Someone is about to fund, partner or approve you. They search your name first. Ten results decide it, and you wrote one of them.
We work on the other nine.
There is a moment you never get to watch, and it decides more of your revenue than any campaign you have ever run.
Someone has decided they are probably going to use you. The offer made sense, the spreads looked fine, a friend mentioned you. They are ninety percent there.
Then they do the thing everybody does before money moves.
They type your name into Google.
You have never seen that page the way they see it.
You have seen it logged in, from your own laptop, with your site at the top and everything below it familiar. They see it cold. And they do not read result one, because result one is your website and of course your website says you are good.
They read results two through six. The forum thread. The review profile. The Reddit post from two years ago that still ranks because nothing else ever competed with it.
And then they either fund, or they close the tab. You never find out which.
Now here is where this industry fails you, and it fails you in two completely opposite directions.
One half sells you a monthly retainer. Strategy, media mapping, outreach in progress. Four months later there is a mention in an outlet you have never heard of and a deck explaining why that outlet matters more than you would think. Nobody ever has to say whether anything moved.
The other half is louder and worse. They offer to remove the result. Delete the thread, suppress the review, make it go away for a fee.
They cannot. Almost nobody can. You do not own the forum, the review platform, or the opinion, and no agency has a button that deletes other people’s publishing.
What you can actually change is how many credible pages are competing for those ten positions.
That is it. That is the whole discipline, and it is unglamorous enough that most people selling it would rather talk about something else.
So this page is about the boring version. Real placements in real publications, with the link type stated before you buy. A review profile rebuilt from your own customers rather than purchased. And a straight answer about which negative results can be moved and which ones cannot.
Read the right-hand column again, because it is genuinely worth money.
When a payment processor is deciding whether your brand is real, when a broker is weighing a partnership, when a trader is searching your name before funding, a substantial piece in a publication they recognise changes the answer. It does that whether it was paid for or not. What it cannot survive is being misrepresented, which is the entire reason we put this section above the pricing instead of below it.
This is the part nobody else shows you. Some placements pass link authority. Some do not. Some are a full feature built around you, some are a mention inside a wider piece. Those are completely different products and they get sold at the same price all over this industry.
Why this matters more than the price does.
A dofollow link from a publication with real domain authority passes ranking signal to your site. A nofollow link from the same publication passes almost none. Both cost roughly the same to buy, and most sellers will let you assume you are getting the first one.
Same with format. A full feature is a piece built around your brand. A mention is your name in a listicle alongside nine competitors. Both get described as “coverage”. They are not the same thing and they should never cost the same.
Your site is result one. You control that. You do not control results two through ten, and those are where the decision actually gets made.
Notice what did not happen there.
Nothing was deleted. The complaint thread is still live, still indexed, still saying the same thing. Anyone who scrolls will find it.
Because you cannot remove what other people published about you, and anyone who tells you they can is selling you something that does not work. What you can do is decide how many credible pages are competing for the same ten positions. That is the entire discipline.
If you are a regulated broker or a prop firm, this part matters more to you than the price does.
Citing a sponsored placement as though the publication endorsed you can be treated as a misleading financial promotion under FCA and CySEC rules. The badge is the risk, not the article.
What is safe: linking to the piece, quoting it accurately, and letting a reader see what it is when they click.
What is not: an “as seen in” logo wall in advertising creative implying editorial coverage you did not earn.
We put this in writing with every placement. Not because it is a nice touch, but because the version of this service that ignores it eventually costs a client far more than the placement ever cost them.
Do it in a private window so you see what they see, not what Google thinks you want.
Whatever is sitting at results two through six is what a trader reads before funding and what a processor reads before approving you.
If we do not think we can change it, we will say so instead of selling you a placement.