Subscribe To My Blog
Please stop/ban, “Is this a scam?”
One of the things I dislike about Internet marketing are the association that some Internet marketers have created between legitimate products and scams… in order to make affiliate commissions.
People create adword ads or e-mail subjects with titles like, ”Is product Y a scam?” or some other variant. These purposefully induce fear of getting scammed to get people to click on a link that is actually promoting the very same product, or a similar competing product, for affiliate commissions.
Whenever I see ads like that that, which point to an affiliate link for my products, I inform the affiliate that we will disable their account unless they remove or change the advertisement. It simply isn’t acceptable to allow them to tarnish my reputation or the reputations of my peers, just to make some money. I encourage all of us to ban any affiliate who does this!
For a current example, try doing a search for Internet marketer John Reese, and you will see ads like,
“John Reese Fraud?
91% of Them are Scams
There is Only 3 That Really Work.”
and
“Gurus Suck
Don’t buy anything from
John Reese until you read this.”
Both promote competing products, and I suspect both are affiliate links, as opposed to ads created by the product owners. Worse, both make John Reese look like a potential criminal, even though neither landing page makes any reference to him! Yet, the first thing anyone doing research on John Reese would assume is that he’s an evil scammer, and that they should not get involved with him in any way.
Because this is done on pretty much every product name and every guru name, anything to do with Internet marketing looks like a scam, and therefore anyone involved with Internet marketing looks like scum. While there are a lot of shady things going on this industry, there is no reason to take people down who are doing good stuff, just to make a few bucks.
Let’s stop this behaviour, ban affiliates who use these tactics, and raise the bar for Internet marketing, thank you very much!
Now, here are some real Internet scams to avoid. Please don’t use them for inspiration!!! ;-)
http://www.cracked.com/article_16648_5-retarded-get-rick-quick-scams-people-still-fall.html
Sphere: Related Content
October 6th, 2008 at 11:17 am
These affiliates are using a scare tactic to pull in commissions, and I agree, it’s pretty low. Affiliate agreements should disallow this tactic, and those affiliates should be banned from the guru’s program.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 11:21 am
As an aside, there was a time that I saw an adword ad that was on multiple product names, including one of mine. The ads were identical, promoting all these products, while calling all of us scammers. Google refused to do anything about it.
I would get behind a class action suit against Google and other search engines for allowing and profiting from inflammatory/slanderous ads that have no basis in reality.
John.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Agree wholeheartedly with you John.
These “Jerk” tactics are negative but alas they are effective.
I think it’s a great idea to have a code of ethics for affiliates like you mentioned. We have one already which covers businesses and entrepreneurs here:
http://www.business-ethics-pledge.org/
I for one am about to update my affiliate program information with guidelines to ensure affiliates are clear as to what is acceptable and what is not.
Cheers,
Tom
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 11:22 am
This had been going on for a while, but gained prominence with Day Job Killer and all the follow-ons. As most internet marketers seem unable to engage their brains for any period of time (instant, automate, outsource…) it was just copied from the page unchanged and hence all the identikit campaigns. Frank Kern then hoved into view with his “bad news always grabs eyes” email, and Mike Filsaime pretty well legitamized it with his testimonial pitch for Review Crusher (despite having come out with an opposing view beforehand) and so here we are.
With all that weight behind it it’s not going away any time soon so it would be counter-productive to cancel affiliates who use it right now. Doesn’t make it any less a pathetic strategy though.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 11:22 am
It’s a good call.
The technique makes sense to try and grab the customers attention, from the Affiliates perspective… trying to scare the customer into clicking their link first.
But isn’t it “the last cookie saved” that actually gets the commission not the first? This actually means that they grab attention but lose the sale as the customer then moves on to find the best deal.
I do agree though. It’s a very ‘cheep feeling’ technique.
Stuart
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Some sites use first cookie saved, others last. Though I suspect/hope that the idea is usually to get people to consider other options, or see a bonus, and then buy through that affiliate, not cookie stuffing.
[Reply]
Stuart Fenton Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Well if it is “cookie first” then were allowing the game to play out. Were basically saying “FIRST CLICK WINS”…
If this is true then it’s our fault, not theirs. There just playing the game.
You would do the same to grab traffic if it worked? Wouldn’t you?…
S.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I’ve noticed this trend as well. Apparently bunch of wanabees lazy affiliates are reading the same “how to make money fast” ebook and like parrots doing the same thing to attract attention. When high price tag affiliate products are at stake - they stepping over each other to make click happen.
Merchants can easily control this by specifying detailed “not to” in their terms and by terminating affiliates who use questionable practices.
I also noticed similar trend among serious marketers themselves. They started to utilize really cheap “urgency” (stop everything and buy now or never again!!!) and “scarcity” (only 27 downloadable pieces left!!!) tricks that makes me want to throw up and not even looking to spend a penny on their stuff any more.
The only reason I keep staying on their lists is to monitor industry trends.
Gleb
–
How to build fast SEO optimized sites:
http://www.mensk.com/webmaster-toolbox/building-fast-seo-optimized-websites/
FREE Wordpress Membership Plugin:
http://www.memberwing.com/
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Gleb, I agree with you, and I admit that I’m guilty of using scarcity to get sales going. I do think scarcity can be used in ethical, legitimate ways… but more often isn’t.
[Reply]
Gleb Esman Reply:
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
John,
I think more creative marketers will definitely gain an edge. Today’s 1-page salesletter websites feels like a clones of the same sheep.
It still works though, no doubt.
I personally like more subtle approach to marketing vs. in-the-face type of stuff.
Gleb
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 11:31 am
The fact that people click on ads that suggest fraud is not surprising at all. IMHO, regardless if affiliates stop using this form of advertising, the public perception is that internet marketers are committing consumer fraud by selling products that simply do not work.
While it is in your rights to stop affiliates from using this type of marketing technique — and I applaud you for doing so — I highly doubt other internet marketers will follow suit.
After all, if they are truly “pond scum,” they won’t care how they got the traffic to their site as long as they generate sales.
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Hi Howard.
I think that the marketers being attacked might consider banning affiliates, but I think the real answer is a class action suit against Google. I’m not suggesting that anyone is pond scum btw, but that these tactics make everyone in the industry look like it.
John.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 11:45 am
John
I completely agree with you, it really p*~+s me off when every time there’s a big product launch the same suspects come out with trite headlines like “Do Not Buy Product XXX”
with a load of sanctimonious bilge about why not and then completely turning all that went before with a shed load of freebies.
I usually unsubscribe them straight away, however those who I’ve bought products from know that it’s unlikely I’ll unsubscribe because I want to receive updates. Fortunately they make it obvious enough when they use the tactic so their email gets deleted unopened.
The more they do it the less credence I give them, so they’re the losers in the long run.
Duncan
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I see a lot of this now with gifting programs and pyramid schemes that really ARE scams. See for yourself: If you google “gifting scam” about a third the results are sites promoting gifting programs.
The sleazeballs promoting these scams are working to trap people who are trying to do due diligence on suspicious looking programs.
Of course their blog or page always answers the “Is it a scam?” question with a resounding NO and reassures the prospect that it is a perfectly safe and legitimate venture.
I feel sorry for people trying to do due diligence these days… The net is so choked with “Is it a scam?” stuff that it is tricky for newbies to figure out who to trust.
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
This one is new to me. I once was looking up info on a bowel cleansing product that looked rather amazing, and found hundreds of raving testimonials when I searched for the product name plus “scam”. Every single one I checked was an affiliate link, and after a lot of searching I found evidence that it was indeed a scam.
In my book, that company is a scammer because they sell a product that claims to do one thing and doesn’t, and then they encourage their affiliates to put out false information - information that most of them probably believe in because of the nature of the scam.
I don’t think that most of the people putting out products in this industry are trying to mislead people about what their products do. In these cases, its usually a handful of affiliates who are acting in a way that makes the product producer look bad. It should be possible to make that kind of behavior unprofitable for those affiliates and undo the damage that has been done over the last few years.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I totally agree John!
People use my name all the time because they know they can get their Scum Ads, Scum blogs and Scum Articles read. This is one of the reasons I use http://WhoIsFrankATrueblood.com and am listed with http://WhoIsDirectory.com so people can get to the “REAL” person they are looking for and not some bogus ad, blog or article.
I’m totally with you John, if one of my affiliates use anything like that I email them immediately telling them to discontinue using those garbage tactics.
Frank
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
THANK YOU for campaigning for this. While it may draw attention for an individual marketer in the short run, it is a very damaging practice in the long run for ALL Internet Marketers. We need to stop giving the public reason to believe we’re trying to rip them off.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
What about the ridiculous OTO where the marketer lies like hell and states that if you click off the page you will never see this offer again or when you click off a salespage and you get a lower price on the product…equally scummy if you ask me!!!
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
There are a number of things that need to change in this industry, including that. I strongly believe that if we do not start to self regulate, some governing body will come in and do it for us. That will be an ugly day.
[Reply]
Anthony Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Wow… that’s sounds almost excactly like John’s new product, Sales Bully… Huh?…lol
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Unfortunately, without recognized regulation and control on this form of misleading solicitation, there is no real way to control these individuals from doing what they do. Although I appreciate the opinions mentioned so far, I think that some form of disruptive action is required to change behavior. Until the day that these publishers (affiliate marketers) are forced directly or indirectly think about mitigating the risk of a being labeled as fraudulent or to consider the consequences to their actions, we will continue to see misleading subject lines, ad headers, and so on.
Although we may not be able to effect a change in behavior in the short term, a solid step towards influencing change is creating an indirect impact on the trustworthiness of some individuals in the business. At first I imagine that a widely know n forum , like an internet marketers BBB, would provide some kind of regulated and verified data on claims made against persons who conduct business online. It would take serious effort and the participation of well known business regulation establishments to put forward such an effort. I say this because I believe anything that we might consider an “appropriate” outlet as a temporary fix would merely lead to charges of slander and cause grief for the person who attempts to try such a thing without a well established process and legally leveraged team.
At the end of the day, I would like to see something change behavior.
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I totally agree with you! I’m working on something to help with that, and had grown somewhat despondent about it. These comments are helping me energize that project!
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
John - good post.
The ironic thing is that John Reese is adamant about banning this stuff - it’s in his latest affiliate TOS.
I think the issue here is policing/enforcing.
What I’d suggest is a “bounty” where the marketer:
1) bans this crap by specifying it in his TOS, and if it’s not there they add it NOW and inform affiliates, mention that ALL commissions are forfeited.
2) issues a “bounty” to all the affiliates, where a reward is given e.g. 50% of the forfeited commissions from the offending affiliate, just make sure they are on legit sales or else you’ll get fake bounty awards
Things would clean up pretty fast around here.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Hey John,
I’d have to say I disagree with. Before I go on, let me just say I don’t have anything running currently that uses these tactics, so it’s not like I’m trying to protect myself.
However, I have ran things in the past using these ads. But, they weren’t “people targeted”.
You might as well campaign against article marketing, too - since 99.9 percent of article reviews for products are fake anyways. Do they actually order the products and then review them? No. They just review it, make it sound like the best product/service ever, then link to the buy page.
Really, the only places you can trust are answers communities and forums. But even then, there are spammers.
And if you want to get even more honest, try thinking about the products you’ve promoted. If you’ve ever promoted payday loans, crappy ebooks (almost all ebooks are crappy, sales pages full of hype that deliver nothing, etc - what’s that? I personally think that’s far worse than ad copy that includes “Scam” in it. Hell, those ad copies are more honest than the actual products they’re promoting!
And John, I think specifically remember you being at Mr. X’s taping of AdWords BlackBook DVD’s… If I remember correctly, he promoted using “scam” in ad copy! Seems like you’re whining about it now because it’s happening to you!
And really, you promote cookie stuffing. What’s up what that? You complain about “Scam” in ad copies, which isn’t illegal, then on the side you have software that promotes ILLEGAL activity!
But, that’s just my $0.02. Making money online is just all about that - making money online. Who cares if someone uses “John Reel Scam?” in their ad copy? Hell, if it’s your affiliate and they drive a sale to you, so what? It’s just as good as any other sale. The only difference is they’re creative enough to use attractive ad copy that gets someones attention.
And again, “scam” in the ad copy is just about the least you should be caring about. How about people stop selling crappy products? Who actually buys something off a HUGE long, ugly sales page and becomes a millionaire? Not anyone I’ve heard of…
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Hi. Some good points.
1. It isn’t happening to me right now. Did a year ago though.
2. Mr. X. is Mr. X., not me.
3. Even if I had promoted things I shouldn’t have, people can see the light and change.
4. I care if someone uses “John Reel Scam”, that’s for sure. If people are doing research about me, like friends, family, investors, potential clients, or even a girl I want to date, I don’t want them seeing that.
5. I try very hard not to make crappy products.
[Reply]
X Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 10:54 am
No, I have NEVER advocated the “scam” approach and I’m on video a number of times talking about how ASININE DUMBASS the approach is. There’s this thing called “state” that has a high degree of influence on making a sales, or not. Do I want people in the state of wondering if a product I’m promoting is a scam? Hell no. So, go back and watch my videos and do not ever again associate my work with the McWeenies and Rockford’s of the world.
Regarding the point of “cookie” stuffing, if you’re stuffing cookies - this has also been said numerous times in numerous places - you get what you ask for. I do not advocate “cookie stuffing”. There’s a way to use the technology so that everyone benefits. And there’s a way to fuck people. If you fuck people, do not cry when they fuck you.
Go back and look at my materials again and you will see it clearly spelled out.
X
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Oh, almost missed the illegal part.
I agree. GoTryTHIS started off as an analytic tool for tracking cloaked links. I added loads of requested features into it, including the one you are referencing. That feature has totally legal, ethical reasons for being there, and got blown out of proportion, and hyped up out of control. Quite frankly, just because I can make it do things, doesn’t mean I should have.
I’m trying to clean up my act, and suggesting that it would be good for us all if others make some changes too.
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Update:
Please read Mr. X’s comment further down. He has not advocated doing this.
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Oh yeah, right. Threaded comments. His comment is right there, lol.
[Reply]
Ina Stanley Reply:
October 15th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I have to disagree with Abraham Lincoln. It’s not about targeting people necessarily, but more about targeting specific products or companies. Truth be told, every product and every company out there is not a scam and doesn’t deserve to have its name dragged through the mud as such. While “is this a scam” techniques aren’t the worst thing that could pop up in marketing, they’re certainly not great things either. It’s a milder form of slander, when a person makes negative claims that are false (or unproven) against an individual, a company or a product. By all rights, the one on the receiving end of the negative publicity is completely justified should they decide to take legal action.
Though I’m not now, I was once a member of a home business that caught a lot of slack from the IM community. We had people calling our products worthless and our company a scam left & right. I don’t know how many feathers I ruffled in some of the most prominent forums online defending what we offered, but in the end I didn’t sink to the level of the naysayers and competitors who were constantly stirring up negative publicity for our company and products. In the end it paid off, I gained more business by keeping a level head, answering questions honestly and showing the value of the product. My success with that company was one of my crowning achievements and never once did I have to sink so low as to use negative promotion or slanderous remarks about any other individual, company or product. On a side note, I was constantly harassed by someone who’s known in the forums for outspokenly opposing home businesses. While he enjoyed abusing my name on a forum known as Catty Shaq (he was close friends with the admin and many of the moderators), he was publicly warned on another even more prominent forum (The Finance Forums) for his behavior. The forum admin had just dealt with a slander lawsuit and he wasn’t keen on going through another. No matter what excuse you try to make, slander is wrong and illegal and can be dealt with through legal action. Why risk all of that (as well as tarnishing your own reputation) over a few silly ads?
There are much better ways to market and drive traffic to your website without using those kinds of tactics. And to me, it speaks to the character of the Internet marketing using such tactics - definitely not someone I’d trust going into business with or signing up under if I were in the market for a new home business. Think, what’s to stop that person from running negative campaigns against me, their own team member, just to make a sale?
What it shows is a supreme lack of respect for fellow entrepreneurs and a supreme lack of knowledge in the area of marketing. When I see ads like that, I immediately write the marketer off as inexperienced, immature and unsuccessful (in my eyes if you really were that successful you wouldn’t need to result to negative ad campaigns). I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels that way. So you may be able to fool a few folks with that kind of marketing, but I don’t think for long. Entrepreneurs and consumers are becoming more and more savvy and despite what we think, many can read right through lame marketing ploys.
Keep yourself above level and stick to ethical methods, and in the end you’ll be recognized for it.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I have to admit… I’ve stood close to that line when reviewing some products… only difference is some products are very poorly put together and provide very little value.
With cases like these I have no problem stating which product is good and which one sucks.
As long as I’ve truly reviewed the products in detail, I think I have a right to my own opinion. If that makes more sales than an ad that reads “here, buy this really cool product”… so be it!
Does that make me “pond scum”?
Maybe some publishers should think twice about the crap they dump onto clickbank and actually try to provide some value.
[Reply]
Ina Stanley Reply:
October 15th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
No Anthony, providing a legitimate review does not make you “pond scum.” When you’re looking to honestly inform others of the worth of a product based on your own experience, that is a valid and legitimate review. The problem with many reviews is that the reviewers have not bothered to test products themselves. They usually only select products that are in direct competition with their own and talk others out of buying them, or they use negative tag lines to cause fear and anxiety, only to promote the very same product. That’s just a ploy to get the traffic. Most all of those types of reviews have some type of affiliate link attached. I’ve even seen a guy create a whole blog site to drive traffic from negativity just to boost his Adsense sales. It’s up to those doing their due dilligence to read through the bull**** and see the truth.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I totally agree with you John.
But does that trend not come a bit from the marketers them self?
I mean, why do all give so many bonuses with any product they sell?
If the product is really worth the price you’re selling it, why do
you have to give so many bonuses with it? The most time the bonuses
are valued much higher then the product it self!
Look at the Stompernet re-launch some days ago as example. We know that Stompernet
is worth the money and it’s not a scam. But if you’re a newbie and you see
this product all these promotions the first time wouldn’t you think it could be a scam?
I mean, why do have so many other well known marketers give their best products as bonus?
I think that with so many bonuses the costumer gets overloaded with information
and they don’t know where to start. In the end they don’t take any action what
makes them fail and after that they go out and call the product as scam!
I don’t know how it is in the US, but here in Europe you don’t even get a bonus
when you’re buying a new car! And you also don’t get a 60 day money back guarantee!
Daniel
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I agree with you 110% on this. I hate when searching for a product when I find ads like the ones you displayed! Yes this technique might get someones attention and some folks think by doing this they are serving the customer however it is misleading and false advertising. At the least Google should be giving them a Poor Quality score. Interesting you brought up John Reese’s Traffic Secrets 2.0, John sent out an email about using this very tactic to all affiliates promoting his product. If some of the big names in the industry are starting to frown upon this tactic is it really worth jeopardizing your future affiliate commissions.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
John,
It’s no wonder this behavior is so rampant. I have personally bought several ebooks - that hit and stayed at the top of Clickbank’s top sellers list - that taught this technique. Rich Jerk and virtually all of Chris M’s books, as well as his contemporary’s (cloned) products all teach some form of this. So, tens of thousands of new and experienced marketers have been exposed to this sort of thinking, believing it to be an acceptable technique. No wonder it’s ubiquitous.
Based on the premise that controversy sells, or at least attracts and holds attention, these products are not teaching what all of us should intimately know: Effective businesses that LAST (not the fly-by-night crap we see every day) are built upon the foundational principle of win-win (thanks Steven Covey). And it’s hard for me to conceive of a win-win situation when honesty is not at the forefront of the relationship.
Any time someone loses in the deal - whatever it is - is an example of a short-term business model, period.
I can’t say I know how you feel, since I don’t yet have a product of my own or affiliates to “promote” it. But I do have an idea of what it might be like…
But John, a few movers and shakers like yourself could turn the trend around and drastically shorten the effective “lifespan” of this technique. I hope you do.
I’ll be looking to see what you come up with…
Be well,
Russ
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
It’s too late now. This technique is part of the culture of IM. It has been taught by virtually everyone, to all of their students, who teach others etc. ad infinitum.
And, the only reason people are using it is because it works. Therefore no amount of whining or complaining will ever stop it.
The ones who will lose are those who attempt to stop their affiliates from doing it. It’s like trying to tell people to stop using red colored headlines.
Good Luck!
Lorne.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I agree, John.
This technique doesn’t make sense to me. If you hint that product A is a scam, then try to sell that product, how is that supposed to convince the customer?
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I don’t see a problem with it at all.
Sure, ban your affiliates for using it and they’ll continue to do so except your top affiliate will be making money you used to make for another person using your name.
Get over yourselves already and seek to understand the emotional responses from “buyers”.
Political ads do this ALL THE TIME because….. it works best!
The only person I’ve known get their panties in a bunch about this is Mike Filsaime because he lost out on an interview on FOX news.
Funny that Mike et al didn’t care too much that people were “tarnishing” their names while lining his pockets with cash using this very same technique in their marketing strategy.
Hypocrites cannot be moral judges.
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Sure it works, but that doesn’t mean you should use it.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
It REALLY depends on what lies on the other side of that link.
If I had an ad that said:
Is John Reel a Scammer?
Don’t buy GTT2 until you
read my extensive review…
And then on the page I go on about how I’ve been burned before by internet marketers, and GTT2 sounded too good to be true, and then I tried it, and I liked it, and recommend it.
It’s just a sales tactic that brings them in, and gets them engaged.
That’s NIGHT AND DAY different from someone who had a similar ad, accused you of actually being a scammer, and then recommends a DIFFERENT product.
The truth is, the best affiliate sales letters are the ones that GET INTO THE HEAD of the prospect.
Who is the prospect for an IM product?
Most of them have information overload, and are tired of scammy crappy products. They’ve been burned before and it is a REAL CONCERN that they will be again.
That’s why these ads are effective.
I don’t think you should lump the first type with the second type.
Joe
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Your example is EXACTLY what I am against, and I ask you not to do that with my products. Just the suggestion that I might be a scammer if I’m not, is something I don’t want.
Yes, I know it works. Yes, it will bring in sales for me. If you run that ad I will ask you to stop and suspend your affiliate account if you do not.
I hope you’ll promote GoTryTHIS 2, but please don’t do so while suggesting that I might be a scammer by creating it, thank you.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I hate these ads too. The advertising industry here in NZ has a code of ethics which includes saying “this is an advert” I actually hate adverts which don’t say this and to be honest all the affiliate reviews come into this category. They imply that they are giving an unbiased appraisal when they are not. No wonder people do not trust internet marketers. I don’t trust them!
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Meant to add that the sort of advert you are talking about was first taught in the “Day Job Killer” as far as I can tell.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I use this and do ok with affiliate sales,as many are looking for a reason why they should / shouldn’t buy this product,it gives me a bit of an edge.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Too Many People Scream Scam These Days…
I don’t think people thinking IM stuff is a scam is a result of this affiliate tactic–this affiliate tactic came as a result of people already thinking IM stuff was a scam.
The masses have been screaming scam since the early days of direct marketing. Now some affiliates got smart and used this mentality to make some cash. Of course if you have something that works on the Internet it’s only a matter of time before people start copying it and then it becomes the norm–so now everybody is doing it.
Regardless, these people are already thinking scam–that is why they are searching with the keyword “scam”. It may actually help to divert the traffic to review pages that express that it is actually NOT a scam, but that I don’t know. What I do know is that this mentality of info and marketing products being scams has been around way before this affiliate tactic.
You even fell for it yourself. That link you posted that listed scams by Cracked–not all those products were scams. Just because a product is crap does not make it a scam. People often think that if they can’t duplicate the results of an IM product that it is a scam–but have they done the work to get the results? I have purchased a few of the items on that Cracked list and I made some very good money with them…
All these people screaming scam is going to cause the FTC to come crashing down on us with more government regulations that we don’t need. If you buy a product that sucks, deal with it, and move on. But stop crying scam because that is another thing all together.
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
John,
It’s no wonder this behavior is so rampant. I have personally bought several ebooks that hit and stayed at the top of Clickbank’s top sellers list, teaching this technique. So, tens of thousands of new and experienced marketers have been exposed to this sort of thinking, believing it to be an acceptable technique. Plus, you can hardly type-in an internet marketing term in a search engine without seeing several Adwords ads using the technique. No wonder it’s ubiquitous.
Based on the premise that controversy sells, or at least attracts and holds attention, these products are not teaching what all of us should intimately know: Effective businesses that LAST (not the fly-by-night crap we see every day) are built upon the foundational principle of win-win (thanks Steven Covey). And it’s hard for me to conceive of a win-win situation when honesty is not at the forefront of the relationship.
Any time someone loses in the deal - whatever it is - is an example of a short-term business model, period.
I can’t say I know how you feel, since I don’t yet have a product of my own or affiliates to “promote” it. But I do have an idea of what it might be like…
But John, a few movers and shakers like yourself could turn the trend around and drastically shorten the effective “lifespan” of this technique. I hope you do.
I’ll be looking to see what you come up with…
Be well,
Russ
[Reply]
October 6th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
John Reese actually does ban affiliates that use that language.
Report those affiliates to him or his affiliate team…
Here’s an email from him to his affiliates…
================================
I just want to start by saying that there’s
a really good chance that this email will
not apply to you. It’s only aimed at
a small number of people.
(But I want all of our affiliates to read this.)
It’s completely against the TOS for our
Affiliate Program to use *misleading*
advertising of any kind.
Well, there are several of our affiliates
currently using misleading advertising –
especially with Google AdWords.
Anyone that’s using ‘controversial’ and/or
misleading headlines or ads will be
immediately terminated from the affiliate
program if they don’t stop running
these ads right away.
Stuff like, “John Reese Ripped Me Off”
or “Traffic Secrets Lies” etc. etc.
Then of course the ad simply redirects
to someone’s affiliate link or a review
page with their affiliate link.
Are you running misleading, negative
ads like this? If you are, you have
only a matter of hours to kill all of
these ads or you will be terminated
from the affiliate program.
We are working very hard to maintain
the INTEGRITY of our business
and we’re not about to condone this
type of misleading marketing.
For all of our other affiliates
(most likely like you) that are not
marketing with such tactics…
THANK YOU.
Yours For Online Profits,
John Reese
================================
I think his email is a good response to this post.
[Reply]
October 7th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Hello John,
It’s pretty much the kettle calling the pot black here.
Sales Bully and GoTryThis are your two flagship products.
One uses false scarcity and bullying tactics to make a sale.
GoTryThis is the penultimate cookie stuffer.
And you don’t like people writing provocative ads?
I would suggest you have a lot of changing to do before you can allow yourself to become so sanctimonious.
Basically if you work in a sewer (internet marketing particularly affiliate marketing), don’t be surprised if your clothes stink.
[Reply]
John Reel Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Alec, I almost agree with you.
However:
1) SalesBully does not use false scarcity. I went to a lot of trouble to make it hard to use it without being honest. The “bully” part was just using controversy. And yes, that is calling the pot black. However, the only reputation I may have tarnished in that process is my own.
2) GoTryTHIS is a terrific link cloaking tool and analytic package that got out of hand with features being added, and that one feature, which got introduced with totally ethical intentions got blown out of proportion. It was never meant to be what it became, and I regret allowing it to do so.
3) Neither product has been for sale for quite awhile - because I’ve changed a lot. GoTryTHIS 2, will come out eventually, but will be marketed totally differently. SalesBully may be released in a new version under a new name, and with different marketing, and intentions. That’s a big “may”.
4) I’m no longer participating in any of this stuff in those ways. The only promotion I’ve done in ages is for a replacement to GatewayMagic, which so many people were waiting on me for.
5) I find a lot of people cross lines in this industry. It encourages and rewards corruption, dirty tactics, and unethical behavior. I’m looking at the lines I’ve crossed, and am not happy with it, and have changed. This particular sanctimonious rant is the first of many to come in an attempt to challenge other people to help us all clean up our acts and show people that Internet marketing can be done better, and more profitably without resorting to these tactics.
[Reply]
October 7th, 2008 at 7:40 am
I think in IM this “scam ad” strategy is almost useless by now since everyone is using it and everyone knows how it works.
It becomes a problem for the vendor when used outside the IM-niche where people are not used to it.
I am just waiting for the day some stupid affiliate will start using this with a real
and popular brand name. This would mean serious trouble.
Imagine something like this:
Is Windows Vista A Scam?
Don’t Buy Windows
Until You Read This Shocking Review!
www-StopWindowsScam.org
When Chris McNeeny started recommending this in Affiliate Project X (the one before DayJobKiller) he said people should use “brand names” to bid on.
Try a real brand or a registered trademark and see what happens…:-)
[Reply]
X Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
McWeenie took this approach from the Adwords Black Book and tried to put his own spin on it. Since I’m bidding on brand names all over the place, go ahead and try it. If you can’t make it work you’re not thinking hard enough.
[Reply]
October 7th, 2008 at 8:41 am
[...] of everyone involved with Internet marketing. Can we raise the bar? My argument is here: –> John Reel’s Blog Blog Archive Please stop/ban, “Is this a scam?” Please consider it and take action if you can. If you’re using this technique, I encourage you to [...]
October 7th, 2008 at 9:16 am
[...] Please stop/ban, “Is this a scam?” [...]