Equine practices get a warning on online reputation risk
Bottom line
EquiManagement has highlighted a growing business risk for equine practices: online reputation management is no longer optional. In a March 27, 2026, report tied to a session at the 2025 American Association of Equine Practitioners Convention, consultants Tim Scerba and Michelle Sinning said many equine veterinarians use social media but lack a crisis plan for negative reviews, viral complaints, and online rumor cycles. Their guidance centered on monitoring key channels, responding early, moving conflict offline when possible, and using resources such as the AVMA’s reputation toolkit and response templates. (equimanagement.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, especially ambulatory and equine teams working in close-knit local communities, reputation can shift quickly when a disputed case outcome, billing conflict, prepurchase exam disagreement, or staff post gains traction online. The EquiManagement piece notes that horse-focused Facebook groups can amplify complaints fast, while AVMA materials emphasize active monitoring, template responses, and structured review-site management. Industry voices also caution that not every bad review deserves a public fight; practices need a defined response process, clear internal decision-making, and an understanding of state confidentiality rules before replying. (equimanagement.com)
What to watch: Expect more practices to formalize review-response protocols, crisis plans, and staff training as online reputation management becomes part of standard practice operations. (equimanagement.com)
Online reputation management is moving from a marketing nice-to-have to a core practice-management function for equine veterinarians. That’s the message from EquiManagement’s March 27, 2026, coverage of a 2025 AAEP Convention session led by Tim Scerba and Michelle Sinning, consultants who work with the AVMA. Their warning was straightforward: many veterinarians are active online, but far fewer are prepared when a negative review, social post, or client complaint turns into a reputational crisis. (equimanagement.com)
The backdrop is familiar to many practices. Reviews increasingly shape first impressions, and online criticism can spread much faster than a practice can investigate or respond. EquiManagement reported Sinning’s view that Google reviews carry real weight in client decision-making, while Scerba described crisis triggers that range from accidental patient death or injury to disputed outcomes, disease-outbreak rumors, prepurchase exam disagreements, billing disputes, and internal staff conflicts. In equine medicine, where local networks of trainers, barns, and horse groups are tightly connected, that amplification risk is especially high. (equimanagement.com)
The practical guidance from the session focused less on “winning” online arguments and more on controlling escalation. Scerba advised practices not to go silent during a crisis, arguing that information vacuums invite speculation. The presenters recommended gathering screenshots, assessing urgency, responding rather than reacting, showing empathy without admitting fault, and avoiding back-and-forth exchanges inside equine community groups. Instead, they advised practices to post from official channels and redirect the conversation offline as quickly as possible. EquiManagement also noted that the AVMA has built a reputation toolkit with sample responses for veterinary teams. (equimanagement.com)
That advice lines up with broader veterinary-industry guidance. AVMA’s reputation resources describe online reputation management as part of preventing, responding to, and recovering from cyberbullying, and its checklist for monitoring online reputation encourages practices to track review sites, social media, email, and other feedback channels while using prepared response templates. Separately, AVMA’s continuing education catalog now frames proactive online reputation management as a competitive skill for independent clinics, tied not just to client acquisition, but also to recruiting and retention. (myvetlife.avma.org)
Other industry commentators add nuance. Writing in Today’s Veterinary Business, Caitlin DeWilde, DVM, said negative reviews are inevitable, but not all require the same response. She argues that clearly false or spam-like posts may be ignored or reported, while legitimate complaints may warrant an offline conversation before any public reply. She also notes that practices should understand state practice rules and confidentiality limits before responding publicly, since even accurate rebuttals can create legal or ethical risk if they reveal too much. (todaysveterinarybusiness.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this is really about trust, workflow, and team protection, not just star ratings. A reputational flare-up can consume front-desk time, distract clinicians, unsettle staff, and influence prospective clients and job candidates long after the original incident. That risk may be more acute in equine practice, where one emotionally charged account can circulate through regional horse communities before a veterinarian has a chance to respond. The emerging standard appears to be a documented plan: who monitors reviews, who responds, when legal counsel is consulted, what gets escalated, and how the team moves conversations into private channels without sounding evasive. (equimanagement.com)
There’s also a client-communication dimension. AVMA’s consumer-facing materials caution pet parents against relying too heavily on review sites alone when choosing a veterinarian, which underscores a tension practices already know well: online ratings influence decisions, even when they don’t fully reflect the quality of care or the complexity of a case. That makes consistent communication, expectation-setting, and follow-up even more important upstream, before dissatisfaction hardens into a public complaint. (ebusiness.avma.org)
What to watch: The next step is likely operational, not theoretical. Look for more equine and mixed-animal practices to adopt written crisis-response plans, designate a review-response lead, train staff on social media boundaries, and make reputation monitoring part of routine business management rather than a reactive task after a complaint goes public. (equimanagement.com)