's policy — fake, defamatory, posted by a non-customer — are disputed for outright removal. Genuine but unfair reviews are addressed through response and suppression instead, since platforms won't remove real feedback just because it's negative.

It's SEO with a specific target: ranking owned and earned content above what you don't want seen, for your exact brand-name searches. It uses the same technical and content practices as commercial SEO, just pointed at reputation instead of traffic.

Defamatory content makes false factual claims presented as truth — fabricated incidents, fake credentials, invented lawsuits. An unhappy customer's honest account of a bad experience, even if harshly worded, isn't defamation, and we won't pursue it as such.

Yes, within each platform's editorial rules — we don't run paid editors who violate Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy. Corrections are submitted through proper channels, with sourcing that meets their standards, so changes actually stick.

Crisis engagements get a response within hours, not our standard 12-hour SLA. We help draft messaging, prioritize which channels need attention first, and start suppression work immediately rather than waiting for the news cycle to settle.

Most clients run ongoing monitoring and suppression, since reputation is a moving target — new reviews and mentions appear constantly. One-time cleanup engagements exist for specific incidents, but we'll tell you upfront if your situation really needs continuous coverage.