Online Reputation Management (ORM) Services

In some cases, yes; in most, no. Direct removal is viable when the content is illegal, defamatory, infringes copyright, or exposes sensitive personal data, and it requires a formal request to the platform or legal action. When dealing with a legitimate opinion or a truthful news story, there is no basis for removal, and the effective strategy is to displace it from top positions.

Removing means the page ceases to exist or be indexed. Displacing means it still exists but is pushed down to a position where almost no one sees it: around 75% of clicks are concentrated on the first few results, and the second page of Google receives a marginal fraction of traffic. Displacement is achieved by ranking your own and third-party content above the negative result.

Between 3 and 6 months for displacement in standard situations, and considerably longer when the negative content is on a high-authority site or when there are multiple problematic results at once. The timeframe depends on the strength of the site publishing the content, the volume of brand searches, and how many owned digital assets already exist to rank.

An inventory of everything that appears today when searching for the brand or the person’s name: organic results, images, videos, reviews, forums, social networks, and media mentions. Each result is classified as positive, neutral, or negative; we identify who controls each asset and evaluate the difficulty of displacing the problematic ones. The deliverable is a map of the current state and a prioritized action plan.

The right to be forgotten, as understood in the European Union, allows individuals to request the de-indexing of obsolete or irrelevant personal information. In Panama, Law 81 of 2019 on personal data protection recognizes rights of access, rectification, cancellation, opposition, and portability, but its scope is not equivalent to the European model, and its application to search engines is still limited. Each case requires specific legal assessment; Centria Group does not provide legal advice but works with the client’s lawyer when legal action is appropriate.

With a public response, not with silence or deletion. A well-answered negative review—acknowledging the problem and offering a solution—communicates more trust than a profile with perfect five stars, which many users interpret as manipulated. The work consists of establishing a response protocol, resolving the root cause of the complaint, and increasing the volume of legitimate reviews so the average score reflects the usual experience.

This is not a method Centria Group uses or recommends. Platforms detect and remove fraudulent reviews, the account can be penalized or publicly flagged, and in several jurisdictions, it constitutes deceptive advertising. Furthermore, it is a fragile solution: it doesn’t fix the problem that caused the criticism. The sustainable path is to make it easy for satisfied clients to leave their opinion, as they are usually the majority but rarely do so on their own initiative.

Partially, yes. Claiming and completing your profiles, answering reviews, and publishing regularly is within the reach of any company and already improves the landscape significantly. External support is usually needed to authoritatively displace a negative result, which requires ranking several assets simultaneously, and in crisis situations, where reaction time and the tone of the response determine the outcome.

First, do not delete comments or respond in the heat of the moment: both amplify the problem. The basic protocol is to verify the facts before making a statement, respond quickly and on the same channel where it originated, take the appropriate share of responsibility, explain what specific action is being taken, and move the individual conversation to a private channel. Centria Group provides crisis protocols prepared in advance, which is when they truly help.