One publication posted an article that the brand's products are harmful to health. Allegedly, a study was conducted, however, it was unclear in which laboratory and by whom.
This information did not specify which technologies were used for the analysis. Such materials should contain accurate information about all the details of the study, as well as the basis on which this judgment was made. The same article stated only that the brand's products are harmful, and this conclusion was made by the authors of the article after analyzing several samples of products from a number of manufacturers. The results of some tests were not very good: the researchers found certain components that cause harm to health. At the end of the article there was a call: "do not buy harmful products." The publication was quite large and had a wide audience and the client caught this late and did not immediately contact us. The spread of negativity was extensive - more than 100 media outlets. The information about the products appeared around ten o'clock in the morning. However, the representative of the brand called us only at twelve in the afternoon. On the same day, we went to a meeting with a client in order to clarify all the circumstances.
1. Studied the refutations
We have raised all the studies and certificates on the quality of the brand's products. As it turned out, there is nothing harmful in them. Moreover, they are environmentally friendly, meaning the article absolutely misinformed the buyers.
2. We started with negotiations with the original source
The dialogue with the editor did not work out. Time passed, and quite a large number of other information resources, including regional ones, replicated the article. The negativity had gone to social networks. Urgent action was required.
3. We worked closely with the client and our lawyer
A material was promptly prepared to refute this information. Our specialist has prepared official letters of appeal to the media.
4. We started working with each media separately
Our team was looking for the editor of each of the publications in all possible ways. We had to make inquiries through social networks, because not all resources have the contact information of the key people to whom the publication is registered. Turning to the editors and founders, we asked them to delete the false information. Many refused, referring to the primary sources and shifting responsibility to them. They were ready to agree to the removal of the article if the original source did it. But the "hype" edition did not make concessions.
5. We have achieved a refutation on the original source
A few days later, a refutation was published on its pages. By this time, we had extinguished the spread of negativity to the maximum: we had the information deleted, published an article that the brand had refuted false information, published reliable evidence and research.