ProspectMatch Trying to Bury Negative Reviews

[VolAgent]

Personally, I hate it when google allows the company to have 20 something sites that are basically the same, just to hide content. I also realize that companies that do this are hiding stuff, in a big way.

Dan

That is my big pet peeve. Why is the first page full of links back to the same exact site?

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

If you want an example of the absolute king of reputation management and pure abuse of having a zillion websites and extensions then google AARP.

You'll be back on page 3 with domains like this: AARP Money Management Program and it never ends.

...back onto page six and it's still just more domain garbage: AARP Foremost mobile home and motorcycle Insurance programs

So for them it's easy - just 5,000 domain names with "aarp" in it and Google falls for it.

 

[VolAgent]

John, thank you for proving my point.

 

[LJohnson89]

Sorry about your having to deal with negative reviews, but you have addressed the issues head on and not tried to suppress or ignore the reports. Individuals can appreciate that. With most negative reviews, there would usually be other comments that support that stance.

With Prospect Match, they have identical sites from prospectmatch.com, prospectmatch1.com up to prospectmatch26.com. On top of the letters from lawyers lets individuals know that they should be weary of such a company. Their efforts at suppression should be used towards building a better, more valuable product.

You've taken the correct approach to address the negative issues and turn it into a positive. I'm shocked that PM doesn't realize that you can't suppress information on the Internet without their being a backlash.

I know you don't like the hassle, but it did turn out positive overall for you (i.e. more membership subscriptions)

I enjoy negative and positive feedback regarding my website service. If it's positive, I'm doing the right thing. If it is negative, I still have room for improvement.

Yes and no. I don't know anything about Prospect Match however negative reviews on page 1 can offer an unbalanced view.

Here's what Google gets wrong...and it's not really Google's fault - if you have 10,000 satisfied customers that's fine. They're certainly not going to write a full article regarding their happiness. The reason it's not Google's fault is they don't know about the 10,000 happy customer since they're not posting anything.

However, 1 out of those 10,000 customers can get pissed and post an "avoid this scam" article. Boom. It's on page 1 almost instantly and sticks there like glue.

Every company needs to make sure page 1 is positive. Google any major lead company. Page 1 is clean. You'll have to go back many pages before you see rip off and scam reports. It's because they employ great reputation management tactics.

Good. I don't want to Google Starbucks and spend the first 3 pages reading about how someone waiting in line for 20 minutes then got the latte instead of a mocha.

Prospect Match can build up their Twitter page. Right now it's at 7 followers, following zero and the last tweet was the 25th of May. Same with their FB page - 3 likes and zero posts.

And finally, turn a negative report into more business. I researched this when someone posted something a ROR on my association about 2 years ago. The article suggested I offer something special to people who read it. So I replied to the ROR with anyone reading this article could get the first month for $1.00. In the irony of all ironies, my membership increased. People read the ROR, saw my "$1.00 1st month" reply and it was such a hit that I made that the standard.

Prospect Match could do the same thing; "If you're reading this, try Prospect Match for FREE. We'll give you 10 free leads if you mention this report. See for yourself!" Now....if you don't believe in the quality of your service, then....

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

People just need to be diligent and I really don't have any sympathy for people who aren't. If you wish to pull up negative stuff on AARP there are many keywords you can enter to find it.

 

[VolAgent]

Again, completely disagree. Your method is the equivalent of buying the newspaper publisher and filling it full of your ads because someone wrote a bad review.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

But with your view, every edition of the newspaper has the same negative story.

So I get the Baltimore Sun and they write a negative review on a restaurant. With your method, that exact same article appears in every edition of that paper for life.

Even online - Baltimore Sun writes a negative review and it's on page one of their website. With your method that review stays on their site on the first page 8 years later.

You're not right or wrong and neither am I. There is no solution. I can hire 20 people tomorrow to destroy a competitor and yes, it'll be on first page...and it'll all be false. Fair? No. But a very legit story warning others should be on page one.

There is no answer.

 

[VolAgent]

That I will agree with!

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

There needs to be a solution and hopefully someone will come up with one.

Posting about a restaurant where you saw a rat is valuable

Posting about a restaurant where you saw a rat as a fake story posted by that restaurant's competitor is wrong.

However, the fake rat story can be on page 1 within a day and the restaurant can go out of business.

Solution? There isn't one for now.

Remember, people are willing to go this far: Pizzeria Owner Sabotages Rivals by Planting Mice in Restaurants - ABC News

Now imagine if he has been successful, then took a pic of the mice and posted that online.

 

[djs]

It's not just an online problem. Content lives online basically forever, but it doesn't stay relevant very long. As it's relevance goes down, its google weighting goes down. Newer, more relevant stuff starts to show up.

There are stories on the news that will dominate for a week. I may not care to hear about them, but they are still there. After a while, they fade out. There is NOTHING that requires a news story to be real, and in fact, frequently are not accurate.

Take, for example, the Duke Lacross team fiasco. Went on for a while, but not real. Its the way it goes.

As companies learn to manipulate google placement, google works hard to change the secret sauce. This will be an ongoing battle for years to come.

Dan