How Dahna researches, writes, and corrects what it publishes

Articles in the Dahna insights blog carry either a named author or the Dahna editorial team byline. A named byline credits that person; the editorial team byline attributes the work to Dahna as the publisher. Ana Yon's background across entertainment, technology, and beauty is set out on the Our Story page. Founder experience from earlier or contracted roles is identified separately from Dahna client work.

The article's production note explains where AI assisted. A byline alone does not establish independent human or specialist review. The AI-assisted service library does not claim that review. Dahna remains responsible for what it publishes and for addressing reported errors.

Articles address decisions for consumer brands serving US customers, with a focus on beauty and K-beauty, market entry, creators, 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 come first, such as a platform's own developer or policy documentation, a regulator's published guidance, or an official filing. Independent research and reporting come next, 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.

Research and source checks may themselves be AI-assisted; linked references do not establish an independent human review. Claims must stay within what their sources support, and unresolved claims need correction, qualification, or removal. Statistics, quotes, citations, credentials, and client outcomes must not be invented. Fictional scenarios and worked examples are labeled illustrative so readers can distinguish them from observed results.

A publishing schedule does not approve a draft. New articles must address a distinct buyer decision, contribute useful evidence or analysis, meet the editorial checks, and have authorization for release. Approved articles can publish automatically at their scheduled time. Unresolved drafts stay unpublished, even when that means publishing fewer articles than planned.

Some editorial images on this site are AI-generated illustrations; they illustrate a topic and never show a client product or campaign.

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, such as a misread study, a platform rule that has since changed, or 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, such as typos, broken links, or 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.