Seth Godin Jumps the Shark
From permission marketing fame to cyber greenmail shame, Seth Godin has finally jumped the shark. Spinning it as SEO reputation management is a kind way of describing this scam. What Godin has done is launched Brands in Public. Sounds innocent enough? Hardly.
Godin has put together hundreds of Squidoo pages for companies with major brands. A complimentary service? Done with permission? No. The aggregated content on these pages are determined by Godin/Squidoo…unless your company is willing to pay $400 per month in “greenmail” to control the content and spin it.
“If your brand wants to be in charge of developing this page, it will cost you $400 a month.” – Seth Godin
Because Squidoo pages rank high in the search engines, Godin is essentially telling these companies to fork over the money or have their online reputation interfered with by him because he’s using their keywords/brands to drive a lot of traffic to Squidoo.
From an ethical standpoint, there’s little separating what Godin is doing from cybersquatters who sit on domain names filled with the companies’ brands demanding unreasonable sums. Morally, it is similar to competitors using the companies’ brands as keywords in pay-per-click (PPC) campaigns to drive traffic elsewhere. The main difference is the dollar amounts involved. Let’s say that 500 companies give in to Godin’s demands and fork over $4800 a year. That’s an additional $2.4 million in revenues generated simply using the “pay me or else” method of marketing.
Is this legal? I’m sure a few of the companies will be discussing the matter with their Internet and trademark attorneys.
Is it ethical? No.
I’m disappointed in Seth Godin.
You should be too.
Recommended Reading: Seth Godin Tries Out Brandjacking
About the Author
With an advanced international law degree from Georgetown University and more than 15 years of real world legal experience, Attorney Mike Young is President of the Internet Ethics Council and creator of Website Legal Forms Generator software. He helps entrepreneurs protect and grow their businesses online.
Similar Posts
Interesting post Mike!
As a lot of people know, Seth Godin is another blogger I follow…reading everyone of his posts.
This post that Godin posted hit me the same way as it did you Mike Young…
it was very DISAPPOINTING to say the least…it screamed UNETHICAL even to me!
I agree, this is just wrong. Be interesting to see how Seth Godin spins the ‘Seth Godin’ brand in public.
Thanks, Ian, for your input. I’m at a loss as to why Seth Godin would do this to his personal brand. It would be like finding out that Steve Jobs secretly only uses PCs that run Windows ME.
Karin,
I wouldn’t have posted about it except how shocked I was that this is the path Seth Godin has taken. Wondering if it is a desperation ploy. A lot of sites aren’t faring well these days and there have been some reports of Squidoo pages getting slapped by the search engines. Whatever the cause, Godin’s conversion to this type of marketing is appalling.
An alternative scenario is that Godin has outsourced this or sold his interest…and someone is using his name that doesn’t have a clue about his prior views on marketing and relationships.
Best wishes,
-Mike
Mike,
my thoughts exactly! Outsourced? Quite possibly!
A clue was his posts were getting a little long recently!
Very unlike the “godin” style of blogging!
~ Karin HIebert
Karin,
It appears that Seth Godin (or whoever writes on his behalf) isn’t backing down on this scheme and sees nothing wrong with the scam.
Best wishes,
-Mike
well, well, well…
looks like Seth Godin is now under the scam radar…
Sad…
Where’s the scam, precisely, Mike?
Is it different from Google selling ads next to search results? (You can do a search on Vioxx for an example). Would it be okay for Twitter to sell ads next to search results at search.twitter.com? Is it different from starting a trade show that a lot of buyers come to–and then selling booths to companies in that industry? Is it okay for Amazon to sell ads on pages that sell books and other products? (They do, you can check).
Any brand that wants to be left out (we built 200 demo pages) just has to ask. That’s in our FAQ. None have asked. The pages are clearly marked as unofficial if they unclaimed. There’s no passing off, no likelihood of confusion.
If the brand wants to build a page without us, feel free. If they want the convenience and leverage of our systems and platform, why not? If a web surfer wants to see comments collated from around the web, why not?
Clearly, this is not a meaningful expense for a significant brand, and it is a meaningful time-saver.
I don’t see who’s harmed here, and I am delighted by the response we’ve received from brands and from the vast majority of my readers.
Thanks as always for reading, and I hope you’ll focus on the facts, not personal attacks.
Thank you for your response, Seth. As stated earlier, I wouldn’t have even posted about this issue but for your prior support of permission-based marketing.
Unlike the examples, Brands in Public is an opt-out system. If a company’s decision-maker happens to learn about the use of its brand, then the business can ask for removal. That’s not permission-based. In the interim, you’re driving traffic to Squidoo with the company’s brand – traffic that might otherwise go to one of the company’s sites instead (i.e. lost sales).
A more accurate comparison can be made to Google AdWords where an advertiser uses the marks of its competitor without permission in order to drive traffic elsewhere.
That some companies support Brands in Public after-the-fact is irrelevant because most don’t understand organic search engine traffic (or Internet marketing for that matter) and are simply relying upon your previously stellar track record when it comes to relationship-building and marketing.
I truly hope that you convert Brands in Public to an opt-in system because it is the ethical thing to do and it is consistent with the principles you’ve espoused over the years.
Best wishes,
-Mike
Gotta give the guy credit…
he responded here, and did a new post on “adjusting”
he is still one of the FEW… of my favorite bloggers!
My original inclinations were with Mike Young, but upon more reflection I think that Seth is providing an excellent resource.
My sense is that the problem many large brands have is a) picking and choosing who to respond to, and b) doing it on neutral ground.
The Squidoo pages simply organize what has been said about the brand. I see this being very valuable for franchisors who want to selectively respond to criticism. The strategy of controlling the page has been put out there already.
Should the system be opt in? Hmm, may a brand simply wants a single place to monitor what is being said about it? I don’t see this as a problem. Negative option billing, the bugaboo of opt out, is offensive because you are paying money until you opt out. You could be right that a brand might be losing attention until it opts out, but the content is already out there, so I am not sure I agree.
Hmm, just visited the site and read:
“Our intent in building sample pages and letting brands see them in action was misunderstood by many people, and I can understand why. As a result, to clear the air, we’re going to be taking these 200 sample pages down today. The only pages that we’ll be posting are those from our sponsors, we won’t be building any others. Thanks to those that let me know about their concerns, and I’m sorry for the confusion.”
So you were right and I was wrong.
Thanks, Michael. Seth Godin did the right thing by changing to opt-in. Preserved his good reputation.
Best wishes,
-Mike
Yes, Seth changed his mind relatively quickly. I have got to give you credit for framing the issue as an opt-in/opt-out and relating it to his permission marketing thesis. While at one level, I disagree with your frame, it probably was very persuasive to Seth once he reflected upon. Nice advocacy!