After meeting up with some very cool people at the ProBlogger meetup in NYC last week, Gina and I have been talking a lot about PR and its online reach. “Reputation Management Services” sounds all too much like the term “Image Consultant” did in the 80s. It’s when you hire someone to make you look better, to clear or cover all the skeletons in your closet, and all around make people think you’re better than what others have said you are.

Is there a possibility with the new “buzz” about reputation managment, that consultancies offering these services could find themselves behind a moral brick wall? What makes taking on a client with too much, too much? Is it okay to help re-invent a guy who’s got 8 of his 10 previous “businesses” listed with complaints to the BBB and pages among pages of rants and raves from blogs and the RipOff Report? Can it even be done? Should it be?

I’m pretty much set on a standpoint that I’d rather turn away a client than take on their bad reputation. Who wouldn’t feel that way if their goals are to grow and expand their business? But I’m concerned that we’re going to start seeing “reputation management” agencies popping up all over the place now. People taking money from others and just going out of their way to get rid of all negative traces of a client’s past, even if it means trying to game the search engines, or spew threats and harassment. Think about it - this could open up all sorts of ideas that will take us right back to the realm of black hat SEO and who knows what else. It’s like the mafia of online PR! I can hear it now: “I’m gonna makeya an offa you can’t refyooz…”

I sure hope that people don’t wind up thinking that all they have to do is a little “management” and all will be okay. I think that reputation management should be part of many services someone takes into consideration when looking to hire a PR firm or similar agency, but that they should also be wary of any guarantees or potentially empty promises. It could get hairy out there.

Popularity: 15% [?]