Reputation Management Consultants

In response to the claims
asserted by [redacted], RMC offers the following rebuttal:RMC fully performed all
services promised in the contract to the extent that RMC was permitted, based
on the lack of response and cooperation from Mr[redacted] and his primary
contactDespite numerous attempts to contact Mr[redacted] to discuss the
strategy and branding for his content, Mr[redacted] never responded to our
calls or emails until months into the campaign, when he issued his
cancelation and demanded a refund for the reasons previously stated.
As a strict policy, RMC
will not engage in content creation & publication for a brand or individual
without conducting a thorough consultation with our clients to agree on a
content strategyPublishing content without the approval of our clients has
been extremely detrimental in the past, and has caused considerable problems
with inaccuracy and branding preferenceTherefore, RMC practices a policy of
cooperative branding strategy, to ensure that our clients receive only content
that they want published, and that all facts and information is accurate
RMC completed every step
in creating, registering and launching all of the pages submitted in our
original response, and RMC ensured that these assets were indexed on Google's
search enginesThese assets were built as comprehensively as possible without
approved content from Mr[redacted]Upon review, all of the sites submitted
are live and active (with the only exception being Friendfeed, a site which shut
down after RMC created a profile on the domain)
RMC also fulfilled all
other activities pertaining to the assets, including sending unique visitors to
each profile and ensuring that third-party web users engaged with every asset
For example, a simple review of the Google+ profile we created will show that
RMC generated over 1,views for that single page
The only aspect of the
campaign that was not completed for Mr[redacted]'s campaign was the
publication of original content – which we were prevented from accomplishing
because of the lack of response and cooperation by Mr[redacted] and his team
All of the sites created and built by RMC fully exist, live and active on the
web – they are simply devoid of content because Mr[redacted] did not engage
with RMC in the content-creation process

In response to the complaint filed by [redacted], Reputation Management Consultants would like to first extend our apology that Mr. [redacted] had an unsatisfactory experience regarding our campaign. Mr. [redacted] entered into an agreement with RMC for a Reputation Management campaign targeting 3...

specific search phrases, all permutations of Mr. [redacted]’s full name: [redacted] E [redacted]. The stated goal of this campaign was to clear the first page of Google search results for all 5 keyterms. RMC recognizes that “[redacted]” is not the way Mr. [redacted] usually spells his name; RMC only mentions it because it is listed in the signed agreement. While some of the negative items remain on the first page for several keyterms, RMC was able to clear the first page for “[redacted] E [redacted]”. As is the case with all of RMC’s campaign agreements - due to the unpredictable and ever-changing nature of Google’s proprietary algorithms - the agreement with Mr. [redacted] contained no explicit guarantees that results would be achieved within the given projected timeframe. To be sure, our staff speaks with great confidence about the power of our Reputation Management platform because it has proven to be highly successful over many years of diverse campaigns. Again, RMC certainly regrets when a client is not satisfied with their experience. Several members of our senior staff reached out directly to speak with Mr. [redacted] to try and reach a resolution including our Chief Operations Officer. However, it is RMC’s strong belief that we performed all services that were in the written agreement signed by both parties. In addition, our team is still in process to find a solution to achieve Mr. [redacted] campaign goals.

In response to the complaint by [redacted], RMC asserts the following points: [redacted] signed up with us for a Link Removal campaign in order to remove a Mugshots.com link from her first page of Google Results and Image Results. The guaranteed result of this campaign was for the...

link to be removed from Mugshots.com’s database, and removed from the search index available to Google and other search engines. The agreed-upon fee was $2,100 for the removal of the link. RMC removed the offensive mugshot within one month of the agreement being signed, thus fulfilling the terms of the agreement. RMC cannot control whether a site distributes a photo file or a public arrest record. Arrest records are publicly searchable and many sites have the ability to purchase & publish official arrest records.  Some sites pick up off of major mugshot sites like Mugshots.com and re-publish the mugshot records. Therefore, if you remove the mugshot from Mugshots.com, you can theoretically prevent other sites from getting the information. However, if a mugshot site wanted to purchase & view the public arrest record, they are within their legal right to do so. RMC is not in the practice of misleading customers or setting unrealistic expectations. To that end, RMC has conducted a full review of the recorded phone calls between Ms. [redacted] and our staff, and there is no evidence of our staff promising that all mugshots replicate from a single site, or that the item would not replicate to any other sites. We simply cannot promise this. However, RMC has submitted removals for any other offensive mugshot that we could find. We believes that this situation is a simple misunderstanding about the capability of our platform. Finally, contingent upon Ms. [redacted] removing this complaint, RMC will guarantee that for the next 60 days, no additional mugshots will appear on the search results for Ms. [redacted]’s keyterms. As of today, RMC removed all the mugshots for Ms. [redacted] and we are trying to get hold of her to go over the search results to prove to her that all the links were cleared from the search engine. Thanks,

Review: Was told they could remove negative comments and pictures from search engines after 1 year & $8500 was told I need to spend $800 per month to continue

Was informed that they could remove or push down negative items and a picture in search engines. they asked me to send them written text and pictures which I did I could never get the same person on the phone and once they got my $8500 payment I never heard from them they told me I would get update phone calls from there team. and every time I called to speak to Mr [redacted] he wasn't there in fact they were transferring me to his cell phone and my Dedicated acct rep had no idea who I was.. after 6 months nothing was happening. and they said hang in there. it was at that point I started to receive calls for a maintenance program of $800 per month. my response was but nothing is happening ? answer just give it time... I was completely lied to and I and going to contact the CA Attorney General as I was completely taken advantage ofDesired Settlement: I want a refund as they did nothing as promised I received more phone calls from them trying to sell me me and once they got paid that was it

Business

Response:

Our guest (Mr. [redacted]) engaged with RMC on March 27, 2012 for an inoculation campaign that was quoted at $8,500 for an initial 6-month period, followed by a subsequent monthly charge of $1,500 per month, with a stated goal of suppressing negative/damaging sites from the Google Search Results for a specific keyterm (‘[redacted] Rare Coins’). There was never a stated guarantee of success or total clearance of 100% of pre-existing negatives. As stated in our contract agreements, the monthly service fees cover the labor and resources required to fund our best practice ORM methodology, involving such items including but not limited to: organic content creation & publication as well as our proprietary technologies.

At the commencement of the campaign, Google’s top three pages of the keyterm in question (‘[redacted] Rare Coins’) contained 10 negative/damaging items out of a total 30 possible – as agreed upon by both parties at the outset of the campaign. Five of these 10 negative items were ranked within Google’s first page of results. (This can be seen in the first RMC monthly report attached to this response.) After six months of inoculation for which our guest (Mr. [redacted]) paid up front, RMC had successfully suppressed 9 of the 10 original negatives on the top three pages for the target keyterm, including four of the five keyterms on Page 1. This represented a 90% success rate within the initial 6 month period. (Final Report Attached)

Additionally, on 7/12/2012 our guest (Mr. [redacted]) requested that we begin to target an additional keyterm at no additional cost (– ‘[redacted] Oceanside’), for which several negative items ranked on the first page of Google. We at RMC value loyalty and service above all else, and because of this principle the keyterm was added to the campaign for no additional cost; RMC supplied the resources to inoculate this keyterm out-of-pocket.

In October 2012, (Mr. [redacted]) or guest engaged with his RM Strategist ([redacted]) about the possibility of reducing his monthly fees from the contracted amount $1,500.00/month. RMC proposed a Maintenance Package to solidify and maintain the current Google search landscape for both keyterms, and quoted a price of $800/month. (Mr. [redacted]) Our guest refused, saying he was unable to afford the investment going forward at that rate. On 10/15/2012, RMC and our guest (Mr. [redacted]) terminated their business arrangement. Nothing was heard from our guest (Mr. [redacted]) until this letter, which is over 1 year past the termination of his account.

We are more than happy to discuss these concerns (with Mr. [redacted]) and work to rectify any dissatisfaction with our services that still remains.

Please, let me know, if you have any questions. We've tried to reach Mr. [redacted] to resolve the situation, but he doesn't seem to want to speak to us.

Best Regards,

Chief Operating Officer

Review: We received a voicemail at our office from [redacted] at Reputation Management Consultants. The number she called from was ###-###-####. In the voicemail she claims that there are malicious and damaging reviews on the first page of google and on Yelp regarding our business. After checking both Google and Yelp, it is determined that these claims are blatant lies. Reputation Management Consultants is using false claims in order to coerce companies to buy into their product.Desired Settlement: Stop these false advertisement practices immediately.

Business

Response:

We sincerely apologize for any message that was left in error. Like any modern efficient company, we heavily leverage technology for many aspects of our business. In this case, our tools that we use to help gather information in order to form new relationships with those who may be in need of our services produced faulty data. We recognized the issue and apologized to those individuals who contacted us where no issue was present. It is not our goal to make anyone scared of an issue that does not exist.

We do take issue that the complaint considers this kind of marketing message coercion of any kind, however, seeing that we do not control any website discussed as part of these messages directly and make no direct coercive statements of any kind. Rather, we only want to help people succeed in managing their online reputations.

Review: I contracted with Reputation Management Consultants to manage my online reputation (which is, to create websites which rank highly on Google and other search engines), and they did NOT perform the services they claimed to. When company was contacted, they sent a list of websites that they "created" as proof that they did indeed perform the services promised. I went through the URL's listed in their email and found that the VAST MAJORITY OF THE WEB PAGES THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE "CREATED AND LAUNCHED" DO NOT EVEN EXIST. When confronted with this, the company responded that there is no guarantee the pages would rank highly on Google and therefore, they did not violate the contract. While I totally understand there is no guarantee that the pages would rank high on Google, their response totally ignored the fact that the websites NEVER EXISTED, AND THEREFORE COULD NEVER, EVER RANK HIGH! I have a full list of the websites which they, in writing, claimed to have "created and launched" but actually never did. I can easily provide this list and all communication to you, but as I am not supposed to include any personally identifiable information, I will not do so on this form but would be happy to provide on a different platform.Desired Settlement: I am currently disputing the charges with my credit card company and speaking to lawyers about litigation. I want a full refund from the company AND I WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT THIS COMPANY DOES NOT PERFORM THE SERVICES THEY CLAIM TO.

Business

Response:

[redacted] hired Reputation Management Consultants

on December 19, 2014. The agreement was for suppression reputation management

for [redacted]; this was month to month agreement at $1000.00 per

month and a one-time fee of $500 with a 30 day notice of cancellation. [redacted]

was reached out to immediately by phone 216-[redacted] and email [redacted]@gmail.com this is the contact

information provided by [redacted] in the agreement. We were to make all

contact regarding this campaign with [redacted], we were not provided contact

information for [redacted].

After multiple attempts to reach [redacted] to schedule a

campaign strategy call, we proceeded with the campaign, suppression of the

negative links in Google by creating multiple assets and content

campaign. We continued to work on this throughout entirely of this

campaign until she cancelled via email on August 20th. [redacted]

received monthly reports with all work our team had done each 30 day period. We

did not guarantee removal or suppression of negatives.

12/19/2014 – Introduction left voicemail with all contact

information

12/30/2014 – Follow up left voicemail

02/13/2015 – Follow up to ensure client received first

report left voicemail

06/2015 – Several attempts by Director to reach client via

phone, client never returned calls

07/2015 – Attempts to reach client, no return call

Email:

12/19/2015 – Introduction and Media Kit and Branding

Questionnaire (no response)

01/05/2015 – Initial Report and second attempt at Media Kit

and Branding Questionnaire (no response)

02/13/2015 – First Month Report (no response)

03/12/2015 – Monthly Report (no response)

04/10/2015 Monthly Report (no response)

05/11/2015 Monthly Report

07/07/2015 Director reached out to [redacted] in detailed

email with all the work we have done to date.

08/20/2015 Received email from client requesting to cancel

service I also attached all the monthly reports for all the assets and links we created for this campaign, there was a lot of effort put into this account from day one, and it was mostly achieved based on the agreement we have with the client. Regards,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

The response provided by Reputation Management Consultants completely dodges the claim I am making, which is that they did not perform the services promised. Let me give you some more backstory, after I complained about to Reputation Management Consultants to my credit card company, they provided us a list of the website which they "created and launched". These websites were the companies attempt to claim that they actually did perform services. I was surprised to see such an extensive list of work, and so I took the time to visit the sites they claimed to have "created and launched" as part of my campaign and the VAST MAJORITY DID NOT ACTUALLY EXIST! IAs proof of my above claims, I have attached Reputation Management Consultants response to American Express, where they claimed to have "created and launched" (their words), the list of websites which in fact DO NOT EXIST.

WORSE COMPANY EVER.

tried to hire them to help us and it created COAS! DONT GO WITH THEM! Trust me. Even call me if you want to hear the full story [redacted] ext [redacted] Rachel [redacted].

It's crazy how they are an "online company" but had so many mistakes with our online assets that it back tracked us and made duplicate accounts that took more effort to remove.

Don't fall for the terminology. they use 'big' words to throw you off but I see through it, they talk about click throughs, traffic, and SERPS. I understood everything they told me but they would never have reports just the talk. They didn't update social media sites, they just made the dashboards and left them empty. THEY HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR EVERYTHING, don't fall for it.

Also fell for the money back guarantee. BOGUS!

[redacted] R. was out contact and he's always "busy" and also has an excuse for everything, I'm unsure what they really do but I can tell you its not much!!

They are a scam, not worth your time or effort!

Also, we cancelled 2 months ago, still getting "auto bills" to our credit card for 1,200... of course no one can respond to emails or call us back. It's sad how much we've been pushed off and sick their business practices are.

Lesson learned, better off doing this on my own.

THANKS FOR NOTHING!!!!!

Review: The company promised removal of 100% of the negative listings and images on the first 2 pages of three different Google searches. They collected $8,000 from me and continued to work on the project for the agreed upon term of 4 months. The WORK was NOT terminated early. Not only did the company not remove a significant percentage of negative listings, they actually created and posted additional negative listings.Desired Settlement: grant desired settlement swiftly

Business

Response:

Plainly put: We deny [redacted]'s assertions.

The client only paid Month's 1 and 2 of a several month engagement. The contract offered no written guarantee. The term was month to month. He made assertions items were to be cleared that were not in the contract.

We certainly did not "[create] and [post] additional negative listings."

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[The business refused to offer to return the $8,000 I paid them which is what I require immediately. They promised many services for a fee which they did not deliver. Without a full rebate, I feel it will be my civic duty to warn others of this firm's failure to deliver promised services as well them actually damaging my product.]

Regards,