I followed a Twitter link to the Advanced “Twitter Marketing” sales page. From there, a Google search lead to the TeamChampigny site (not on the first page of Google Search). I attempted to place this comment there, but it was rejected. (Rejecting honest comments torpedoes credibility!)
Here is the issue…
Many of the Marketers who provided testimonials for the “Advanced Twitter Marketing” product also created sites with the standard…
* Reviews
* Domain Names as variations of “Advanced Twitter Marketing”
Of course, this affiliate relationship leads to doubting the product’s value since the social proof comes from folks with a vested interest.
When I write a review, my reputation is on the line, and there cannot be any profit motive influencing the straight talk, “tell-t-like-it-is” review.
With upcoming FTC regulation of the Internet Marketing space, all affiliate relationships will be required to be divulged.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Hello Joseph…
Doug Champigny here, author of Advanced Twitter Marketing and owner of Team Champigny. I’d like to address some issues in your posting…
First, the blog associated with ATM is advanced-twitter-marketing.com, not TeamChampigny.com. If you spent a few moments on the latter you’d see it’s an agregator blog, displaying posts made on blogs by marketers I mentor.
Second, your comment was rejected by the WP-HashCash anti-spam plugin, not by a person. Read the plugin’s info page to see the criteria it rejects on, but usually it’s due to spam trigger words in the comment.
Third, you imply that an affiliate will not offer an honest comment, but instead will ‘fudge’ their information to increase sales. Testimonials on a salespage help the sales of anyone who arrives at the page – unless the affiliate happened to send that individual, the testimonial there does not benefit them directly.
Fourth, be very careful in implying that marketers lie when doing testimonials for products they also are affiliates for – are you suggesting that people like Willie Crawford, Liz Tomey, Edmund Loh, Alex Sysoef and the rest of those whose testimonials appear on that page lie to their people to make an extra sale or two?
Fifth – If and when you make it up to our league online, Joseph, you’ll see for yourself that reputation, honesty and integrity are more important to the continued success of a 6, 7 or 8 figure a year business than any particular site, product or promotion. At this level we’re barraged with people asking us to promote their products on a daily basis. There’s never a need to lie about a product – if we don’t believe in it we simply don’t promote it, but instead stick to those products we DO know are helpful to our people.
Sixth – If you’re successful in your own online business, Joseph, then I assume you have the integrity to only promote those products you believe in. So by your logic, if I see your testimonial on a site I know to discount your endorsement and should be ‘doubting the product’s value’. Did you really mean to say you only review products you don’t sell or have an affiliate relationship with? Hope that’s true so you can show proof once the FTC evaluates your statements above…
Assuming you’re on higher moral ground than the likes of myself, Willie, Liz, etc. simply because you don’t make what we do is a strange jump in logic on your part, Joseph – or perhaps I just misunderstood what you were saying above. Would be happy to read any clarification you’d care to offer…
To your success online,
Doug Champigny,
DougChampigny.com
June 24th, 2009 at 7:43 am
So, by your definition, I should only promote or review products that I do not believe enough in to provide a testimonial for?
Doesn’t sound like very good business practice to me.
I’m sure that my subscribers would rather me promote products to them that I have actually tested and made sure the claims are founded.
And if the FTC (god forbid the government should get involved) decides that I should divulge my relationships, then as long as I have provided my subscribers and readers with good information on great products, I don’t see a problem.
Thanks,
June 24th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Reply to Mr. Champigny…
Response: OK. A different spoke for a Hub-and-Spoke system. I didn’t distinguish them as separate.
Response: Later testing and posting on Twitter pointed out that the issue seemed to be with Internet Explorer, since testing with Firefox on the WP-HashCash site was successful with Firefox, but not Internet Explorer. With Firefox, the Twitter form fill in was displayed twice, with Internet Explorer, only once. Please check for that Twitter posting.
Response: Incorrect: I state that I noticed a number of Websites with similar names by the same folks that offer the testimonials. This seems like a vested interest, but doesn’t mean that the folks who give the testimonial and are creating a Website to promote the product are in anyway stating a untruth.
I am a Licensed Professional Counselor, and such arrangements in the counseling arena, if not disclosed, would be cause for me to loose my license.
Response: Any implied statements of untruth did not come from me. I was commenting on the dual relationship, not the content of the testimonial.
Response: Correct. I am a Licensed Professional Counselor, an educator and an Author. I cannot compete with the folks in the "big league" and my carrying a Licensed Professional Counselor Code of Ethics into the field precludes my success in the "big leagues."
Response: Point #1: I am not earned money online, so you are free to discredit me on that measure.
Response: Point #2: I promote Open Source products, free offers, real value, and performing due diligence.
Response: Point #3: The nice folks at the FTC are my friends. They can examine everything that I have written at any time. But, since I am an advocate for FTC regulation of the Internet Marketing industry, what I write seems to make some folks in that industry feel uncomfortable.
Response: Point #4: "My Logic" is a "Straw Man" argument. No "My Logic" exists. This "Logic" is coming from elsewhere, but not from me.
Response: Point #1: "higher moral ground" Another straw man argument that didn’t come from me. I made no such claim.
Response: Point #2: The issue, if clarified is that 97% of the folks that purchase Internet Marketing Products fail to earn a return on their investment. Due diligence, which is their responsibility, seems to be a missing step in the online purchasing behavior of those 97-98%.
Response: Point #3: Due diligence on the part of purchasers would uncover that many of the products that are sold by Internet Marketers (especially in the MMR, PLR arena) are available elsewhere for free, or for substantially less cost.
Response: Point #4: "Misunderstood what I wrote" Absolutely!
June 24th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Reply to Mr. Brett McEllhiney
Response: Not al all. The issue was the perception of "Conflict of Interest" or a "Dual Relationship" when folks that were providing the testimonial were also publishing sites with variations of the same product name. It seems as though this dual relationship limits confidence in the testimonial, whether or not the testimonial it accurate.
For example, if I provide a testimonial for Customer RipOff System at customerripoffsystem.com and create a site named customer-ripoff-system.com, and another person who provides a testimonial creates a site called, customerripoff-system.net, and we are all selling the same product…then our credibility has been eroded…whether or not the testimonials are true. This looks like the people are providing testimonials for their own products.
Response: The way you described the issue, it wouldn’t be. The way that I think the FTC would approve; i.e., transparent and open disclosure would be.
Response: And, I believe that the FTC would appreciate that, too. I know that I would.
Response: Correct. Honest and ethical Internet Marketers would have nothing to fear from FTC regulation, the public (the ones that fail to perform their own due diligence) would be protected, and our tax money would be diverted to yet another bureaucracy. Many would welcome FTC intervention to rid the arena of unsavory folks.
Logic: The more disreputable folks leaving the market, the more money customers have for purchase of quality products. Also, the more disreputable folks are placed in penitentiaries, the more confidence the buying public has in the marketers who offer true value.
To me, the justification is like, "people should be honest so we shouldn’t have to spend our tax money paying for police protection. Well, it is true that 98% or so of people are honest, but the threat of police protection keeps the other 1.9% honest too. So, we are spending our money for police protection to cushion us from less than 1% of our population. Of course, if you were a crime victim, you would say that the cost is worth every penny.
Note: These figures are hypothetical estimates.