Brokerblogger

Sometimes Deceptive-Misleading Websites Say "FREE" - Brokerblogger

Click on animated image to see the "duck swim".  The point is that if it looks, acts, and swims like a duck, it probably IS a duck!

Deceptive & Misleading Websites Steal Time = Money is true with many examples of how it can happen.  "False and Deceptive Pay-Per-Click Ads" by Ben Edelman tells of falsly "free" online ads.  Also, today I got my "Consumer Health Digest #06-21" subscriber e-mail from Stephen Barrett, M.D.'s "Quackwatch".  In it, was a piece on WebMD which is a well known website and print magazine (that I just saw a copy of in a doctor's office yesterday).

Dr. Barrett's Mission Statement says it all, as far as the many things that he concentrates on.  He is good at recognizing "ducks" by spotting their clues and evidence.  But, this latest WebMD piece caught my eye.  Why?  Because it has to do with a website misleading people, in my opinion, for financial gain by using the marketing term "FREE". 

Maybe Dr. Barrett's piece had some affect on WebMD as there is a disclaimer at the top of the WebMD Weight Loss Clinic page.  It says:  "Editors' Note: WebMD Weight Loss Clinic is a paid subscription service offered by WebMD. This review was written by WebMD's editorial staff, which is independent from the WebMD Weight Loss Clinic. In writing this review, expert analysis was provided by professionals who are not affiliated with WebMD or the WebMD Weight Loss Clinic. There was no influence by WebMD Weight Loss Clinic on this review."  Why then is WebMD's brand name on the clinic if they say (in Dr. Barrett's piece) that WebMD " "does not endorse any specific product, service, or treatment."  In my opinion, a disclaimer itself can be one of the "Clues To Deceptive-Misleading Websites ".  But, let's look at the rest of the clues. 

PPC Abuse Of "Google AdWords Landing Page and Site Quality Guidelines" By Deceptive-Misleading Websites - Brokerblogger

In observing the Search Marketing Industry for about 9 years, I have often heard the phrase "It is a cat & mouse game."  Google (or any search engine) is the "cat", and there are many different kinds of "mice" that seem to stay "one step ahead" in the game.  Sometimes the mouse "throws a brick" (click on illustration to animate), and temporarily wins one of the "battles" (vs. winning the "war").

This Brokerblogger post is on misleading "middlemen" websites that take the end-user, searcher to a landing page of AdSense (PPC) links.  This increases the number of clicks that a searcher has to do in order to find the exact relevant content that he intends to find (a poorer user experience for me, and maybe many).  Google has their "Google AdWords Landing Page and Site Quality Guidelines" which says "In general, build pages that provide substantial and useful information to the end-user. If your ad does link to a page consisting of mostly ads or general search results (such as a directory or catalog page), provide additional information beyond what the user may have seen in your ad or on the page prior to clicking on your ad."  It also says "You should have unique content (should not be similar or nearly identical in appearance to another site)."

However, this "PPC abuse" Google Video done by some anonymous person who posted on this SEW Forum topic entitled "AdWord Abuse & Search Arbitrage", graphically shows the problem.  I like his point about "another key point: don't forget that these sites are created programatically. where there is one now, there will be 10 next week, and 100 in a few months. this will continue until EVERY niche is diluted with these sorts of advertisers."  The "1st example" it uses is about a Sponsored Link on the right of the SERP that says "Forklift", and then "Helpful Links for forklift".  I now notice that that PPC ad is no longer showing on my screen at a Google search for "forklift".  But, this "Forklifts", New & Used Forklifts, Low Cost - View Online!, www.Faster-Results.com" is! 

To me, this is almost the same situation as the other one, because that PPC AdWords ad takes you to a landing page of 10 "(sponsored)" links (probably AdSense ads).  That sure doesn't bring me "faster results".  Keep in mind the Google AdSense Program Policies say "No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant."  That site does, however, ask you "Are you looking for?" and gives the searcher a choice of 8 more keywords phrases that in turn take you to more sponsored link landing pages.  So, it does "Distinguish sponsored links from the rest of your (their) site content."  What is Google doing about this?

Deceptive & Misleading Websites Steal Time = Money - Brokerblogger

This "Time: It Really Is Money" illustration is from a 9/11/00 article by the same name in InformationWeek.com.  In it, it says on page 2: "As income and wages increase, the cost of time will continue to grow and so will the sense that time is scarce and that life proceeds at a faster pace than in the past."  It goes on to say: "Along the way, new opportunities will emerge for businesses to make a profit by charging a fee and saving customers time."  Well, here we are almost six years later, and it certainly is true.

This "Time Is Money" article says: "Businesses and individuals are going to have to think about relating the monetary value of time and ultimately the best ways to spend it wisely."  For each individual the value of their time can be calculated just like a businessman would do it, as shown in "PUT A PRICE ON YOUR TIME ".  Therefore, it is my belief that when a website intentionally deceives, or unintentionally misleads the online end-user, that website is stealing money!  Now, I know that the FTC or any court of law is not going to award damages in most of these situations, but something still needs to be done.  Otherwise, the theme of this 11/24/05 imediaconnection.com article entitled "Consumers Still Don't Trust the Internet" will continue to be very true for many reasons!

Let's take a closer look at "what's going on" online.

Clues To Deceptive-Misleading Websites - Brokerblogger

When your looking for clues (click on cartoon to animate) as to the integrity of a website and the people behind it, here are a few ways to do it.

First, I believe that online TRUST, CREDIBILITY, and SAFETY can all be affected through COMMERCIAL and INFORMATION GATHERING ways, further broken down into INTENTIONAL, and UNINTENTIONAL categories.  Proving intent can be a challenge, so I've learned to be a cynical optimist in giving the website the benefit of the doubt, at first, before it passes the test of time.  However, there are some clues and new tests that can be done to see if the site deserves even that much respect.  Let's look at a study of online user behavior in regard to a website's "credibility". 

The FTC's OnGuardOnline.gov Website - Brokerblogger

Deceptive websites of all kinds can bring on the kind of extreme anger shown in this cartoon (click to enlarge).  My last post on The FTC on Deception, Disclosure, and Endorsements " linked to the FTC's stand on disclosure. 

However, the FTC is limited in what it can do, in my opinion, from legal and "limited resource" perspectives.  Their FTC Complaint Form is structured to deal with fraud involving a financial loss of some kind, although it has an "Explain Your Problem" fill-in-box.  This online form is better than an e-mail, but was a challenge for me when I filed a complaint about the Verizon FiOS web site.  The reason is that I was upset about FiOS's lack of upfront disclosure regarding not being able to turn back to Verizon DSL, if you canceled their fiber optic Internet service within their 30 Day Money-Back Guarantee.  My complaint concerned "deceptive website non-disclosure" at first (and now a "lack of conspicuous disclosure"), which could have caused me a loss of my time (about 20 hours total) vs. an actual loss of money.  But, time is money!

The FTC on Deception, Disclosure, and Endorsements - Brokerblogger

Naive consumers (click on animated cartoon) don't realize that institutional marketing campaigns can motivate you to buy things that may not be needed (like the "Super Size" version of chips), and can even be harmful to you in some ways.  That is why the Federal Government sometimes has to get involved to protect unwitting consumers (no clear, conspicuous, complete, and comprehended disclosure of of all material facts given to them).

There are many different kinds of intentional and unintentional deception (being mislead) in this world with many "grey areas" within the details of the circumstances.  John Wanamaker said "Any seeming deception in a statement is costly, not only in the expense of the advertising but in the detrimental effect produced upon the customer, who believes she has been misled."  Let's look at the word "advertising" ("The activity of attracting public attention to a product or business,..").  Deception can be in all forms of marketing, and these "Basic Definitions: Advertising, Marketing, Promotion, Public Relations and Publicity, and Sales help clarify where it's possible.  Let's see what the FTC says.

Deceptive Marketing Lacks Complete Disclosure - Brokerblogger

When you sell something, or as importantly, when you personally recommend or "bad mouth" something by giving your spontaneous opinion, your credibility and integrity are on the line, in my opinion (click on animated image to enlarge).

Before I delve deeper into the deceptive aspects of the specific tool of marketing known as a "website", I want to explore a thought I got at ad:tech San Francisco when I attended BuzzAgent's session there entitled "Word of Mouth as a Media Channel: Designing Your Own Campaign".  I also want to make it clear that I am in favor of helping ethical Word-of-Mouth Marketing, because I firmly believe that IF DONE RIGHT (the "devil is in the details"), there is a lot more upside than downside for the consumer.  I believe that Yankelovich Partner's "Concurrence Marketing" is right on when they say that the consumer wants (and deserves) more "power" (the AUTONOMOUS KIND) and "reciprocity".

DISCLOSURE:  I am mostly in favor of "Search Marketing" where the buyer decides when he is ready to buy vs. the seller deciding when he wants to sell the buyer.  Therefore I am, in general, adverse to some kinds of "impulse purchases", unless they fill an actual vs. perceived or "artificially motivated" need.  This "search" perspective gives more power and control to the buyer, while usually causing the advertising-marketing to be more "relevant" or "contextual" to the buyer's intent.  Yellow Pages and Search Engines provide this approach, which I elaborate more on in my "Relevant Advertising-Marketing Update".

ad:tech San Francisco 4/26/06 - Brokerblogger

My 4/23/06 post  transitioned from trying to help Search Marketing's reputation to exposing Deceptive Websites.  I went to ad:tech S.F. to compare the one day, 3/9/06, ad:tech IMPACT Dallas Conference to it.  The San Francisco conference was 2 1/2 days, so it was bigger and better (so was the colorful entrance shown in the photo =click all photos to enlarge).

I will not be going to ad:tech Chicago even though I do recommend it to those that want to network, learn, meet and collaborate with speakers and firms that you've read about on the web, along with peers.  However, I must point out some conspicuous observations I made.  First, most attendees need to research the speakers and sessions better, and ask "prepared in advance", tough questions vs. just listening or taking notes. 

Second, AdRANTs mentions ad:tech chair Susan Bratton saying there would be 9,000 attendees.  I'm optimistically skeptical about that number as I counted (approx.) the number of seats in the keynote session room #134.  There were only about 1,400 seats (tops) plus standing room.  I contacted Moscone, and they confirmed a capacity of 1,340 for a theater style configuration in that room. So, when I heard Susan say there were about 9,000 attendees, I was wondering how many of them registered for one day passes or just Exhibit Hall passes? 

I've contacted ad:tech for a breakdown, and here it is from Warren Pickett:  "..we had over 9,000 pre-registered attendees (actually our final numbers were 10,000 pre-registered and 7,000 attendees that came through the doors).  The keynote room was actually set for 900.  Most of the 7,000 walk-in attendees were exhibit hall only attendees and we had more than 1000 full-conference attendees."  Since the Exhibit Hall was free up to 3/24/06 pre-registration ($75 thereafter), that explains the large numbers of total pre-registered attendees (10,000) missing from the keynote session room (it was still packed with SRO only, though).