How Dahna researches, writes, and corrects what it publishes

Everything published in the Dahna insights blog is written and edited by Ana Yon, Dahna's co-founder. There is no ghostwriting pool and no rotating house byline: the name on a post is the person accountable for it. Her background across entertainment, technology, and beauty is set out on the Our Story page, and it also marks the edge of what gets written about with confidence.

Articles stay inside beauty and K-beauty marketing, US market entry, creator and paid media, search visibility, and commerce operations. Legal, regulatory, tax, customs, and medical questions are framed as questions for the appropriate specialist rather than answered here, even when a general pattern is well known.

Any claim that rests on outside evidence carries a source, listed with its publisher at the end of the article. Preference runs in this order: primary documents first — a platform's own developer or policy documentation, a regulator's published guidance, an official filing — then independent research and reporting, then industry commentary.

Vendor material is used when the vendor is the subject of the article or the only available source for a capability claim, and it is labelled as that company's own published material rather than presented as independent verification. Where a figure is quoted, the number, the publisher, and the period it covers are stated so a reader can check it instead of taking it on trust. When a claim cannot be sourced, it is written plainly as an opinion or an operating judgment, or it is cut.

Dahna uses AI tools for research support and drafting: gathering candidate sources, summarizing long documents, producing first drafts, and pressure-testing structure. That assistance is disclosed here rather than left implied, because it is a normal part of how this site is produced.

It does not replace verification. Every factual claim is checked against the cited source by a person before publication: if the source does not say what the draft says it says, the claim changes or the source goes. AI is not used to invent statistics, quotes, examples, results, or citations, and nothing publishes itself — no article goes live without human review and a human byline.

Dahna is a marketing agency, so an article may discuss a channel, platform, or discipline Dahna also sells as a service. Where an article references a company, product, or website that shares ownership, management, or a commercial relationship with Dahna, that connection is stated inside the article itself rather than in a footer.

Where an outside company is used as a public example, the article says plainly that it is not a client, partner, or endorsed vendor, and that its own published claims have not been independently audited. Dahna does not publish client names or client results, and no article is paid for, sponsored, or reviewed in advance by a company it discusses.

Corrections are treated as a normal part of publishing rather than an embarrassment. If something here is wrong — a misread study, a platform rule that has since changed, a number attributed to the wrong source — write to hello@dahna.io with the URL and what is wrong with it.

Substantive corrections are made in the article itself and the update date changes with them. Minor edits — typos, broken links, formatting — are made without a note.

Every post shows the date it was published. When a post is revised after publication, the updated date is shown alongside it, so the difference between a piece written last week and one revised last week is visible without guessing.

The updated date moves only when the body of a post changes: a paragraph, a table, a source, a takeaway, or an FAQ answer. Fixing a link, changing tags, adjusting formatting, or applying a site-wide template change does not move it. A newer date should mean the substance changed, not the housekeeping.

Platform rules, ad formats, and search behavior move quickly, so articles that fall behind the facts are revised or marked rather than quietly deleted. If a piece is no longer worth keeping, the page says so instead of disappearing. The full archive lives in the insights blog, and the reasoning behind the agency writing any of this is on the Our Story page.