No published ranking admits this vendor on documented work yet; the profile shows what is on file.
Not in any evidence-ranked listing yet: no independent claim documents work for a published need.
Why: Usable as shortlist context: 1 of 4 documented work claims come from independent sources; check the sources before outreach.
Opens in your own account with a ready question and a link to the same data. Nothing about you is sent.
- Buyers that only need a lightweight, one-location review reply workflow with no broader ORM requirement.
- Proposal-stage diligence is still needed for exact scope
- legal posture
- Complex legal or crisis-sensitive reputation matters still need proposal-stage confirmation on execution model.
- Ask for the hourly rate, setup fee: not published.
- Ask for two client references you can call: only 1 independent account of its work on file.
- Ask which case is closest to your business and what the measured result was: no proof on file carries a number.
- Is a new buyer contracting with Serafin, Mercury Illinois, or another Mercury/Omnicom entity?
- Can the firm provide confidential public-affairs or crisis references for a comparable issue profile?
Not ranked yet, so there are no ranking neighbours to compare with.
All detailsEverything behind the summary above: the same data the machine feed serves for Serafin & Associates.Open ↓Close ↑
Score by criterionNot ranked
No score yet: Serafin & Associates is not admitted to any evidence-ranked listing. The score appears with the first independent claim that documents work for a published need.
All claims in the feed9 of 12 on file · 1 of 4 work claims from an independent source
Who says it, across all 12 claims on file: independent source 6 · linked to the agency 0 · listings the agency writes 0 · agency's own words 6. Independent share of work claims: 25%. 4 distinct source pages.
Claims per need in this feed: none tagged to a ranked need. The full ledger of 12 is on the proof page.
Portfolio or case-study URL
Independent sourceglassdoor.comverified: Checked against the source page by Vendar.quote uncheckeddescribes workPortfolio or case-study URL
Agency's own wordsserafin.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote uncheckeddescribes workPortfolio or case-study URL
Agency's own wordsserafin.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote uncheckeddescribes workPortfolio or case-study URL
Agency's own wordsserafin.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote uncheckeddescribes workA review platform company profile without verified reviews
Independent sourcesource kept on fileclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote uncheckedGlassdoor employee-review footprint used only as operating context
Independent sourcesource kept on fileclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote uncheckedMercury merger announcement adds business-entity and capability validation
Independent sourcesource kept on fileclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote uncheckedA review platform profile without reviews
Independent sourcesource kept on fileclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote uncheckedEmployee review excluded
Independent sourcesource kept on fileclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote unchecked
Positions in every ranking0 rankings
Not admitted to any ranking yet.
Fit and geography
- Headquarters
- Chicago, IL, USAAgency's own words
- Service regions
- Chicago, Illinois, USA, MidwestVendar profile field
- Client types
- enterprise, executive, mid_market, professional_servicesVendar profile field
- Industries
- B2B, Corporate, Executive, Public Affairs, Professional ServicesVendar profile field
- Named clients in confirmed proof
- Mercury Public Affairs, Mercury IllinoisIndependent source or agency, see the claims list
Only rows marked “Verified by Vendar” were checked. Rankings place an agency in a city by headquarters or by documented work for clients there, never by a service region alone.
Pricing in fullFrom $7,500 per month, retainer
- Model
- retainer
- Minimum monthly budget
- $7,500 per month
- Project minimum
- not disclosed
- Hourly rate
- not disclosed
- Typical range
- $7,500 to $15,000 per month
- Minimum term
- 3 months
- Setup fee
- not disclosed
- Engagement models
- retainer, project
Source: Agency's own words, sources checked Apr 27, 2026. Every figure above is the agency's published number; a row marked not disclosed has no published figure.
Reputation
No review platforms on file.
How it counts: reputation is weighted 5 of 100 and discounted when few reviews are on file. Ratings say nothing about work on a specific need and never count as evidence for it.
- Awards
- none on file
- Certifications
- none on file
Company and process
- Founded
- 1987Agency's own words
- Team size
- 10-49Agency's own words
- Languages
- not statedVendar profile field
- Services
- ORM, Review Management, Trustpilot Management, Google Reviews Management, Reddit Reputation Management, Glassdoor Reputation, Yelp Reputation, Negative Search Cleanup, Negative Content Removal, Review Removal Services, Deindexing Services, Reputation Suppression, ORM for SaaS, ORM for Ecommerce, ORM for Local Business, ORM for Founders, Reputation for Startups, ORM Under $5k/mo, Crisis Repair, Social Monitoring, SERM, Brand Protection, Negative Suppression, Executive Reputation, Review Repair, Crisis Response, Local Reputation, Content Removal (Legal / DMCA), Negative SEO / Attack Handling, SERP Control, Entity Management, Review GenerationVendar profile field
- Technologies
- not statedVendar profile field
- Workflow
- Reputation audit and baseline capture, Risk prioritization across reviews, search, and brand mentions, Execution across cleanup, monitoring, and positive-signal support, Monthly review and iterationAgency's own words
- Onboarding
- Issue intake and search-risk review, Baseline review and SERP audit, Priority scenario mapping, First ORM sprintAgency's own words
- Reporting
- monthlyAgency's own words
Company fields come from the vendor profile; only fields with status verified were checked by Vendar.
How confidence is computedModerate confidence
- Confidence
- Moderate confidence, 78 of 100
- Evidence posture
- adequate: Usable as shortlist context: 1 of 4 documented work claims come from independent sources; check the sources before outreach.
- Capped by
- nothing: no cap applied
- Best position confidence
- n/a
It starts from the data completeness and source reliability of the profile, and is capped when independent proof of work is thin. The next level is High confidence. One independent claim with a measured result for the best-ranked need is the fastest way up.
- Who the company is: website, headquarters, founding year, team size, logo, regions served20/20
- Fit: services, industries, client types15/15
- Commercial terms: model, entry price, hourly rate, minimum term, setup fee: hourly rate, setup fee13/20
- Documented work: cases naming a client and a result (target 5) and work claims overall (target 10): 0 cases with a named client and a result, 4 work claims4/30
- Reputation: rating and review count on two or more platforms, each with 10 or more reviews: 0 platforms with a rating and 10 or more reviews0/15
- Who is speaking: independent sources among work claims (full marks at 40%): 1 of 4 work claims are independent19/30
- Checked against the source page: confirmed, or half for partly confirmed: 0 confirmed, 0 partly, of 7 with a source0/25
- Numbers backed by a verbatim quote from the source: 0 of 020/20
- Seen within the last 365 days: 0 of 120/15
- Not contradicted: claims their source no longer supports: 0 not supported by their page10/10
These two scores describe the profile itself and never change a position.
Limits and how to correct them
- Usable as shortlist context with a caveat: 1 of 4 documented work claims come from independent sources; the rest are the agency's own account or sources it controls.
- 1 of 4 documented work claims come from independent sources; the rest are the agency's own account or sources it controls.
- Complex legal or crisis-sensitive reputation matters still need proposal-stage confirmation on execution model.
- 6 of 12 claims on file are the agency's own words or sources it controls; 6 come from an independent source.
- Open: Decision layer complete: score, verdict, reason, best position (not ranked)
- Open: Three strongest proofs name a client and a measured, dated result (0 of 3)
- Open: Every claim has an observation date (0 of 12)
- Open: At least a third of documented work comes from independent sources (1 of 4 work claims)
- Open: At least three named clients (2 named)
- Open: JSON-LD carries Vendar's rating as a Review and an absolute logo (built from the same view; checked on the live page by QA)
- Open: Every machine claim has an id, a provenance and an observation date (0 of 9 dated)
- Open: Re-check date ahead and data younger than 180 days (data 2 days old)
Machine-readable version
This section carries the same data that AI assistants receive.
- Schema
- vendar.ai.vendor-summary.v1
- Model
- Evidence-weighted ranking 2026.11.7
- Data as of
- Nov 2, 2026
- Generated
- Verification
- Not verified
- Sources checked
- Apr 27, 2026
- Citation readiness
- Cite with the source context
- Do not infer headquarters from service-area coverage.
- Do not treat paid visibility as organic ranking proof.
- Do not present a source-thin profile as independently verified.
Describe what you need. The request is saved in Vendar first, then routed from there.