Case Studies

Real engagements, anonymised by design

If you're researching ORMA reviews, here's what we can honestly show you. Our clients hire us because they value privacy, so we publish anonymised case studies instead of named testimonials: what was ranking, what we did, and how long change took.

How to read these case studies

Every ORMA engagement is confidential, so identifying details below have been altered and outlet names generalised. The shape of each matter, the pathways used, and the timelines are real.

Outcomes depend on the specific content, applicable jurisdiction, available evidence, and platform / search conditions.

ASX-listed executive

A regulatory matter dominating page one

The situation

An Australian executive whose name search had become dominated by negative coverage. A regulatory matter and a string of unfavourable opinion pieces held the visible first-page results, while the executive's owned properties (LinkedIn, biography pages, interviews) were buried below them. The brief was to displace the negatives and restore a balanced first impression for anyone searching the name.

What we did

Owned and neutral assets were rebuilt and targeted at the exact queries surfacing the coverage: profile properties, contributed industry commentary, board and charity appointments, and speaking engagements, reinforced over months until the cluster stopped holding the top positions.

Beforeclient's name

1
Executive named in regulatory matter
national financial masthead
Negative
2
The inquiry, what happened
industry commentary site
Negative
3
Director biography
professional institute
Neutral
4
Concerns over senior leader
metro masthead
Negative
5
LinkedIn profile
linkedin.com
Owned

Afterclient's name

1
LinkedIn profile
linkedin.com
Owned
2
Op-ed: industry outlook
national financial masthead
Owned
3
Charity board appointment
charity organisation
Owned
4
Conference keynote: leadership
industry forum
Owned
5
Director biography
professional institute
Neutral

Reconstructed from the engagement and generalised: titles paraphrased, outlet names replaced, positions as recorded. Top five positions shown.

First movement

Week 3

Page one resolved

Month 6

Held stable for

2+ years

Timelines are from this engagement, not a promise of yours.

Sydney professional services provider

A complaint cluster ranking above the actual practice

The situation

A long-standing professional services provider whose first page surfaced complaint threads, one-star rating pages, and a single negative news article from years prior. The practice itself, its credentials, and current client outcomes appeared on page two or further down. The brief was to lift owned and neutral content into the top positions and push the complaint cluster off page one.

What we did

The provider's own properties were strengthened and expanded: official site, biography and outcomes pages, an industry expert interview, and directory presence, all targeted at the branded queries where the complaint cluster ranked.

Beforeclient's name

1
Complaints about the provider
review platform
Negative
2
Provider reviews and ratings
review platform
Negative
3
Official site
provider's own site
Owned
4
Disputed claim, since resolved
metro masthead
Negative
5
LinkedIn profile
linkedin.com
Owned

Afterclient's name

1
Official site
provider's own site
Owned
2
LinkedIn profile
linkedin.com
Owned
3
Biography page
provider's own site
Owned
4
Industry expert interview
specialist industry media
Owned
5
Client outcomes page
provider's own site
Owned

Reconstructed from the engagement and generalised: titles paraphrased, outlet names replaced, positions as recorded. Top five positions shown.

First movement

Week 4

Page one resolved

Month 7

Held stable for

18+ months

Timelines are from this engagement, not a promise of yours.

Australian public figure

One syndicated incident holding four of the top results

The situation

An Australian public figure whose name search returned the same incident from years prior in four of the top six positions, because the original article had been syndicated and republished across half a dozen outlets. The legal matter was resolved and the person had moved on, but the cluster stayed intact. Almost no owned content existed to compete with it. The brief was to build a properly distributed owned-content footprint and displace the syndicated cluster at the same time.

What we did

An owned footprint was built nearly from scratch: an official site, profile properties, charity coverage, interviews, and industry recognition, distributed across enough independent domains that the syndicated cluster could no longer occupy multiple top positions at once.

Beforeclient's name

1
In court over incident
national news site
Negative
2
Incident report, syndicated copy
national news site
Negative
3
Denies allegations
metro masthead
Negative
4
Wikipedia entry
wikipedia.org
Neutral
5
LinkedIn profile
linkedin.com
Owned

Afterclient's name

1
Official site
own domain
Owned
2
Wikipedia entry
wikipedia.org
Neutral
3
LinkedIn profile
linkedin.com
Owned
4
Charity work coverage
charity organisation
Owned
5
Long-form interview
podcast network
Owned

Reconstructed from the engagement and generalised: titles paraphrased, outlet names replaced, positions as recorded. Top five positions shown.

First movement

Week 6

Page one resolved

Month 9

Held stable for

14+ months

Timelines are from this engagement, not a promise of yours.

Why no names

Discretion is the product

A reputation firm that publishes its clients' names next to their worst moments has misunderstood the job. You get the same protection: your matter stays private, whatever the outcome.

Anonymised always

Details that could identify a client are altered or removed before anything is shared.

Consent for quotes

Direct quotes appear only with documented client consent, and rarely.

Real engagements

Every case study reflects an actual matter: its pathways, timeline, and outcome.

Questions about our case studies

Are these case studies real?

Yes. Each one is a real ORMA engagement. What has been changed is anything that could identify the client: names, outlets, dates, and industry details are altered or generalised, and the search-result panels are reconstructions of what page one looked like rather than screenshots. The shape of each matter, the pathways used, and the timelines are as they happened in that engagement.

Why doesn't ORMA publish named reviews or testimonials?

Because confidentiality is the service. Clients engage ORMA to reduce the visibility of a private matter, and publishing their names next to a description of that matter would contradict the entire engagement. Where a client gives documented consent, we occasionally share a short quote. The default is anonymised case studies like the ones on this page.

Are these results typical?

No two matters are the same, so no result is typical. The timelines shown are what happened in those specific engagements. Outcomes depend on the content involved, how entrenched it is, which pathways apply, and how competitive the queries are. The free assessment exists to give you a realistic read on your specific situation before you spend anything.

What do the labels in the search panels mean?

Owned means a property the client controls or contributed: their site, profiles, interviews, published commentary. Neutral means accurate third-party content that neither helps nor harms, like a directory listing. Negative means the damaging content the engagement was built around. Suppression works by lifting owned and neutral results above the negative ones on the queries that matter.

Would my matter ever appear on this page?

Not identifiably, and not without your documented consent. Client matters are confidential by default. If we ever asked to reference an engagement, it would be with your written agreement and anonymised the same way as the case studies here.

See how an engagement runs step by step, or the removal and suppression services behind these results.

Find out what's realistic for your situation

Free and confidential. We respond within one business day. About one in three assessments end without an engagement, because we don't think we can help or the matter is better handled another way. That honesty is the point.

Get Free Proposal

Outcomes depend on the specific content, applicable jurisdiction, available evidence, and platform / search conditions.