FLOGS Scams and the Honest Marketer. What do you think?

[JayInOrlando]

After doing some reading today on "Flogs" and other ad types. I've found myself wondering.

Simply put, these fake blogs, fake ads, review sites, fake news sites, etc WORK. That is, people are using these methods for only one reason, they simply bring in the cash. JayWeintraub had a very interesting note about, being almost impossible for a legit marketer to compete with these sites. Simply the person who runs the scam site and ads, is at a natural advantage to the one who uses an honest approach. The scammer/faker can say or do anything to get sales, where as the honest marketer is held back by ethics. This is my problem.

I too, would like to promote a few products much like the current "weight loss" scam sites do. Why? Because like it or not, these types of sites are converting VERY well. I would like to do this, however in an honest way. But, if the honest methods put me at a disadvantage, then how can I overcome this?

I can only so far, find one sure-fire method and that deals with a large media buy. Take for example, Andrew Lessman.

He is, without a doubt a VERY honest person. He makes no outrageous claims or use fake testimonials, review blogs, etc.

What he does have, is TON of exposure from being able to broadcast live on HSN. So, granted if you have a good amount of money, to put your message out there on live TV, were you can have a ton of viewers, it's doable. But how to reach that point, without the money?

I, don't have that amount of money. So fellow warriors, what do you think? Is it possible to use a honest approach and bring in as much money as the scam/fake/review sites do? Further more, if it is, how would one go about doing it?

[Tyrus Antas]

They have one important disadvantage: the chance of meeting Buba inside a Federal Pound Me in The Ass Prison.

I'll pass that.

Tyrus

[jasonl70]

something to keep in mind - there are 2 different things you are talking about here. The format of the site, and the content of the site. I think it's important to seperate the 2 in your mind.

A "fake" blog is not in itself very scammy. It's just a way to format a page. There is nothing inherently more 'trustworthy' about a blog vs a 'normal' html site. A flog certainly doesn't give anyone a marketing 'edge' over using a real blog, other then the diskspace and DB's used with their web host (and it's quicker to build).

fake ads: how can an ad be fake?

fake reviews: I'd bet at least 90% of all reviews on the web are fake reviews done by affiliates. Nothing new here. There are other ways (legit) to review a product without claiming you used it and what a great success it was.

At the end of the day, I think there are a lot of things with these sites worth studying.

[Scott Murdaugh]

To be honest, I think honest marketers have the long term advantage...

The ONLY thing deceiving about the flogs is the fake stories, the fake comments, fake testimonials... No mentions of a forced continuity at $97 a month, etc.

I've personally worked with a guy who works in the diet industry, he uses REAL stories, REAL testimonials, and is completely transparent with his pricing... And he kills it.

Honesty and integrity combined with savvy marketing and excellent copywriting will beat out short term quick and easy money scams hands down, every time.

I have no plans of ever meeting Bubba myself.

-Scott

[Alexa Smith]

I suspect that something between 99% and 100% of consumers would prefer to be told openly when a recommendation/review offered to them will earn its author a commission if it results in a sale made via that source. As a consumer myself, I certainly wouldn't begrudge anyone that, especially if they've provided useful information/content, but I'd certainly prefer to know. It's very difficult to imagine that many people could disagree with this perspective, surely?

I can't see the proposed new FTC interest in this subject being much of a handicap to honest marketers, really. In fact, it might even be a relative advantage to them in distracting regulatory attention toward people not complying with any new rules.

It doesn't hurt to publish a disclaimer if/when everyone else also has to do the same, I imagine.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by JayInOrlando

I too, would like to promote a few products much like the current "weight loss" scam sites do. Why? Because like it or not, these types of sites are converting VERY well. I would like to do this, however in an honest way. But, if the honest methods put me at a disadvantage, then how can I overcome this?

The flogs will have something like "[your city name] homemaker, Susie, lost 150 lbs. using ABC weight loss system." Of course, the city name changes (or is supposed to) based on where you are. So, that's dishonest because it's saying that Susie is someone that lives in your home town when it's very likely that she does not. (Plus, she's probably just a stock photo and not really named Susie and never lost 150 lbs.)

If Susie is a real person, then you could say something like "[your city name] residents can benefit from ABC weight loss system which Susie used to lose 150 lbs." That still has the benefits of personalization but without being deceptive.

If Susie is not a real person, is she a fictional representative of the typical user of the program? If so, that could be covered with an appropriate disclaimer, similar to how you see TV ads where they list "paid actors" and "based on actual testimonials" or "based on actual results" and so on. You'd have to consult with a professional for the proper wording of the disclaimer.

As Jason mentioned, the content and format are two different things. You can use the "flog" format while being honest in your content. Look in magazines, for "real world" examples. Often there are advertisements that look like magazine supplements or editorial pages; they'll just have "Paid Advertisement" in small letters across the top.

[briankoz]

I'm willing to bet that as time goes on, reviews and comments will hold less and less weight in the eyes of most consumers. And I think that's largely due to three reasons -- reviews that are done solely for a commission by affiliates (with no regard to if it's actually a good product or not), bad reviews that are done by competitors (some of these are easy to see through, some aren't), and comments by real people that either never used the product (just making good or bad comments) or bashing everything.

The other funny thing I find is that if a review has an affiliate link, a lot of people automatically assume it's not a legit review. Likewise, if a good review doesn't have an affiliate link, it's automatically assumed that it's a fake review by the owner. However, if a review is bad, it's often assumed that it's a legit review and not one by a competitor or a customer who just isn't happy with anything -- I think the weight of these last ones will drop in the very near future as consumers get more and more use to these things.

- Koz