History
One publication posted an article that the brand's products were harmful. Allegedly, a study was conducted, however it was unclear in which laboratory and by whom.
Also, the information provided 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 that 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 harmful ingredients. At the end of the article there was a call: "Do not buy these harmful products."
The publication was quite large and had a wide audience. The client noticed 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, a representative of the brand called us only at twelve in the afternoon. On the same day, we met with the client to discuss the situation.
Our actions
1. Studied the refutations
After going over all the studies and certificates on the quality of the brand's products, we determined that their products were not harmful. Moreover, they were environmentally friendly, meaning the article maliciously misinformed buyers.
2. We started 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, reposted the article. The negative content had spread to social networks. Urgent action was required.
3. We worked closely with the client and our lawyers
Material was promptly prepared to refute this information. Our specialist prepared official letters of appeal to the media.
4. We started working with each media outlet separately
Finding the editors and site owners was a lengthy process. Many refused to take down the articles, citing the validity of the primary source (the original article). Most agreed to take down their reposted articles if the original article was first removed. Some of the more salacious publications refused to make any concessions, however.
5. We were able to refute the primary source
A few days later, a refutation was published. By this time, we had extinguished the spread of negative content as much as possible: we had the information deleted, published an article that the brand had refuted the false information, and published reliable evidence and research.