orm.

Online reputation
management. For individuals.

A search result is only part of your story.

Press Enter to begin.

Your first name stays in this browser until you choose to send an enquiry. No search is performed.

Privacy
orm.Your privacyLet’s talk

Hi there.
Your name gets
there first.

A career opportunity. A new relationship.
First impressions can start with a search.

Before you speak.
A search speaks.

A meeting. An introduction. A decision about your future.
People may find the headline before they meet the person.

One result.
Too much space.

An old headline. Missing context.
A fragment that starts to stand for the whole person.

Your life
moved on.
The result stayed.

A resolved situation can remain discoverable.
Long after your circumstances have changed.

Let’s change
the perspective.

We look at what can be corrected, removed,
or made less prominent—and build a plan around you.

Your name.
A new chapter.

Make room for who you are today.
And where you want to go next.

Start with clarity.
Decide from there.

You, you do not need to solve this alone.
Start with one result. Understand your options before committing to the work.

Review my situation

One relevant link is enough to start.

Keep scrolling

Online reputation management

The search is brief.
The impression can last.

Before the introduction.
Before the meeting.
Before you get to explain.

Online reputation management is the work of understanding and improving how you are represented online. For an individual, that can mean addressing inaccurate coverage, checking outdated results and making accurate information about your life and work easier to find.

We focus on people: private individuals, founders, executives and public figures whose name searches tell an incomplete story. The starting point is what the evidence supports—and what can realistically change.

Understand your options

A clear plan.
Before you commit.

Online reputation management services should start with the problem, not a package. An inaccurate article, an eligible removal request and an unwanted but accurate result each call for a different approach.

Content correction & removal

Change the source.

Check inaccurate or incomplete coverage against supporting evidence. Assess a correction, update or removal with the original publisher or platform. The source decides how to respond.

Search result suppression

Build the fuller picture.

Develop accurate information on your website and relevant professional profiles. The aim is a more representative search presence. Search engines decide positions; rankings and timing cannot be guaranteed.

From concern to a next step

First, understand it.
Then, act on it.

You should know what the work involves, what it is based on and how progress will be checked.

  1. Map what appears.

    Review the links that concern you, the original sources and any related copies. Separate a name-match mistake from information that actually refers to you.

    What you get: a source-and-result inventory.

  2. Agree the route.

    Review supporting evidence, identify realistic options and explain the limits. Agree the scope and fees before work begins.

    What you get: a written plan with defined work.

  3. Make each change count.

    Work through the agreed publisher, platform or content steps. Record what was requested and what changed; a request alone is not a result.

    What you get: a record of actions and responses.

  4. Check the fuller picture.

    Review source updates and search visibility separately. Compare what appears now with the starting point and decide what needs continued attention.

    What you get: a progress review and next steps.

Illustrative case studies

Different stories.
A considered approach.

Explore six situations, the evidence we would review and the decisions behind a realistic plan.

Missing context · Morgan

When the coverage stops before the story does.

An older allegation remains visible, while later developments are missing from the original coverage.

Mistaken identity · Jamie

A shared name should not become a shared history.

Coverage about someone else appears during Jamie’s name search.

Public profile · Riley

Make room for the work happening now.

A public figure’s older coverage overwhelms a more substantial current body of work.

Outdated search result · Taylor

The page changed. The search result has not caught up.

A removed or materially updated page is still represented by an old search title or snippet.

Republished coverage · Cameron

One update does not always reach every copy.

The same story appears across several sites with different update and correction policies.

Professional accuracy · Avery

Bring a professional profile back into the present.

Outdated biographies and inconsistent details obscure Avery’s current professional identity.

Scroll to explore

A clear-eyed approach

A better picture.
Grounded in the facts.

Not everything can—or should—be erased. Accurate information needs an honest approach. Missing context needs evidence. Every recommendation should explain the difference.

We distinguish a change to a publisher’s page from a change in Google results. Search work does not erase public records or update independent background-check and adverse-media databases.

Start with the result that concerns you

Discretion comes first

Your story.
Kept in confidence.

Asking for help should not create another exposure. Your name, your situation and the fact that you work with us are treated as confidential.

Your name stays yours.

We do not sell your information, share it for marketing or disclose your identity as a client. We do not publish your name or story in our portfolio.

No outreach behind your back.

If the agreed work needs contact with a publisher, platform or another specialist, we explain what would be shared and get your permission first. We share only what that step needs.

You choose where to begin.

Start with the link that concerns you and the context you are comfortable sharing. You do not need to upload identity documents or tell your whole history to begin a conversation.

Clear scope. Clear decisions.

You should know the proposed work, its limits and its cost before you commit. We explain any legal disclosure obligation that applies, where we are permitted to do so.

Discreet from the first conversation.Start on your terms

Before we talk

A little more
clarity.

Will anyone know I contacted you?

We treat enquiries and client relationships as confidential. We do not publish your identity or use your story in marketing. If work requires external contact, we agree what can be shared with you first. Our website and email providers process submitted enquiries so we can receive and respond to them. A disclosure required by law is handled according to the applicable obligation. Read how enquiry information is handled.

What does an online reputation management agency do?

An agency assesses how you appear online, identifies inaccurate or incomplete information and proposes work to improve the picture. For individuals, that can include source correction, eligible search-removal assistance, accurate content development and monitoring. The scope should match your situation and be explained before you commit.

Can you remove negative Google results?

That depends on the content, the source and the applicable policy. We assess correction or removal with the publisher and whether a result qualifies for a search-removal request. Negative coverage alone does not establish eligibility. Removing a search result does not delete the original page. Read Google’s removal guidance ↗

What is search result suppression?

Suppression describes work to make unwanted results less prominent by improving accurate, relevant information about you. This can include your website and professional profiles. It does not remove the original content, and search positions cannot be guaranteed.

How long does online reputation management take?

There is no single timeline. Publisher responses, platform reviews, search updates and the condition of your current online presence all matter. An assessment should distinguish the work we control from decisions made by publishers and search engines.

What happens in the first assessment?

We start with the results or links that concern you, check whether they refer to you, review the source and identify missing context. Then we explain the options, limits and proposed scope. You can begin with one relevant link; you do not need to share your whole history.

How much does online reputation management cost?

Scope depends on the number of sources, the available evidence and whether the work involves publisher outreach, eligible removal requests or ongoing content development. Pricing should follow that review, with the deliverables and limits agreed before work begins.

Let’s start with you.

What would you
like to change?

You don’t need all the answers.
Just a place to start.

A discreet first step. Share only what you are comfortable sharing. Our confidentiality commitment ↗

Review first. Your details are sent only when you confirm. Please do not include identity documents, passwords or sensitive records.

Your next step.
In your own words.

Review your details. Nothing has been sent yet.
Illustrative case study · Morgan

When the coverage stops before the story does.

An older allegation remains visible, while later developments are missing from the original coverage.

The situation

Morgan searches their name before an important introduction. An early report is prominent, but a later development is absent from the article. The issue is not simply the age of the result; it is whether the available record gives a materially incomplete picture.

What we would establish first

Identify the original article, any copies and the exact statements in question. Compare the reporting date with reliable evidence of later developments. A dismissal, acquittal, settlement and closed investigation are different outcomes; the description must match the evidence.

The proposed approach

Prepare a specific correction or update request supported by the relevant record. Ask the publisher to consider the missing context. Separately assess whether any search policy applies, and whether Morgan’s own current, accurate information needs strengthening.

How progress would be checked

Record the publisher response and compare the article before and after any update. Then check the search title, snippet and visibility separately. A submitted request is logged as an action, not reported as a successful correction.

The limit

Age alone does not make reporting removable. The publisher controls its page and search engines control their results. This example does not assume that an allegation was false or that removal is available.

Discuss a similar situation
Illustrative case study · Jamie

A shared name should not become a shared history.

Coverage about someone else appears during Jamie’s name search.

The situation

A search for Jamie’s name surfaces another person’s coverage. Someone scanning the results could assume a connection that does not exist. The first task is to distinguish ambiguous search results from an actual factual error identifying Jamie.

What we would establish first

Compare the source’s identifiers with Jamie’s verified public details. Check relevant professional role, location and other distinguishing facts, using only the information necessary to establish the mismatch. Similar names alone do not prove that a publisher has made an error.

The proposed approach

Where the source incorrectly identifies Jamie, prepare an evidence-led correction request. Where the source is accurate but search is ambiguous, improve consistent identity information on Jamie’s own website and legitimate professional profiles. Assess any relevant platform correction route separately.

How progress would be checked

Verify any source correction and its wording, then check whether search still suggests the mistaken association. Review the accuracy and consistency of Jamie’s current profiles without inventing credentials, achievements or affiliations.

The limit

We cannot remove another person’s accurate history simply because they share a name. Clarifying Jamie’s identity and correcting an actual misidentification are different pieces of work.

Discuss a similar situation
Illustrative case study · Riley

Make room for the work happening now.

A public figure’s older coverage overwhelms a more substantial current body of work.

The situation

Riley has an established public profile. Search results emphasize an old period of their life, while their current projects, work and public information are difficult to find. The goal is a representative picture, rather than an invented replacement story.

What we would establish first

Map the prominent sources and separate factual inaccuracies from accurate coverage Riley dislikes. Inventory current work that can be independently supported, along with existing websites and profiles Riley owns or is authorized to update.

The proposed approach

Address demonstrable errors with the relevant source. Develop a clear, factual website and consistent professional profiles around current work. Agree which information is appropriate to publish and keep private details outside the content plan.

How progress would be checked

Track completed content and profile improvements, then review which information search actually surfaces. Report changes in visibility separately from the production of assets; publishing a page is not proof of a ranking change.

The limit

Accurate older reporting may remain visible. Neither a particular first page nor a fixed timetable can be guaranteed, and paid or invented praise is not a substitute for evidence.

Discuss a similar situation
Illustrative case study · Taylor

The page changed. The search result has not caught up.

A removed or materially updated page is still represented by an old search title or snippet.

The situation

Taylor notices that a search result still displays wording that no longer appears on the source page. The page may have been removed or changed, but the search presentation appears to reflect an earlier version.

What we would establish first

Open the exact result URL and inspect the current source. Establish whether the page is unavailable or the relevant content has genuinely changed. A different URL, a paywall or content that still exists can change which route is appropriate.

The proposed approach

Where eligible, use the search engine’s outdated-content process for the exact URL. If the concerning wording remains at the source, explain why a refresh request is not the same as a publisher correction or a separate policy-based removal request.

How progress would be checked

Keep a record of the submitted URL and review response. Recheck both the live page and its search presentation. Confirm what disappeared or changed, rather than describing the whole matter as erased.

The limit

An outdated-result refresh is not a general way to remove current content. The original publisher and the search engine control separate systems; other copies or engines can behave differently.

Discuss a similar situation
Illustrative case study · Cameron

One update does not always reach every copy.

The same story appears across several sites with different update and correction policies.

The situation

Cameron finds several versions of the same story. An update on one site does not appear on every copy, leaving different versions discoverable. Treating all of the results as one page would miss the actual source relationships.

What we would establish first

Identify the original publisher, any syndication relationship and each independently accessible copy. Record the wording and update status at each URL. Establish which facts need correction and what evidence supports the request.

The proposed approach

Begin with the originating source where appropriate, then assess each republisher’s correction process. Ask about propagation of an agreed update without assuming that a change will flow automatically. Evaluate eligible search routes at the URL level.

How progress would be checked

Maintain a source-by-source register of requests, responses and verified changes. Distinguish a corrected original, an unchanged copy and a changed search snippet. Report unresolved sources explicitly.

The limit

No publisher controls every copy on the web. An improvement to one result must not be represented as complete removal of a story from all sites, archives or databases.

Discuss a similar situation
Illustrative case study · Avery

Bring a professional profile back into the present.

Outdated biographies and inconsistent details obscure Avery’s current professional identity.

The situation

Avery’s name search leads to an old role, a stale directory biography and inconsistent descriptions across professional profiles. These details may be accurate historically while giving the wrong impression of Avery’s present work.

What we would establish first

Check which pages Avery controls, which are managed by employers or directories, and what current information can be substantiated. Distinguish a dated historical biography from a page that incorrectly claims to describe Avery’s current position.

The proposed approach

Update authorized first-party pages and request specific factual updates from relevant third parties. Build a consistent biography around verified present work, with clear dates where historical roles remain relevant. Keep unnecessary personal details private.

How progress would be checked

Confirm which profiles changed, whether the wording is accurate and how search reflects the updates. Maintain a clear record of requests still awaiting third-party decisions.

The limit

We cannot guarantee that every directory will respond or that a new biography will outrank all older references. Accurate credentials and affiliations are essential; new content must not manufacture authority.

Discuss a similar situation