Is Google "runied" already?

by Ram
53 replies
In another thread, somene asked if marketers had "ruined" Twitter. The same has been speculated about Facebook, MySpace and darn near everything else online.

The reasoning seems be that these social networks are supposed to be pristine and pure zones untainted by marketing. After all, that's what they were meant for, right?

Well, how come no one asks that about Google? How come everyone is fine with "ruining" Google with their marketing messages. How come everyone is fine with trying to game Google to get their sites to the top of the rankings?

After all, Google was "intended" to provide the best and most relevant information for the user, wasn't it? It wasn't designed to be a marketing tool for us. Google is even somewhat hostile to marketers.

But we marketers insist on using Google for our own nefarious purposes. Not as the owners intended. We tread on the pure experience of search.

If we must get listed, we should only try get our pages ranked for keywords where the user is clearly, clearly searching with commercial intent, right?

To me it's all a bunch of BS.

I market. I look for places to do it. Heck, If I could have my links or opt-in or flashing widget screaming "CLICK HERE NOW!!!" on every page of Twitter without paying the millions it would take (if they would even consider it), then I would. Same with every other social media site. And although I don't depend on Google or SEO, if I could magically rank first for every keyword on Google with just a landing page or salesletter, then I would.

To me, these are just places to market. The owners want to make money, I want to make money. The trick is how to do it to maximize earnings. Notice I didn't say to provide a great and barely intrusive user experience. I said to maximize earnings. For my company. That may mean subtle, it may mean all-out.

Heck, If I could have every minister in America endorsing my websites and giving a link from the pulpit every Sunday, then asking the congregation for testimonials and a rousing "AMEN!" you can bet I would.

I market. I sell. And these social media sites are, to me, just new places to figure out how best to do so. Nothing more.

Just like Google is to most everyone on this forum.

Ram
#google #runied
  • Profile picture of the author jmidas
    I dont think Google can be ruined by marketers. Marketered didnt invent adwords and adsense, etc.., Google did. They embrace marketing - that is the difference between them and social sites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415033].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author adamv
      I think people get pissed off at marketers because they think all information on the internet should be free. A lot of people want to type their querry into google, click the button, and have all of their questions answered.

      The fact of the matter is, not all information is free. People who take the time and put forth the effort to provide quality information should get paid for it. I for one don't see anything wrong with trying to rank as highly as possible in the search engines for terms which I believe will attract buyers with credit card in hand.

      As long as there are people out there willing to pay for information, I'll be out there trying to get them to go through my website to get that information.
      Signature

      Get a professional voice over for your next audio or video project at an affordable price -- I will record 150 words of text for just $5.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415056].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Steve Faber
        Originally Posted by adamv View Post

        I think people get pissed off at marketers because they think all information on the internet should be free. A lot of people want to type their querry into google, click the button, and have all of their questions answered.

        The fact of the matter is, not all information is free. People who take the time and put forth the effort to provide quality information should get paid for it. I for one don't see anything wrong with trying to rank as highly as possible in the search engines for terms which I believe will attract buyers with credit card in hand.

        As long as there are people out there willing to pay for information, I'll be out there trying to get them to go through my website to get that information.
        So true. I saw a forum post the other day on a fitness related forum that saluted the forum owner for "not trying to sell any of those stupid e-books". Again the poster is of the large base of Internet users that feel everything information related should be free on the Internet.

        Apparently they don't see the relationship between the amount of nicely organized and packaged information available and the need of people to make a living doing what they do. If people weren't making a living doing it (creating and packaging information), a great amount of it would not exist. The general mindset of these people is that because their time is worth nothing, so to should yours. Sorry, but because they've devalued their time, I don't think it's in everyone else's interest to do so.

        My .02c
        Signature
        For Killer Marketing Tips that Will Grow Your Business Follow Me on Twitter Now
        After all, you're probably following a few hundred people already that aren't doing squat for you.....
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415091].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author adamv
          Originally Posted by opportunitiesaplenty View Post

          If people weren't making a living doing it (creating and packaging information), a great amount of it would not exist.
          Exactly! I agree with that statement 100%

          Even if I wanted to give away information for free I need money to pay my bills. If I can make that money by providing information, then I have more time to uncover great information. If I have to work two jobs to make ends meet there wouldn't be a lot of time left over to put together the FREE information people are looking for.

          A lot of information is available for free on the internet already. But, a lot of times to get all of the information you need, you will have to spend hours researching. Or, you could pay a marketer $27 for an ebook where he has already taken the time to do the research and compile that information for you.

          Like you said, a lot of people don't value their time. The one's who do realize that it's better to pay someone for information than to spend a few weeks researching the information for themselves.
          Signature

          Get a professional voice over for your next audio or video project at an affordable price -- I will record 150 words of text for just $5.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415126].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joseph Ratliff
        Originally Posted by adamv View Post

        I think people get pissed off at marketers because they think all information on the internet should be free. A lot of people want to type their querry into google, click the button, and have all of their questions answered.

        The fact of the matter is, not all information is free. People who take the time and put forth the effort to provide quality information should get paid for it. I for one don't see anything wrong with trying to rank as highly as possible in the search engines for terms which I believe will attract buyers with credit card in hand.

        As long as there are people out there willing to pay for information, I'll be out there trying to get them to go through my website to get that information.
        Right on adamv...

        Also, no one ever said that all of the information you look up in Google was credible...in fact quite a bit of it is NOT (more than you think).

        Free info has its price...whether it be quality, time invested to find it, etc...
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415288].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ram
      Originally Posted by jmidas View Post

      I dont think Google can be ruined by marketers. Marketered didnt invent adwords and adsense, etc.., Google did. They embrace marketing - that is the difference between them and social sites.

      The embrace when it makes money for them -- they slap those who aren't making money for them from time to time.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415138].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ExRat
        Hi,

        Loving the attitude. Although I was curious what 'runied' meant

        We need more of this stuff around here.
        Signature


        Roger Davis

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415197].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author adamv
      Originally Posted by nanotek View Post

      I agree with you totally !
      This EXACT same phrase is posted in no less than 14 other threads. Some of your other posts use a different phrase but are still one liners that contribute nothing to the forum and are made for no other purpose than to boost your post count.
      Signature

      Get a professional voice over for your next audio or video project at an affordable price -- I will record 150 words of text for just $5.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[417225].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chiayee
    Remind me of the "death of bla bla bla... " trend..

    Signature

    Nothing to see here

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415114].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
    The OP's analogy is seriously flawed.

    People go to google looking for something specific. They type
    in key words in the hope of finding that information. If you've done
    an adequate job of positioning your site properly they will find you.

    I doubt that anyone joins Twitter or My Space or Facebook
    because they're hoping some amateur marketer will be in their face
    constantly with spam.

    Tsnyder
    Signature
    If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415229].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ldimilo
    Google can't really get compared to twitter, facebook, myspace or any of the purely social web 2.0 platforms.

    The difference? People tend to go to google search because they are looking for a solution to a problem; ie. trying to find an answer, looking for information about a product, ect.

    In the social platforms like myspace and facebook...and now twitter, they traditionally aren't looking for answers...they are looking for some form of entertainment.

    And in the rare case that they are looking for information, they rarely want something in the form of long ad copy.

    This is something that pure marketers don't get. Think about it this way, for those of you who are active on Facebook for social purposes (you are using it to connect to friends)....do you want to be sold to when you are using it?

    As far as twitter is concerned, I love it. But then again, other than the url of a blog that write at, I don't use it to sell to my "followers" (which appears to be people who are only interested in selling to me....for the most part).

    Unlike Google search which has a relatively low signal to noise ratio and is used for a direct purpose (most of the time), The social networks are supposed to be fun places. IMers tend to abuse and mistreat the social platforms solely for their own end. The two don't match very well. And social networks aren't meant to be used that way.

    Just my opinion anyway. I know that a lot of IMers here in the crowd will disagree b/c most see these platforms as opportunities and try to exploit them through blatant advertising. There are opportunities but they aren't so direct.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415245].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bombdiggity
      Originally Posted by Ldimilo View Post

      Google can't really get compared to twitter, facebook, myspace or any of the purely social web 2.0 platforms.

      The difference? People tend to go to google search because they are looking for a solution to a problem; ie. trying to find an answer, looking for information about a product, ect.

      In the social platforms like myspace and facebook...and now twitter, they traditionally aren't looking for answers...they are looking for some form of entertainment.

      And in the rare case that they are looking for information, they rarely want something in the form of long ad copy.

      This is something that pure marketers don't get. Think about it this way, for those of you who are active on Facebook for social purposes (you are using it to connect to friends)....do you want to be sold to when you are using it?

      As far as twitter is concerned, I love it. But then again, other than the url of a blog that write at, I don't use it to sell to my "followers" (which appears to be people who are only interested in selling to me....for the most part).

      Unlike Google search which has a relatively low signal to noise ratio and is used for a direct purpose (most of the time), The social networks are supposed to be fun places. IMers tend to abuse and mistreat the social platforms solely for their own end. The two don't match very well. And social networks aren't meant to be used that way.

      Just my opinion anyway. I know that a lot of IMers here in the crowd will disagree b/c most see these platforms as opportunities and try to exploit them through blatant advertising. There are opportunities but they aren't so direct.
      Don't forget that Google recently bought YouTube...
      Signature
      **bombdiggity**

      =ask me about my unique high quality content articles=
      >>explosive content starting at only $3.50!<<
      .boom.baby.boom.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415386].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ram
        Just an aside. many worry about making people mad by marketing on social sites. Just like, in the Net's infancy, many people worried about getting flamed by the purists.

        All I can say is that people hate - hate - telemarketers. But telemarketing, even with the current restrictions, works. Works very well.

        People hate junk mail. It works.

        No one will watch a 30-minute infomercial at 3 a.m. Carlton Sheets, Jeff Paul and a host of others are still raking it in.

        People hate pop-ups. But they work.

        And so on.


        Ram
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415404].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Ldimilo
          Originally Posted by Ram View Post

          Just an aside. many worry about making people mad by marketing on social sites. Just like, in the Net's infancy, many people worried about getting flamed by the purists.

          All I can say is that people hate - hate - telemarketers. But telemarketing, even with the current restrictions, works. Works very well.

          People hate junk mail. It works.

          No one will watch a 30-minute infomercial at 3 a.m. Carlton Sheets, Jeff Paul and a host of others are still raking it in.

          Ram
          All of these things work...but they work in volume. To state that a 30-minute infomercial is the same as getting blasted by 30 tweets in two hours is simply not the same thing and is a clear invitation to NOT be followed.

          As far as telemarketing is concerned, it isn't as effective as it used to be and most of the telemarketing strategies now involve high priced items. The lower priced items (magazine subscriptions, ect) just aren't as price effective as they once were and have all but been canned.

          Junk mail works but it only works in volume. If you are a typical IMer with a list, I imagine that your list open rates are probably between 20-30% IF you are regularly contacting them. The open rates start to drop quickly if you have a list that you don't keep up with.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415502].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    Google and marketers have a symbiotic relationship. It's foolish to assume Google would even be here without marketers. There's no way they could afford the volume of searches that go through there on a daily basis.

    And because Google relies on marketers to even exist. It only makes sense that marketers get what they need from google to exist.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415276].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Google was founded as a marketing tool just like television and radio.

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415302].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ram
      Google was founded as a marketing tool just like television and radio.

      Well, to hear Google's party line, it wasn't. But we all know Google wants to make money. And they do.

      Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, et al, were founded to make money as well.They don't necessarily do it all that well, but they would.

      Their goal is to monetize user generated content. So is mine.

      The OP's analogy is seriously flawed.

      People go to google looking for something specific. They type
      in key words in the hope of finding that information. If you've done
      an adequate job of positioning your site properly they will find you.

      I doubt that anyone joins Twitter or My Space or Facebook
      because they're hoping some amateur marketer will be in their face
      constantly with spam.
      I doubt if anyone watches TV or listens to radio or buys or rents a DVD or buys a magazine for the ads (except me. I like ads.)

      But ads are there.

      Again, Google and the social networks want to make money off user generated content. If marketers can find a way to use that content as well, then I say go get 'em.

      Some users - even some marketers - don't like marketing on social sites. Too bad. Nothing will stop it. even the sites won't be able to do it. Yes, some will spew non-stop ads and get banned or when that it doesn't work. But those who experiment and test and figure out how to do it to maximize returns will make a boatload of money. Just like in any other form of media.

      Whether or not you are one of them is up to you.

      Ram
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415357].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ldimilo
        Originally Posted by Ram View Post

        I doubt if anyone watches TV or listens to radio or buys or rents a DVD or buys a magazine for the ads (except me. I like ads.)

        But ads are there.
        There is a difference. Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube...users don't have a problem when these guys advertise because that is the price of being a part of it. Clearly, the advertisement by Youtube don't bother the typical YouTube fan because they want to watch the video. With Facebook, it is the same thing. They display ads as part of the deal. Because their app is something that people want, they make the trade off.

        However, there is a huge difference between the primary advertiser pitching something and suddenly getting inundated with ads by a "friend". I seriously doubt that there is a marketer out there that would be willing to mix his real facebook profile with his real friends intermingled and constantly pitch and promote. The two simply don't mix. The relationships between marketer and "following" and marketer and "friend" are two totally different things.

        Originally Posted by Ram View Post

        Again, Google and the social networks want to make money off user generated content. If marketers can find a way to use that content as well, then I say go get 'em.
        Agreed.

        Originally Posted by Ram View Post

        Some users - even some marketers - don't like marketing on social sites. Too bad. Nothing will stop it. even the sites won't be able to do it. Yes, some will spew non-stop ads and get banned or when that it doesn't work. But those who experiment and test and figure out how to do it to maximize returns will make a boatload of money. Just like in any other form of media.

        Whether or not you are one of them is up to you.

        Ram
        I never said that I disagreed with marketing via social platforms on the whole. All I am saying is the typical friend/twitter collecting as a means of mass marketing is not as easy simply grabbing them and then marketing to them b/c the whole context around social sites (unlike google search) is to be social.

        Way back in the 1980's, there was another form of marketing that sprouted up. It was telemarketing and when it hit, there was a lot of money to be made. After all, at the time it was a new form of marketing.

        Well, that changed quickly because marketers soon discovered that people actually picking up the phone started to dip. Why? IMMUNITY to the message . There were so many telemarketers doing the exact same thing that eventually the public became immune to their pitches. The same is true with email marketing. Think about it. When you first got online, do you remember how excited you were when you got your first message? Fast forward to today. Are you just as excited?

        The issues of using social platforms as a means to market has befuddled marketers because it can't be used the same way as most would use a marketing campaign for a website. Unlike google search (which has tremendous value because of how targeted it is), most social platforms aren't targeted enough to generate interest in most cases.

        And since the IM world is so incestuous, what you get is hundreds of marketers shouting at each other their message...whatever that is. In other words, just because you have 4,000 twitter followers, it doesn't necessarily equate to dollars if your followers aren't genuinely interested in what you have to say. The signal to noise ratio is way too high.

        So, how do you get your message out there and received? For one thing, you could agast! use it for what it was originally intended...to network with like minded people and actually build relationships. In other words, rather than talk at your "friends" you converse back and forth. After all, isn't that what it is all about.

        As far as Google being ruined, I wouldn't count on it. Google is the first place I go when I need a solution to a problem....and until the day comes when I don't get those solutions, I wlll continue to use it. And I imagine that millions feel the same way......
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415479].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Ram
          Originally Posted by Ldimilo View Post

          However, there is a huge difference between the primary advertiser pitching something and suddenly getting inundated with ads by a "friend". I seriously doubt that there is a marketer out there that would be willing to mix his real facebook profile with his real friends intermingled and constantly pitch and promote. The two simply don't mix. The relationships between marketer and "following" and marketer and "friend" are two totally different things.

          I never said that I disagreed with marketing via social platforms on the whole. All I am saying is the typical friend/twitter collecting as a means of mass marketing is not as easy simply grabbing them and then marketing to them b/c the whole context around social sites (unlike google search) is to be social.

          Way back in the 1980's, there was another form of marketing that sprouted up. It was telemarketing and when it hit, there was a lot of money to be made. After all, at the time it was a new form of marketing.

          Well, that changed quickly because marketers soon discovered that people actually picking up the phone started to dip. Why? IMMUNITY to the message . There were so many telemarketers doing the exact same thing that eventually the public became immune to their pitches. The same is true with email marketing. Think about it. When you first got online, do you remember how excited you were when you got your first message? Fast forward to today. Are you just as excited?

          The issues of using social platforms as a means to market has befuddled marketers because it can't be used the same way as most would use a marketing campaign for a website. Unlike google search (which has tremendous value because of how targeted it is), most social platforms aren't targeted enough to generate interest in most cases.

          And since the IM world is so incestuous, what you get is hundreds of marketers shouting at each other their message...whatever that is. In other words, just because you have 4,000 twitter followers, it doesn't necessarily equate to dollars if your followers aren't genuinely interested in what you have to say. The signal to noise ratio is way too high.

          So, how do you get your message out there and received? For one thing, you could agast! use it for what it was originally intended...to network with like minded people and actually build relationships. In other words, rather than talk at your "friends" you converse back and forth. After all, isn't that what it is all about.

          As far as Google being ruined, I wouldn't count on it. Google is the first place I go when I need a solution to a problem....and until the day comes when I don't get those solutions, I wlll continue to use it. And I imagine that millions feel the same way......

          I agree that marketers have to find the best way to use social media for profit.

          But I disagree that anyone as yet can say for sure what the best way is or is not.

          Building relationships? Blasting links? Something somewhere in between? Hasn't been determined. It's still being worked out. Lord knows we are testing those waters.

          As for using social media for what it was "originally intended," I agree. That's what I advocate. We just disagree on original intent. The site owners intended to make money with those sites. And so do I.

          Enjoy,
          Ram

          BTW -- It's not just the "make money" niche. Lots of things an be sold on social networks. What works there to maximize return is still being tested, too. It may be that some products work much, much better than others. Or not.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415606].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Ldimilo
            Originally Posted by Ram View Post


            BTW -- It's not just the "make money" niche. Lots of things an be sold on social networks. What works there to maximize return is still being tested, too. It may be that some products work much, much better than others. Or not.
            I agree. The difference is the connection and how they connect to someone. Standing on your stump and shouting out various advertisements is not a way of connecting.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415614].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Ram
              Originally Posted by Ldimilo View Post

              I agree. The difference is the connection and how they connect to someone. Standing on your stump and shouting out various advertisements is not a way of connecting.
              But it may be more profitable than connecting. Or less. That hasn't to be determined. I said, I don't think anyone is an authority on the best way to monetize social media - yet.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415667].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
    Ram has this right.

    This is one of those philosophical debates that REALLY gets me 'going.'

    I'll boil it all down for you -- the KEYSTONE that supports ALL capitalism is... (insert drum roll here)... INTRUSIVE ADS.

    If you take away intrusive ads, the entire economy would soon cease to exist.

    The web was built upon a socialist foundation (everything CAN be free, so everything SHOULD be free).

    Capitalism, on the other hand, was built on this: "the money has to come from somewhere."

    This difference produces huge FAULT LINES. It's like oil and water. The two do not mix. The tragedy is, most people cannot tell the difference (more accurately, they cannot RECOGNIZE the difference). Example: When napster was big, supposedly WELL-EDUCATED people seemed not to understand why napster could not be allowed to exist. They didn't even realize the BASIC tenet of capitalism, "the money has to come from somewhere!"

    ...and what generates the vast majority of transactions (all else being equal)?...

    INTRUSIVE ADS.

    The web will, sooner or later, have to DISMANTLE it socialistic underpinnings, and go MORE intrusive (w/ the ads), not less intrusive.

    Just look at the evolution of the "ads" on PBS to get an idea of what the trend MUST become.

    There is no other way.

    I could go on about all the reasons for this, but I won't here.

    Cheers.

    -- TW
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415472].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ldimilo
      Originally Posted by -- TW View Post

      Ram has this right.

      This is one of those philosophical debates that REALLY gets me 'going.'

      I'll boil it all down for you -- the KEYSTONE that supports ALL capitalism is... (insert drum roll here)... INTRUSIVE ADS.

      If you take away intrusive ads, the entire economy would soon cease to exist.

      The web was built upon a socialist foundation (everything CAN be free, so everything SHOULD be free).

      Capitalism, on the other hand, was built on this: "the money has to come from somewhere."

      This difference produces huge FAULT LINES. It's like oil and water. The two do not mix. The tragedy is, most people cannot tell the difference (more accurately, they cannot RECOGNIZE the difference). Example: When napster was big, supposedly WELL-EDUCATED people seemed not to understand why napster could not be allowed to exist. They didn't even realize the BASIC tenet of capitalism, "the money has to come from somewhere!"

      ...and what generates the vast majority of transactions (all else being equal)?...

      INTRUSIVE ADS.

      The web will, sooner or later, have to DISMANTLE it socialistic underpinnings, and go MORE intrusive (w/ the ads), not less intrusive.

      Just look at the evolution of the "ads" on PBS to get an idea of what the trend MUST become.

      There is no other way.

      I could go on about all the reasons for this, but I won't here.

      Cheers.

      -- TW
      Good points. But once again, intrusive ads on your own site are one thing. Taking a parasitic approach by using Facebook is a completely different thing.

      Once again, for all you marketers using Facebook...do you mix your marketing campaigns on facebook and Twitter with your real friends that you keep up on a day to day basis? And if not, why?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415511].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ram
        Originally Posted by Ldimilo View Post

        Good points. But once again, intrusive ads on your own site are one thing. Taking a parasitic approach by using Facebook is a completely different thing.

        Once again, for all you marketers using Facebook...do you mix your marketing campaigns on facebook and Twitter with your real friends that you keep up on a day to day basis? And if not, why?

        I don't have social media pages for real friends. To keep up with friends, I call them or see them or email them.

        Cheers,
        Ram

        BTW - Don't play games online, either. Except poker. For money.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415718].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Ldimilo
          Originally Posted by Ram View Post

          I don't have social media pages for real friends. To keep up with friends, I call them or see them or email them.
          .
          If that is the case, then you aren't using it for what it was intended. Basically, you are abusing the network and making it worse, at least in the social context of things.

          In essence, you are part of the problem....

          Cheers

          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415858].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Ram
            Originally Posted by Ldimilo View Post

            If that is the case, then you aren't using it for what it was intended. Basically, you are abusing the network and making it worse, at least in the social context of things.

            In essence, you are part of the problem....

            Cheers

            You are absolutely right that we don't approach any of these sites for social reasons - we are there to figure out the most effective way use them to sell. I make no bones about it nor apologies for it. That's what my company does. We are not in the "frittering away the workday online with silly messages" business.We are in the selling business. Any site open to public content has the potential for effective marketing. Not the guarantee, only the potential if used effectively. If it's out there, we will take a look and see if we can figure out how to use it.

            Doesn't matter to me if it's Google, Squidoo, Hubpages or YouTube -- or Facebook, Myspace or Twitter. I see no difference.

            As far as the purpose or the intention of these sites, don't kid yourself. They aren't there to make the world a better place. they were intended to make money for the owners an VCs behind them.

            But reasonable people can disagree. People here disagree over the use of pop-ups, upsells, downsells, forced continuity and everything else under the sun.

            Have a profitable day,
            Ram
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415992].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mmurtha
    Ram,

    You've got to be kidding right?

    People use Google to find infomation about what they are searching for. Marketers provide that info. Yes, we get a little competitive about our ZSE listings, but that's part of getting noticed or recognized as a primary source for that information.

    If I'm not mistaken, Google is trying to clean up a lot of the nonsense sites that need to be sandboxed or listing in other areas then where they are. Each update that goes by we here about more sites getting deindexed, snadboxed, etc...

    To me, they are doing their job, and we are doing what we need to do to gain authority in the SEs.

    So yes, Tynsder is right. Your OP is flawed in your recognititon of what the Google is used for.

    Having stated the above, I want to be clear that this isn't to say that marketers don't flood certain medias as they market like Twitter, Myspace, Facebook, other SB sites, etc ... And after they get done abusing one place where it is no longer useable, they do have a tendency to move on to the next until it is put to a hault because it's lost its edge.


    Roger,

    I was thinking the same thing.
    Loving the attitude. Although I was curious what 'runied' meant
    I don't think Google is ruined at all RAM. They're just getting the cleanup process underway.


    Mary
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415593].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ram
      Originally Posted by mmurtha View Post

      Ram,

      You've got to be kidding right?

      People use Google to find infomation about what they are searching for. Marketers provide that info. Yes, we get a little competitive about our ZSE listings, but that's part of getting noticed or recognized as a primary source for that information.

      If I'm not mistaken, Google is trying to clean up a lot of the nonsense sites that need to be sandboxed or listing in other areas then where they are. Each update that goes by we here about more sites getting deindexed, snadboxed, etc...

      To me, they are doing their job, and we are doing what we need to do to gain authority in the SEs.

      So yes, Tynsder is right. Your OP is flawed in your recognititon of what the Google is used for.

      Having stated the above, I want to be clear that this isn't to say that marketers don't flood certain medias as they market like Twitter, Myspace, Facebook, other SB sites, etc ... And after they get done abusing one place where it is no longer useable, they do have a tendency to move on to the next until it is put to a hault because it's lost its edge.

      I don't think Google is ruined at all RAM. They're just getting the cleanup process underway.


      Mary
      I think some have missed the point of my thread title. I was being facetious. Another thread is asking is Twitter has been "ruined" by marketers. I used the same title to make the point that some people see certain sites as sacred ground, above marketing. Well, why not others? Google's intent is serving "relevant" information. They tweak their magic formula from time to time to do just that. And I'm sure many users are annoyed by commercial sites posing as honest reviews, commercial sites posing as real blogs, some salesletters getting ranked high for common keywords, sales sites posing as authority sites, etc., etc., etc.

      But we, as marketers, think that's fine.

      I do as well. But I also see social media marketing as fine, too, in whatever way proves to be most profitable. If that's subtle and refined, so be it. If it's heavy handed and ultra intrusive, so be it. if it's a mix, so be it.

      To me, marketing on one site is no more or less "ethical,"if you will, than marketing on any other. The difference is method.

      Best wishes,
      Ram
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415659].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ron Killian
    Not every marketer tries to trick Google, you might not be saying that, but seems kind of implied. Some marketers do try to play by the rules because they know they will have a better chance of keep ranks. Just my three cents.
    Signature
    PLR Affiliate Program Has Launched! Easily Promote Over 5,000 PLR and MRR Products.

    Largest Selection of PLR Articles on the Planet! PLR Ebooks, PLR Video, PLR Websites and more with Private Label Rights
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415622].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ram
      Originally Posted by Ron Killian View Post

      Not every marketer tries to trick Google, you might not be saying that, but seems kind of implied. Some marketers do try to play by the rules because they know they will have a better chance of keep ranks. Just my three cents.
      What rules?

      Google doesn't make the rules for my company. I do. Google only makes the rules for Google - though it seems many here don't understand that.

      Google has the option to index my sites or not. That's all. Nothing else. They have no say in what I do with my sites. Nor do they have any say in what you do, unless you let them.

      I don't practice or advocate any so-called black hat methods. Not because Google frowns, but because that's not my business model. I don't want my business dependent on Google rankings or any other search engine. That's why we use a lot of offline marketing advertising.

      Google doesn't own the Internet. They aren't the Internet police. They are just a company out for profit. They do not make "the rules."

      Cheers,
      Ram
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415701].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author htweed
    What you seem to be concerned about is more of an issue of how the internet itself has transformed into a market. This is not something that google is responsible for, as google entered the arena with the market already in place. However, whose to say that the market system's tendency to keep things competitive isn't positive for the internet and google. I have just as much success as ever with trying to find relevant search results.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[415909].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ram
      Originally Posted by htweed View Post

      What you seem to be concerned about is more of an issue of how the internet itself has transformed into a market. This is not something that google is responsible for, as google entered the arena with the market already in place. However, whose to say that the market system's tendency to keep things competitive isn't positive for the internet and google. I have just as much success as ever with trying to find relevant search results.
      No. Again, the Google thread title was facetious. I'm talking about the perception that somehow it is wrong, even unethical, to use some social media sites for marketing. I take a totally opposite view.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[416003].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jason Fenty
        I admit you raise some very good points. But end of the day like it or not when it boils to it we are all out for our own gain otherwise we wouldnt be trying to make more and more money online. Just simple human trait survival and money is apart of survival and where trying to make money online and doing it the best way possible and Google provides a way to get on there page anyway if you pay for it via adwords anyway.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[416068].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mmurtha
    htweed,

    What you seem to be concerned about is more of an issue of how the internet itself has transformed into a market. This is not something that google is responsible for, as google entered the arena with the market already in place. However, whose to say that the market system's tendency to keep things competitive isn't positive for the internet and google. I have just as much success as ever with trying to find relevant search results.
    Prcisely, and well stated!


    Ram,

    No, I don't think anyone misunderstood your thread title. I know I posted about your content mainly. You seemed to have a different view then I do as stated in my prievious post. Your assessment of how Google, other Search Engines, and the Internet as a whole work is what I was saying is faulty. Specifically this line here:

    Well, how come no one asks that about Google? How come everyone is fine with "ruining" Google with their marketing messages. How come everyone is fine with trying to game Google to get their sites to the top of the rankings?
    This line of thinking has a glitch for example:
    And I'm sure many users are annoyed by commercial sites posing as honest reviews, commercial sites posing as real blogs, some salesletters getting ranked high for common keywords, sales sites posing as authority sites, etc., etc., etc.
    You are assuming people are annoyed, and possing as something based on your own preferences or opinions.

    Do you honestly think or believe any commercial site that displays a product review isn't giving honest reviews, or comercial blogs aren't real blogs?

    In this case who's to say what is a "real site" and what is not? They are all real to an extent, including comercial sites. These comercial sites are businesses, and we are a part of that business group.

    Btw I never mentioned anything abouth ethics or people being ethical or unethical.


    Mary
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[416072].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ram
      Originally Posted by mmurtha View Post

      htweed,


      Ram,

      No, I don't think anyone misunderstood your thread title. I know I posted about your content mainly. You seemed to have a different view then I do as stated in my prievious post. Your assessment of how Google, other Search Engines, and the Internet as a whole work is what I was saying is faulty.

      You are assuming people are annoyed, and possing as something based on your own preferences or opinions.

      Do you honestly think or believe any commercial site that displays a product review isn't giving honest reviews, or comercial blogs aren't real blogs?

      In this case who's to say what is a "real site" and what is not? They are all real to an extent, including comercial sites. These comercial sites are businesses, and we are a part of that business group.

      Btw I never mentioned anything abouth ethics or people being ethical or unethical.


      Mary

      Mary,

      When i used the word commercial, I should have been more clear. Review sites for example. I did not mean reviews on Amazon.com.

      I meant the sites that are all over the net with reviews that are nothing more than sales pitches for affiliate products. Or negative reviews that are meant to take someone to another affiliate product. Things like that. Many IM courses teach that method. Some of those sites - usually the one made by pros, not people who bought some $7 course - are ranked well.

      I know for sure that many of the best ranked review sites are not "honest" reviews because I know the people behind them. One guy in particular more than a hundred of them, all well-ranked by Google. All making money.

      But that's not what review sites are "supposed" to be to the purists, are they?

      Blogs? How many IM courses have you seen teaching people to create mini-blogs by the hundreds? How many are out there? Some are ranked well.

      That's not what blogs are "supposed" to be to the purists, are they?

      These things are marketing tricks. SEO games. Now, I don't care about any of that. Doesn't bother me. Doesn't offend me. If it works, go for it.

      But those are among many tactics discussed here on the WF. Taught by some gurus. Cheered by many Warriors (not all, I know).

      In my opinion, it's silly to say it's OK to make lots of blogs and not very independent and honest review sites to get good Google rankings and make sales, but that it's not OK to market on Twitter or Facebook.

      That's my point. Media is media.

      Cheers,
      Ram
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[416206].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mmurtha
    Hey Ram,

    You are still missing my point here:
    In this case who's to say what is a "real site" and what is not? They are all real to an extent, including comercial sites. These comercial sites are businesses, and we are a part of that business group.
    It's part of doing business on the internet. The owner of Amazon for instance started small just like many of the ones you mentioned in your last post. He got a ton of help from Internet Marketers if I'm not mistaken, and many of them are the ones you are talking about who produce products or tell people to put up the "Not so real blogs and sites".

    Some people are marketers who grow, learn, and expand their business. Just because some marketers don't grow beyond taking noob steps doesn't mean they don't put up real sites and blogs. It simply means their's may not be as big as someone like Amazon, or as polished.

    Plus, people like the one you pointed out with having the reviews posted are in business too. They just aren't conducting business the way I would or you would, but they are still in business. And I'd be willing to bet they turn a halfway decent profit at it.

    Business is about profit in the end whether you are someone small or large, selling information or a service. Business owners will exploit every means possible to keep and grow their business. Always have and always will.

    The same thing happened with radio and TV, but now there is 22 minutes of comercials shown for every 30 minutes of air time. Does this mean they are all fake comercials as apposed to the real shows that are supposed to be airing? No, commercials have become a big part of the income for the networks, and people have become accustomed to seeing them.

    Lol after 11:00 pm I see comercials for absolute junk that I would never think about buying. But that is the business these people are in, and what they do to stay in business.


    Mary
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[416404].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ram
      Mary,

      And you are still missing my point.

      I agree with you. It's all about business. And marketing on social sites is a valid business startegy, just as it is anywhere else online. That's my point.

      But some don't agree. That was the whole purpose of this lively and enjoyable discussion.

      Cheers,
      Ram
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[416446].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ebusinesstutor
    By that reasoning, Advertising ruined TV, radio, newspapers and magazines.

    This isn't true - the ONLY reason TV, radio, newspapers and magazines are produced are because the publishers earn money through advertising.

    Google needs advertising revenue to pay its employees, and to pay for servers, etc.

    If we don't like advertising, we could go to Pay Per View. Imagine if you paid 5 cents for every web site you visited or every email you received or sent...

    Free programming is basically paid for by advertising.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[416444].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ram
      Originally Posted by ebusinesstutor View Post

      By that reasoning, Advertising ruined TV, radio, newspapers and magazines.

      This isn't true - the ONLY reason TV, radio, newspapers and magazines are produced are because the publishers earn money through advertising.

      Google needs advertising revenue to pay its employees, and to pay for servers, etc.

      If we don't like advertising, we could go to Pay Per View. Imagine if you paid 5 cents for every web site you visited or every email you received or sent...

      Free programming is basically paid for by advertising.
      Go back an read my OP again. I am defending advertising on Google, on social sites and everywhere else. i was using the Google reference in a facetious manner.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[416459].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
      Originally Posted by ebusinesstutor View Post

      the ONLY reason TV, radio, newspapers and magazines are produced are because the publishers earn money through advertising.

      Free programming is basically paid for by advertising.
      All very true.

      It can be taken even further (but many very intelligent people still cannot see this...),
      the 'free programming," etc. is NOT paid for by *the advertisers*!!!

      It's (ultimately) paid for by the CONSUMERS (who, in turn, pay the advertisers who pay for the free programming).

      If the ads don't work (produce SALES), then the ads don't get paid for (by the consumers), then the 'free' programming STOPS.

      The KEY is that the ad MUST work (produce sales).

      In order for the ads to work, they must be intrusive -- because... if the audience is PERMITTED to ignore the ads, they WILL ignore the ads.

      As I like to put it, you cannot have the soap without also having the ADS for the soap.

      Capitalism is completely dependent on intrusive ads.

      The level of intrusiveness must always be one step AHEAD of whatever people become immune to -- in a never ending cycle of escalation. Think Minority Report.

      This is unstoppable and inevitable.

      -- TW
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[416778].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Melkor
    You're missing the point. These sites sell advertising, it's their monetization model. When you use the profiles as your marketing channel instead of the advertising space for sale, you're stealing from them by not paying for the advertising space you're using. When you're doing it, you're in breach of the contract or terms you accepted when availing yourself of their services.

    It's why most forums have very strict rules about what is and isn't allowed when it comes to posters linking and promoting things. If you've got something to sell here, pay Allen for a WSO and stop trying to game the system. If you've got something to sell on Facebook, pay for a facebook ad buy and stop trying to be a cheap *******.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[417489].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi AdamV,

      Good spot mate Sorted.

      Hi Melkor,

      You're missing the point. These sites sell advertising, it's their monetization model. When you use the profiles as your marketing channel instead of the advertising space for sale, you're stealing from them by not paying for the advertising space you're using. When you're doing it, you're in breach of the contract or terms you accepted when availing yourself of their services.

      It's why most forums have very strict rules about what is and isn't allowed when it comes to posters linking and promoting things. If you've got something to sell here, pay Allen for a WSO and stop trying to game the system. If you've got something to sell on Facebook, pay for a facebook ad buy and stop trying to be a cheap *******.
      That's a great counter-argument, but if one is to take your point literally, surely that means that anyone who -

      a) makes any kind of post in a forum, that is not totally and utterly altruistic, and they have a sig file

      or

      b) indulges in any kind on page changes to their sites, which aren't purely for reader benefit, or any kind of off page submission, which links back to their site - and gains them a boost in organic listings (thus bypassing the paid option of PPC)

      - is also a 'cheap *******', and it would mean that the majority of us are all like that too?

      And all those SEO companies, SEO WSOs, and free web pages teaching SEO are all teaching a system for 'how to be a cheap *******'?

      Do you also object so strongly about things like product placement in films? I am bearing in mind that the advertisers still pay a lot of money for the right to do so, but they are choosing (along with the film producers) to use a kind of stealth method, placing adverts where the viewer would not expect to see them (they don't flash up an 'advertisement' warning next to the can of pepsi) purely in order to get a more powerful effect, along the lines of --TW's point above about 'the level of intrusiveness'?

      Surely Ram is only suggesting the same - that the paid Facebooks ads are nowhere near as effective as surreptitious ads, disguised as a normal user post. Plus, for all we know, Facebook and Twitter and the like could already be accepting secret payments for manufacturing these types of 'product placement' ads in bulk on their sites.

      Just a counter argument for your counter argument.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[418015].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Melkor
    Oh, but Seo's are paying Google by creating content that Google can use - quid pro quo. Allen gets the use of our posts, in return you get a .sig within the rules to make your pitch. Moviegoers gets a movie with better special effects in return for seeing the pitch from product placements.

    What sort of quid pro quo or equitable trade of my attention for your pitch exists in the blackhat methods of gaming the system?

    Oh, BTW: more intrusive ads will always happen? Hmm, so Google Adwords would never work in practice, eh?

    You only need more and more disruptive ads if you're doing interruption marketing. Pitch a receptive audience in a buying mood and you don't need to go all Lesko on us with a clown suit and flashing lights as long as the audience you're pitching to is a market for your product.

    Interruption marketing is getting a megaphone and going around on Times Square with your pitch. Madison Avenue-style image or brand advertising. Targeted marketing or permission marketing would be putting a PayPal button up top with a sign that says "One hour on the phone with me, $1000 - signed, Allen".
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[418084].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Melkor,
      What sort of quid pro quo or equitable trade of my attention for your pitch exists in the blackhat methods of gaming the system?
      Twitter and Facebook et al, get the same free content as the forum and Google - which in turn, makes them more money. Plus they get a larger user base with which to increase their advertising rates.

      Don't forget, the marketers are not spamming those places with crap, they are working hard to blend in with content that 'appear' not to be ads, and to be as unobtrusive as possible (in order not to be detected.)

      Pitch a receptive audience in a buying mood and you don't need to go all Lesko on us with a clown suit and flashing lights as long as the audience you're pitching to is a market for your product.
      Exactly. They are ditching the clown suit and their efforts are targetted.

      Interruption marketing is getting a megaphone and going around on Times Square with your pitch. Madison Avenue-style image or brand advertising.
      I agree. But I agree with --TW that you can't stop the escalation. Therefore our choice is - compete and survive, or lose by getting drowned out while making a stand for what is the 'most' ethically correct.

      And this decision is tempered by the fact that the big guys who accept the paid advertisements, aren't exactly squeaky clean themselves - (EG google breaking their own 'rules', film-makers not announcing the arrival of product placement to people still paying full-price for their movies.)
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[418106].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Melkor
    Mm, yes, but I mean, if you're ditching the clown suit and blending in, to network with potential clients and customers or just through something like handing out a useful app with your link or pitch on it - well then, you're not gaming the system are you. You're paying for the opportunity to make your pitch with useful content.

    Something like Seth Godin's Permission Marketing concept, IOW. The right advertising to the right audience at the right time enhances the user experience because it provides them with some sort of value. Entertaiment ("drop 10 facebook friends, get a free Burger King burger!") value is still value, yes?

    Quite unlike

    "If I could have my links or opt-in or flashing widget screaming "CLICK HERE NOW!!!" on every page of Twitter without paying the millions it would take (if they would even consider it), then I would. Same with every other social media site."
    where the focus is just on how he can maximally exploit the potential audience for minimal outlay.

    It's the difference between Lesko and Frank Kern - you know both are gonna pitch you something, but only one of them needs to dress up like a clown to convince you that what he's got to sell you will be worth your attention.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[418129].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Melkor,

      I think it's reasonably obvious that Ram made the point that you have quoted as an extreme example in order to make the point -
      "If I could have my links or opt-in or flashing widget screaming "CLICK HERE NOW!!!" on every page of Twitter without paying the millions it would take (if they would even consider it), then I would. Same with every other social media site."
      What marketer in their right mind would turn down that offer?

      But what we are discussing now (surreptitious ads disguised as user contributions - 'black hat') are obviously the absolute polar opposite.

      Mm, yes, but I mean, if you're ditching the clown suit and blending in, to network with potential clients and customers or just through something like handing out a useful app with your link or pitch on it - well then, you're not gaming the system are you. You're paying for the opportunity to make your pitch with useful content.
      It seems that you are suggesting that the divide line between what is acceptable and what is not is based on the value of the contribution of the advertiser.

      So as long as anyone who uses Twitter/Facebook in a surreptitious manner (disguised as a user) provides really useful content, then that is OK with you?

      I think I can sense the subtle shifting of goal posts here, no offence. (I also just noticed your advert for 'free do follow backlinks' via Qassia in your sig. Hmmm. Surely that needs to be reworded in order to avoid appearing a 'cheap *******'? - IE - 'free venue to share quality content'. Do Qassia also allow paid ads?)
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[418199].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ExRat
        Hi Melkor,

        I feel compelled to add - I enjoyed reading, contributing to and learning from this thread. I always learn more when a debate ensues, and opinions from opposite poles are put forward. I presume many others feel the same?

        Anyway, I'm posting to shift my goal posts slightly. I will be pondering this thread and what I can gain from it for a while longer, but I wanted to come back and mention that the proliferation of spammy posts in the main forum promoting (amongst other things) Maverick Money Makers is forcing my goal posts to shift a little.

        Hope this helps.

        (and as if to emphasize the point, while I was writing this we get another spam post above mine - presumeably a spammer who has been reported spreading hate for the person that presumeably reported it.)

        Reported ;-)
        Signature


        Roger Davis

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[418310].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jayden.fellze
    i think you have valid point there but marketing is all about reaching to people. considering the immense popularity of social network marketer including internet marketing people are bound to get to such website.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[418354].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Melkor
    Exactly - I don't mind being pitched to either subtly or overtly as long as it's providing some value in return for my attention. When you're networking in the Rotary Club or - well, here - you're here to build a business brand and to make money. That's kinda a given. What I object to is the ones who give you nothing in return, who move in and take without giving.

    Quassia says - "give us content, we'll give you backlinks in return", Squidoo says "give us content, and we'll cut you in for a share of what that content makes". Fair trades, yes? Hop on Facebook and give people something of value in return for your pitches and that's okay too, you're broadly within the offer-value-for-your-attention space that I'm totally fine with. It's when it becomes "gimme, gimme, gimme your attention and money in return for no value of my own" that my hackles go off.

    Being a Cheap ******* is not paying the venue the asking price for using their services. It is in short, dealing unfairly by not offering value for value.

    Think of an Adsense site - you can either do a content site or a scraper site. Traffic Equalizer made a lot of people a lot of money in its day, but did the TE-generated sites offer any value to anyone besides the owner?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[418524].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ram
      Originally Posted by Melkor View Post

      Exactly - I don't mind being pitched to either subtly or overtly as long as it's providing some value in return for my attention. When you're networking in the Rotary Club or - well, here - you're here to build a business brand and to make money. That's kinda a given. What I object to is the ones who give you nothing in return, who move in and take without giving.

      Quassia says - "give us content, we'll give you backlinks in return", Squidoo says "give us content, and we'll cut you in for a share of what that content makes". Fair trades, yes? Hop on Facebook and give people something of value in return for your pitches and that's okay too, you're broadly within the offer-value-for-your-attention space that I'm totally fine with. It's when it becomes "gimme, gimme, gimme your attention and money in return for no value of my own" that my hackles go off.

      Being a Cheap ******* is not paying the venue the asking price for using their services. It is in short, dealing unfairly by not offering value for value.

      Think of an Adsense site - you can either do a content site or a scraper site. Traffic Equalizer made a lot of people a lot of money in its day, but did the TE-generated sites offer any value to anyone besides the owner?
      If you notice, I never advocated any specific method for marketing on social sites.

      The most profitable way to market on those sites is yet to be determined.

      It may be through buying ads, it may be through subtle posting and relationship building or it may well be by putting on a clown suit and screaming!

      It's not about being a cheap ******* -- though I run a tight ship, hate to waste money and would proudly wear the badge of cheap ******* -- it's about getting the max return on your marketing investment (time and money). That's just sound business.

      Ram
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[418948].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
    "Next time you watch your favorite TV show, how many ads would you like to see?"

    The answer is, of course, zero.

    But... just as obviously, the show could not exist without the ads.

    Companies must grow or die -- the shareholders (or the owners) see to that. They either expand, or their competition expands instead. This part of capitalism.

    The web often stands in contrast to all of that. It implies the following falsehood: The group called "my potential customers" is the exact same group as the one called, "people who are already searching for what I sell." True -- in some businesses that IS so -- plumber, tow truck, lawyer, etc. But in most cases, it is not true. In the customer's mind, this flawed philosophy manifests itself like this: "Back off marketers! If *I* want something, *I* will go out and *I* will find it myself -- your intrusive marketing has NO effect on my buying decisions!"

    This is absolute nonsense. If it were true, then...

    1) There would be no reason to hire a 'better' copywriter

    2) There would be no benefit to MIXING the ads and the news in the newspaper (which makes them more intrusive) -- the EXACT SAME results would happen (in terms of how well the ads SELL stuff) if all the ads were in one section, and all the news was in another section.

    3) Items in a supermarket would sell EXACTLY the same amount whether they are placed on the end caps -- or NOT.

    4) McDonald's could stop advertising. Bugging people repeatedly (whether they ASKED to be bugged or NOT) would yield the exact same results as NOT bugging them repeatedly.

    Etc., etc., etc.

    I found it amusing when all the ISP's were touting that they had eliminated pop-ups, etc. It was a very web-like move. Web-like thinking. Sounds good + logical. Keeping 'evil' ads out of the equation. After all "everyone" hates intrusive ads AND they don't influence anybody anyway. They are merely an annoyance.

    Again, nonsense.

    By killing pop-ups, they killed their own economy.

    Just like PBS, the web will eventually cave and realize ad-like ads ("pushy" ads) are like that for a reason. I predict sheer economics will force the web to allow ads that are even MORE intrusive. The same evolution PBS went through. The ones with the gold make the rules -- that is the advertiser. Their ads MUST produce sales - and to do that, they must be intrusive.

    The socialistic philosophy that drives the web elitists is bogus at its core -- or at least, not sustainable. Fortunately or unfortunately, it will eventually yield to the bulldozer that is capitalism.

    Remember, "the money has to come from somewhere."

    -- TW

    PS: From much of what I see in IMing, the idea is to somehow exist in the socialistic world of the web (everything can be free, so everything should be free), while, AT THE SAME TIME, figuring out ways to be a wolf in sheep's clothing (ie: SELL STUFF -- the 'evil, nasty' world of capitalism). These methods can be overtly + obviously black hat -- or not. But the overall BATTLE still remains -- how to sell stuff within a socialistic structure like the web. Example: I can get a list broker to give me snail mail names + addresses of any people with almost any criteria I can think of. Doing that in the world of the web (email addresses) is either impossible or illegal. You are trying to advertise in an environment that is fundamentally OPPOSED to advertising (philosophically). A world awash in 'privacy policies' and 'permission marketing' -- and the world-view that goes along with that.

    Plus, it seems like another goal is to find "the best FREE way to market stuff," not simply, "the best way to market stuff." Yes, I understand the ROI on free ways is 'infinite.' But really the search should be for the best ROI methods -- whether they are free, or not.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[418608].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Melkor
    I don't think we really disagree terribly in principle - the market response from your customers will tell you what's most profitable to do, neh? I just think one should do so within the terms set by the venue where you do your pitching
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[419033].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lavaleekathy
    Some great points so far, I think people go to Google to search for something specific by typing in the keywords their looking for and then find or hope to find the information they want. If anybody wants to find your site or find you specifically, if you've optimized your site and profile correctly, people will have no problem finding you and your business or product. People tend to join social networks to socialize with others, so I don't think that they're thinking of getting hassled by internet marketers with products to sell. Just my 2 cents!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[557235].message }}

Trending Topics