« Previous post
Next post »

November 24, 2007

Follow Up To The Viral Video Post: Dan Wants Another Word

Michael Arrington

160 comments »

Dan Greenberg took a bit of a beating in his guest post earlier this week where he revealed his strategies for taking a client’s otherwise ho-hum video and making it go viral. Readers were incensed over his almost gleeful willingness to post fake discussions on forums between fake readers, pay bloggers to post videos, and other dishonest tactics. I, for one, agreed with most of those commenters.

He’s requested that we allow a follow up so that he can rephrase and clarify some of those statements. We agreed, and his follow up is below.

At one point Dan says “The original post was framed quite differently, but after going through the TechCrunch editorial filter, it ended up sounding like a tell-all about our shady business practices.” I am not aware of the edits that were made to his original post, but we are reviewing it now to see if any changes altered the original meaning. It is a fairly serious allegation, and we will follow up appropriately.

To all of who who’ve commented, positive and negative: thanks for being part of the first round of a much longer discussion.

The internet is changing, and it seems that my post has really struck a nerve. Hopefully we can use this as a jumping off point for an open discussion about the future of truth in advertising online. Whether we are talking about gaming strategies for YouTube videos, SEO strategies on Google, review optimization strategies on Yelp/Amazon, or any other behind the scenes guerrilla marketing that’s happening online, there is a lot to talk about.

The goal of the post was to pull back the curtain on some of the strategies/techniques that marketers are using online every day, on YouTube and beyond. The way I see it, if we can identify and understand the marketing strategies that are going on behind the scenes, we can move forward towards a more open, honest internet, where content truly does prevail.

I hope we can continue this discussion here on TC, on other blogs, on Facebook, and in person. Email me at dan @ thecomotiongroup dot com if you’d like to meet in person, chat via email, or on the phone.

That said, there were some facts in this post that I’d like to clarify. The post was intended to be a how-to for marketers on YouTube, morals aside, in an attempt to bring to light everything that could be (and is) going on on YouTube and beyond. However, I DO NOT EMPLOY OR ENDORSE ALL OF THE STRATEGIES USED IN THE POST. I’ve been holding myself back from responding to each and every commenter because I want to let this discussion play out on its own, but there are a few key things I’d like to clarify.

  1. We do NOT spam email lists. This would be an effective strategy, but unless you have a list of people who have opted in to receive email of that nature, it would be illegal.
  2. We do NOT pay off bloggers to post our videos as if they were real blog posts. Rather, we pay bloggers to embed clearly marked video ads in their sites, with no false endorsements of any kind. Again, it would be an effective strategy, but I don’t endorse it.
  3. We have NOT manipulated any of the comments in this post. (Though I do wish that all those deeply negative comments about me were actually fake.)
  4. We do NOT spam MySpace profiles or Facebook users. At least on MySpace, it’s against the TOS, and I don’t think it’s legal. On Facebook, yes, I often share our clients videos with friends, but only to share the cool videos we’ve made with people who care.

Again, this post was intended to be pulling back the curtain on everything that’s going on on YouTube, not specifically about what we do in our business.

The original post was framed quite differently, but after going through the TechCrunch editorial filter, it ended up sounding like a tell-all about our shady business practices.

In fact, most of our business consists of the creative content side of viral marketing campaigns: coming up with ideas for compelling campaigns, and shooting/editing videos. The core value we add to a viral campaign is that we come up with a concept that will truly go viral. The ideas presented here are only a way to ensure that the content gets an opportunity to actually be seen. And again, we do not engage in or endorse all of these strategies.

Finally, I want to thank all of you for participating in this discussion, particularly those of you who offered calm, reflective criticism of some of the techniques described in this post.

I’ll be posting a longer followup to this later on my blog, and I hope that we can all engage in a positive, constructive discussion about marketing, advertising, and the future of our interactions through the internet.

As we all continue to develop our thoughts and plans around internet marketing, it is important that we all many of these views into account, as I surely will.

Again, email me at dan @ thecomotiongroup dot com if you’d like to meet in person, chat via email, or on the phone.

Dan Ackerman Greenberg

CrunchBase Information
Dan Ackerman Greenberg
Information provided by CrunchBase
  • Sphere It

This entry was posted on Saturday, November 24th, 2007 at 7:11 pm and is filed under Company & Product Profiles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

  1. The Secret Strategies Behind Many “Viral” Videos

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:14 pm

  2. Follow Up To The Viral Video Post: Dan Wants Another Word  »TechAddress

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:30 pm

  3. Ogadei.com

    November 25th, 2007 at 7:11 pm

  4. that canadian girl

    November 26th, 2007 at 1:04 am

  5. Creating a viral marketing campaign - Wilkinson Fight for Kisses | Dipping into the Blogpond

    November 30th, 2007 at 4:42 am

  6. Christopher Herot's Weblog

    December 6th, 2007 at 10:32 am

  7. Ethics and Social Media | extreme webmaster evernerve

    February 13th, 2008 at 9:42 am

  8. Viral Marketing = Virulent Tactics? | PR for the People

    April 11th, 2008 at 7:09 am

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Gupaye

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:21 pm

    *sigh*

  2. StartupEarth

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:29 pm

    This clearly had quite an effect on Dan, but maybe the best damage limitation is to just let it die and move on?

  3. lawrence

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    ok Dan, we get it - you’re a good guy.
    you don’t have to justify yourself to the clown comments.

    It’s tough to market and promote anything new - guerilla marketing seizes every little nook to get the word out…even if it means stepping into the gray and black areas of promotion - lol, they just don’t openly admit it of course

    marketers almost seems like they’re in the same boat as salesmen - no matter how clean they are, they cannot wipe out the dirty image the public portrays them as

  4. Allen Stern

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    I don’t buy it. He is trying as hard as he can to reverse back as quickly as possible. In his first post he said, “I will share some of the techniques I use to do my job: to get at least 100,000 people to watch my clients’ “viral” videos.” - so how am I to know which of the techniques he used and which he didn’t? It appears from that comment that he used all of the ones he listed plus more that he hasn’t listed.

    Now he wants to become pure and claim something else? C’mon. I read his posts on NTV as well. Seems he is a bit worried/scared now. Now we should let him “lead” us on discussions in truth in advertising online? No freaking way. He says, “WE” many times during his initial post - and now we should believe his organization doesn’t utilize the things he says they do?

    It’s interesting that this post was actually in the comments on the original post but now is a fresh, new post.

    At least it got some awesome number of inbounds for TC (and I’m sure this one will too)! What’s unfortunate is that the post actually had a few good ideas about optimization but was overwhelmed with things that went WAY past the ethical line.

  5. chepo

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    he’s coming back for some more bashing and, hence, publicity. Smart dude.

  6. Dan Ackerman Greenberg

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:36 pm

    Mike - no one at TC is responsible in any way for this fiasco, I take full responsibility for allowing the post to go through as written. Yes, the post did go through the TC filter and the framing was shifted slightly, but in the end I was the one with the final editorial control.

    After receiving a draft back from your editors, on the heat of the excitement about getting a guest post on TechCrunch, I did not think through the serious implications of framing the post in a way that made it sound like I was employing all of these shady strategies, rather than as a tell-all of sorts about all marketers on YouTube.

    Mike - please do not think in any way that I am saying you or your editors are to blame for this confusion; they are not. If I had been more careful about re-editing my post, I would have been clearer about what we do vs. what everyone else is/could be doing. I did not intend to call anyone at TC out for manipulating my words. In fact, the post did read better - and was much more controversial - after TC’s edits. It was MY fault for not realizing that it skewed the purpose of the post.

    That said, thank you for allowing me to follow up on my last post, because I have been deeply distressed by the extremely negative comments about my character and ethics. I am NOT a spammer, and I pride myself in my moral character. Anyone who knows me can attest to this.

    Yes, we are effective video marketers, but we are not spammers. In most cases, our success is a direct result of our creativity in conceiving of and executing on a viral video campaign. In other words, our videos with 100,000 views are not “successes”; videos with millions of views are the successes we take pride in. This last post was meant to be an exercise in understanding all of the shady, behind the scenes tactics used by marketers on YouTube and beyond; it was not meant to indicate that WE use all of these strategies.

    Again, anyone who wants to continue this discussion outside of TC, email me at dan at thecomotiongroup.com, message me on Facebook, or call me.

    Dan Ackerman Greenberg

  7. aping context

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:36 pm

    What are you trying to tell us?

    Dan Greenberg wants to change the world. No one knows who he is. And….What does this have to do with web 2.0 or startup?

    Dan Ackerman Greenberg. Do yourself a favor… Don’t embrass yourself.

  8. Lee Stranahan

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    I think people are just sick of feeling like they are being lied to and manipulated behind the scenes - by big companies, by the government, by anyone. From the payola and game show scandals of the 1950s to the Iraq war, there’s a feeling of being cheated.

    And now you tell us that there may be a strategy behind Fat Kid With Lightsaber or Really Dumb Beauty Contestant? Oy.

  9. Bill

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn’t like it.

    I didn’t inhale and never tried it again

  10. casco viejo

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa (bis)

  11. donate car san jose

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:40 pm

    The viral video maven is BAAACK.

  12. Allen Stern

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:42 pm

    Dan - the best you can hope for now is a Miss South Carolina 15 mins of fame type deal :)

    What makes someone a spammer in your eyes Dan? As someone who runs a forum, if you came in and popped a video in and then started a conversation with yourself (under multiple accounts), I’d consider that spamming.

    Is this not spam - “Plenty of users allow you to embed YouTube videos right in the comments section of their MySpace pages.We take advantage of this.”

    Spamming friends on facebook not spamming?

    Which are the parts you don’t do Dan from your original post? Perhaps you could go over those.

    As #2 said - probably best to have let this die, take your blows and move on.

  13. William Cox

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:42 pm

    I was interested and shocked to read Dan’s first post. Some of his ideas were great and some seemed downright shady, but it seemed clear to me that his company used all those methods. There didn’t seem to be any indications it was a, “this is what COULD be done” type of post, instead of the, “here’s what WE DO” type of post.

    Now we get this embarrassing about-face (I think in politics we call it a flip-flop), and I’m not sure what to think. Perhaps I need to go back and re-read the original article. But, at least we need to give him some credit for being so willing to discuss this matter (email, phone, or in person - that’s brave).

    Also, a question for Michael - if you agreed with all the negative comments, then why did you let the post get put up in the first place?

  14. Lameduck

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    This is way off topic. This speaks louder than words.
    How could you get into this lameduck quacking?

  15. Sarah Meyers

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:50 pm

    @Allen Stern- Sadly I agree with your comment: “take your blows and move on.”

    @Dan maybe your company should make some core values. It could do wonders for your business relationships. I suggest including integrity.

  16. Alfredo Pasta

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:55 pm

    Dan,

    Dont sweat it so much man. Business is business. If it brings in money, doesn’t hurt anyone — and if there are customers out there willing to pay for it — its fair game.

    The commotion will go away with time, don’t worry about it too much cause then it’ll get bigger and bloggers will take note of it and write more stories on it. Just chill out, it’ll end soon :)

  17. fool

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:57 pm

    How many readers here waste their time reading this nonsense article?

  18. ansel

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:57 pm

    “The post was intended to be a how-to for marketers on YouTube, morals aside, in an attempt to bring to light everything that could be (and is) going on on YouTube and beyond. [my emphasis]”

    I think that says it all. Honest, ethical individuals don’t set their morals aside. You’re not helping yourself, Dan.

  19. Grouchogandhi

    November 24th, 2007 at 7:59 pm

    Oh just admit it… like you did already.

  20. bill mckay

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    “After receiving a draft back from your editors, on the heat of the excitement about getting a guest post on TechCrunch, I did not think through the serious implications of framing the post in a way that made it sound like I was employing all of these shady strategies, rather than as a tell-all of sorts about all marketers on YouTube.”

    So you got so excited about publicity you didn’t follow through and read your coverage carefully. Real professional there, mate. I’m sure your clients appreciate such detailed effort on your part.

  21. Axel

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:03 pm

    There’s something odd about uttering the phrase “truly go viral”, like you wouldn’t word it that way unless you were trying to game the system.

  22. Axel

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:10 pm

    And come to think of it, if a significant portion of the most popular by _natural_, non-gamed, views don’t get in the millions of views Dan tells his clients he can get for them, then if ANY video gets that many views, you know it’s been gamed, and the views numbers are not “real viral” numbers, but gamed viral numbers. If a video can’t get that many views on its own, it’s not that good. And if it’s not that good, was the marketing message which is the purpose of the video all that effective anyway? Just because something got a bajillion views doesn’t mean it entered the cultural subconscious or that people are going to remember in a week’s time.

  23. Gupaye

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:10 pm

    Bill, next time inhale. You wont be disappointed ;)

  24. Gupaye

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    also Bill, you don’t need too much at first. about 3 hits of premium herb and you’re good.

  25. American Hell

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:14 pm

    This doesn’t make any sense.

    Could this “clarification” that the principles you applied to get millions of views not have been stated in the comments to the original post?

    Even then, not all of the techniques that a lot of us find plain wrong have been disavowed - like fake conversations on forums and on YouTube.

    This follow-up post simply doesn’t ring true.

  26. johnny

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    With regards to spamming. If you post a fake article and start a discussion with yourself on a forum I don’t really see the problem. It is a win win situation for everyone. The forum gets more traffic from the post and the video gets shown. The myspace comment thing– users can deny comments. I believe that all of these are free game in the world of advertising.

  27. dopenkly

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    This whole thing cracks me up. It’s just hilarious:
    You’re either a diabolical advertising genius who has hatched a plan using Techcrunch and will soon be racking in tons of new clients per all the startups who read this blog.

    Or…

    You’re an advertising agency who failed to predict the negative impact that their smarmy self-promotion would cause. If that’s the case, you’re doomed to extinction. If an agency can’t control their own publicity, how could they possibly control anyone else’s?

    My money is on the first one. Stop playing with the readers for personal gain, while it’s funny… it’s kind of mean.

  28. damon

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    “allegation”, oh come on, you guys like to right controversial dirt, you even said so in one of your payperpost pieces, we are not that dumb, the fact that something gets a little “enquirer” treatment is nothing new here, “a fairly serious allegation”, what a joke

  29. damon

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    oh, a people “incensed” about fake comments, sheesh, what world are they living in?

  30. WhattheF

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    Maybe this guy forgot to also tell you about the fact that he employs extremely dubious practices of running “view bots” as well.. he games youtube by repeatedly loading the videos.. there are several bots out there that do this and it is akin to Alexa whacking (Veoh does this rampantly) , refreshing for impressions,click-fraud, or friend bots like http://www.tellyadder.com/ ….

    disgusting, destructive, and unethical.

    He also might wanna hire a PR person to bail his dumb immature ass out of this.. I guess he is learning a bit of hubris..

    Maybe Demitry from Veoh (who brags about copyright infringement) and he should form a new company together… maybe they could call it The Spontaneous Combustion Group..

  31. Jeff Crites

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    I have to side with Allen in post #4. The ‘truth in advertising’ comment is a red flag, in light of the deceptive nature of several of the techniques trumpeted in the first TC post. I think many of us will be left wondering if this second post truly clarifies things, or is it a result of blowback. I’m sure the blowback was felt through the halls and offices at Stanford, and didn’t sit very well with the higher ups.

    I wish Dan no ill will. He’s obviously a smart guy, and may be a decent guy as well. The thing is … and I wonder if it’s being taught in business school … you can be smart and decent and completely honest in the way you do business, and be very successful. And you never have to worry about the curtain crashing down around you.

  32. Beat Biondi

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:34 pm

    What a tool - flipflop I’m really a good guy I didn’t know I was just excited to be published for real after all my phony comments on blogs but I know all this cool stuff and helped all my clients and here’s how and now I’m sharing and we’ll have a discussion and seriously consider the meaning of all this. And I’m supposed to email you so you can explain what you really meant to say?

    Internet generation (and that’s most of us now), please get a grip and find a way to improve the world instead of providing more mindless distraction and consumption. You have never gotten out of high school cliques and gossip. At age 50 you will be sadder even than reality shows about aging rockers. You are worse than the old-fashioned media in your “work” to get the numbers. Your shiny social networking toys are pitiful attempts to like yourselves. tick tock.

  33. babozor

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    I don’t really understand what could could shock so deeply so many people…? Internet is just another way to market stuff, as tv, radio, newspaper and sometimes the marketing soup could seem filthy. I think quite courageous from Dan to make it public, how people make some common video “viral” stuff, and how marketers use the system to promote some videos.
    You can say whatever you want, we’re supposed to be web professionals and sometimes the techniques used don’t match our ethic but they definitely exist… no one is forcing you to use thm, but we have to be aware of it, to be able to recognise fake “viral” video promoted by professional marketers from real user-generated content.
    You have two choices: keep your blindfolds on and bash dan for his courageous coming-out (especially when he clearly mention his name and company) or be less naive and admit it exists and thank dan for giving us tips to clearly see the pushed viral stuff.

  34. Max Indelicato

    November 24th, 2007 at 8:51 pm

    Were none of you ever in your early 20’s, in college, and excited about a potentially career changing opportunity? And of you who were, did you ever make any mistakes along the way, directly or indirectly? Surely you have.

    We should all have the maturity to move on after this post. If he lied, oh well, it happens in this world - its a shame, but its true. If he’s telling the truth, then great, and bravo to him for putting forth the effort to see this through to its end.

    Please let the drama die out now.

  35. Jesse

    November 24th, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    I really just have one serious question for Dan…

    Was your company behind Technoviking?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqaW15tnbcw

    I would be heartbroken if that were so.

  36. DigMyPage

    November 24th, 2007 at 9:15 pm

    This was bound to happen. When there is an opportunity, somebody will surely take advantage of that. If Dan or his company had not done that, some other creative PR firm would have done that, or most probably is doing that. We all scream as much as we want, but the phenomenon Dan described is going to grow. At least now we know how YouTube videos become viral.

  37. Jeff

    November 24th, 2007 at 9:19 pm

    I really have to say though, it’s an eye opener for me.

  38. Beat Biondi

    November 24th, 2007 at 9:21 pm

    Yes, Max. Let the healing begin. Just excited college kids, learning how to manipulate the system. Nothing new here. tick tock.

    Stanford offers a course in Facebook? (see Dan’s opening paragraph in the first post)

    Cool. That’ll attract more of the best and brightest. Spam 2.0 - 3 credits.

    As I said, get a grip.

  39. Todd

    November 24th, 2007 at 9:31 pm

    Yay, more DramaCrunch

  40. Deva Hazarika

    November 24th, 2007 at 9:34 pm

    “it ended up sounding like a tell-all about our shady business practices.”

    Dan, your comments on the last post didn’t make it sound like you considered these practices shady:

    “What we do is grease the viral wheels. If that means commenting back and forth between fake users, who cares? It’s all about entertainment - we’re just making the whole experience entertaining, not just the video itself.”

    “Beyond commenting back and forth to make the comment thread more interesting on each video, what exactly do you guys find so morally wrong here?”

  41. KR

    November 24th, 2007 at 9:37 pm

    You should not judge Dan here. Its tough to market on the internet. Even though some of the strategies listed by him sound immoral or illegal I am sure most, if not all, of the companies follow some of these strategies themselves. Its time to accept that these things are happening and not just judge Dan and his company

    RK

    http://www.rentalandrealestate.com
    http://www.FreXper.com

  42. Steve Ballmer

    November 24th, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    Fake stuff, blogging, forum spamming are all immoral!

    http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

  43. Iraq has WMD

    November 24th, 2007 at 9:41 pm

    Michael Arrington, as you sit by and watch this slowly fade away, you’ve accomplished your goal, hey? Yes, your “goal”.

    To Dan’s initial post you write, “I will post a longer response to this later, but frankly I’m disgusted by this.” Yet, 400 comments later, you never followed up. You obviously helped steer the comments and then sat back and took notes and now relish the results of that thread’s comments as it heated up the i-world.

    Now you lead here with this posting;

    “Dan Greenberg took a bit of a beating in his guest post earlier this week where he revealed his strategies for taking a client’s otherwise ho-hum video and making it go viral. Readers were incensed over his almost gleeful willingness to post fake discussions on forums between fake readers, pay bloggers to post videos, and other dishonest tactics. I, for one, agreed with most of those commenters.”

    I, for one, agreed with most of those commenters? Paleaze.

    Signed,
    Sitting back & collecting

  44. Dan B

    November 24th, 2007 at 9:43 pm

    Dan I think you should actually NOT do a follow-up post on your blog. Your follow-up here was enough and the longer you try to drag this out, the more likely it is that you and your company will be connected to something shady (which I think people put on you and isn’t accurate). Opening yourself up to a full discussion and justification will just bring more negativity on you and you’ll find yourself in a never-ending back and forth with people who thrive on internet dialog (but wouldn’t dare give you a call on the phone). So just be wary.

    It’s like that movie…I can’t remember the name of it, but there’s this one key set of two lines:

    Man: “But I didn’t sleep with her. I’ll come out and tell everyone that.”
    Wife: “No. No. No. It doesn’t matter if you are guilty or not if you talk about it. Then no matter what, people will just remember that you were part of something sleazy.”

    So take a step back and give it a few days. Don’t engage people who e-mail you. Let it all die down. People are fickle, and people on the web are the worst of the extreme. I for one would love to see a nice big post on your blog about the facebook apps that the kids in your class did and what they’ve learned that we could learn from as well.

  45. Faramarz

    November 24th, 2007 at 9:45 pm

    Read Editorial process, drafts, mockups… Wow, I’m quite impressed how seriously you guys run this blog. Keep it up!

  46. Abracus

    November 24th, 2007 at 9:57 pm

    Michael you wrote:

    “I will post a longer response to this later, but frankly I’m disgusted by this.”

    When can we see that?

  47. Yelp Sucks

    November 24th, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    Dan you look silly….

    there was nothing wrong with your original post… just a bunch of holier than thou types who need to get over the fact that what may appear “natural” is in fact the product of clever marketing tactics.

    digg is manipulated
    google is manipulated (called SEO)
    facebook and myspace are manipulated

    this back peddling makes you look ridiculous.

  48. Beat Biondi

    November 24th, 2007 at 10:07 pm

    For Jeff and others for whom this was an eye opener:

    Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, where Dan studies:

    http://captology.stanford.edu/

    The key concepts of captology:

    http://captology.stanford.edu/.....apers.html

    One of those papers:

    Toward an Ethics of Persuasive Technology (PDF)
    This article shows why designing technologies with the intent to persuade has ethical consequences.

    which includes the following:

    “Some persuasive methods depend on persuaded par-
    ties not realizing they are being persuaded—or, more
    often, not realizing how they are being persuaded.
    We are far less likely to believe a car salesperson
    regarding the quality of a used car than we are to
    believe testimonials by people with no stake in per-
    suading us to buy it. Knowledge of the presence of
    persuasive mechanisms in a technology may sensitize
    users to them and decrease their efficacy. Therefore,
    in some cases, such knowledge might diminish the
    effectiveness of a generally positive persuasion. This
    reasoning led us to our design principle: The creators
    of a persuasive technology should disclose their
    motivations, methods, and intended outcomes,
    except when such disclosure would significantly
    undermine an otherwise ethical goal. ”

    (ethical as decided by the persuader, apparently)

    and

    Stanford “Web Credibility Guidelines” by B.J. Fogg, Dan’s professor

    http://www.webcredibility.org/.....index.html

  49. gary gonzales

    November 24th, 2007 at 10:13 pm

    Dan and TC smart move, more traffic, absolute joke. Kinda make me wonder if this wasn’t a setup in the first place. LMAO, LMAO LMAO.

    Dan there are more important things in life to worry about, that what these readers think. Quite frankly its almost a given that none of them can even afford your services anyway.

    Your business will go on, shady marketing tatics have been around before you and will continue even after you have left this place called earth.

    Remember use the web to do what it does best.

  50. ted

    November 24th, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    Bottom line is that phony buzz is as phony buzz does. Congrats on doing a good job for your clients. People were basically induced into watching a commercial, so what? Nothing remarkable about it, but remember that goes for the client’s long-term value as well.

  51. Dol Karuanberg

    November 24th, 2007 at 10:24 pm

    Wow. Dan Ackerman Greenberg. What a douchebag.

    I wish people like him did something else for a career and left the web alone: it’s because of turds like him I won’t be able to enjoy (what looks like) the next Numa Numa, knowing that an arse-raping dollar-seeking forum-spamming monkey is behind that video.

  52. Russ

    November 24th, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    Hey you all enjoying throwing stones? Having fun picking apart a post? Let me just say that its easier to attack than to put something out there.
    Grey - there are many shades, how often do all of you walk the PC straight and narrow everyday?
    While I think some of the things Dan suggested were over the line for me personally, but I think that some of the ideas were fair.
    Heck I’ve heard that Yelp began with paid recommendations, do they get the wrath of TC?
    We all know that iLike and others used “black hat” (used loosely) to game the FB system, how many of us still use the service?
    Fair criticism is reasonable, and part of the process that Dan subscribed to by writing the post. But give him some props for admitting his mistakes and making an effort to reconcile, its not like he’ll be driving up his stock price through this effort…….

  53. Beat Biondi

    November 24th, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    And as an antidote to Dan’s “If that means commenting back and forth between fake users, who cares? It’s all about entertainment - we’re just making the whole experience entertaining” -

    http://www.socialsignal.com/soul-of-the-internet

  54. Rob

    November 24th, 2007 at 10:34 pm

    Guys like Dan is precisely why we see a plethora of crap quality content dominate top charts on Facebook and youtube. Did we ever believe that 10 top apps listed on Facebook are what the users want to see listed? No but Guys like Dan and alike know that users don’t matter as long as they are pocketing.

    Hey Dan, buddy, send over your Stanford degree so that I can put it to real use and give my ass a nice wipe with it.

  55. James

    November 24th, 2007 at 10:59 pm

    hahahaha! look at what happened. poor dan. you really blew yourself up there. dan, you are what is disgusting about the internet. you are what destroys the fun and real involvement in the environment some label as web 2.0.

    good job writing a tell-all about marketing tactics to people who come to a site to read about the latest news in the tech industry. you’re REALLY smart.

  56. nemrut

    November 24th, 2007 at 11:05 pm

    Dan, you lost credibility with your follow-up post. Not only is it obvious that youre trying to cover up your tracks, but the tone of your follow-up shows someone with their tail between their legs. Such a sharp contrast to the bravado and ‘look-how-clever-we-are’ tone of your original post.

  57. DanNotTheMan

    November 24th, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    Dan Greenberg stole users from my early classifieds startup, this was while he was working with SUpost. Apparently he would target my registered users and later add them as his friends on facebook and ask them to join SUpost- stating it was a better site.

    I confronted Greg- the founder of SUpost and he apologized on behalf of Dan for his un-orthadox practices. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

  58. DP

    November 24th, 2007 at 11:22 pm

    And yet, the original post is exact reason why I will consider using his services - c’mon guys, if you hire bodyguard, you will choose someone that has no fear of guns, right?

    I have no problem if he uses shady techniques as long as I get right results.

    @Dan: I am counting on some serious discounts after this words, lol. Will contact you soon :)

  59. Peter Corbett

    November 24th, 2007 at 11:50 pm

    Now all we need is someone to design an ultra-funny t-shirt on cafepress that encapsulates this whole TCdrama. I promise to buy it if it’s cool enough. For serious!

    http://www.twitter.com/corbett3000

  60. Josh

    November 24th, 2007 at 11:51 pm

    These tactics are gut wrenching. What a horrible display of lack of empathy for all of us who believe that Internet was built on top of core values that put people first.

    One positive thing about all this is that his name along with his sleazy tactics will be embedded into the internet archives for a very long time. I wish him good luck with his career growth.

  61. Beat Biondi

    November 24th, 2007 at 11:54 pm

    #57 - that’s a Dan post for sure. Boring. This little Stanford class exercise has about run its course.

  62. Shane

    November 24th, 2007 at 11:54 pm

    @Josh- His career will be just fine.

  63. Josh

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:04 am

    Shane,

    Well maybe at Cubics or similar third grade startups. Most serious companies that are built to last do care about ethics, and Josh displays serious lack of some pretty basic ones, like honesty.

  64. techguy

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:06 am

    So, “most of our business consists of the creative content side of viral marketing campaigns”

    but you said in the original post

    “Content is NOT King”

    Well, something doesn’t match. However, I appreciate the information you shared. It’s enlightening regardless of you in particular.

  65. David Lane

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:08 am

    People have been fired for far less serious incidents at places I worked at. This guy’s only chance is at a self founded startup. Considering the track record, it seems like it won’t be long before Dan eventually crosses legal boundaries and finds himself behind bars… I hope it doesn’t get to this however.

  66. Beat Biondi

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:09 am

    #62 - “Josh displays serious lack…”, in a post written by Josh? Don’t you mean Dan?

    Dan, I think you are losing track of your comment characters. Get some sleep.

  67. Shane

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:12 am

    Josh,
    You’re telling me media companies (with or without a soul) wouldn’t consider his systematic approach to marketing when hiring. Ethics aside, it took thought.
    At the very least he’s a media personality now. If I were him, talk show would be my best bet.

    Disclaimer- Dan is a friend of mine. And here’s a shocker, he’s actually a good, decent guy caught up in a media storm. Let me ask you, what have you put out into the world that has actually gained traction, through honest means or not? Seriously Josh, post a link and stop throwing piss anonymously.

  68. Josh

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:20 am

    Beat, Thanks. That was a typo. I wish I could say Dan had made a human mistake that can be dismissed as a a typo, but I think way too many people here got offended by his post.

  69. lady

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:31 am

    this is insane!

  70. Shane

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:32 am

    Here’s an idea. How about from now on, anyone who wants to throw stones at this guy post a link to their startup/venture/facebook app that has garnered more eyeballs than Dan’s little Youtube marketing scheme, and then we can all judge who’s the holiest marketer around.

    First up…”Josh”:

  71. Michael Arrington

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:35 am

    Shane - get out of the conversation until you decide to follow your own rules.

    Dan’s learning a lesson here - one that I learned myself through TechCrunch comments. You can’t will the crowd to your way of thinking. You can either bend to their will or you can carry on doing what you want. Everyone out there in the world isn’t going to like you.

  72. Shane

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:37 am

    Mike, I’m not throwing stones.

  73. blah

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:48 am

    Why are we discussing some d-bag and his shitty, online marketing techniques when we have people across the fucking globe worrying about where their next meal will come from? Lets put things in perspective.

  74. Jesse

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:51 am

    I agree that this second post from Dan was unneeded. I don’t see what the big deal is. Dan isn’t breaking any laws regardless of how “dishonest” these marketing techniques are. These aren’t even innovative! They are just tedious tasks that require time, which is exactly why you would want to pay someone else to do it for you. If it is against a site’s TOS, then it is their responsibility to enforce it themselves. Marketing is what gets Britney Spears to the top while the real talent is stuck in the church chior.

  75. Jesse

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:54 am

    …because daddy won’t let you wear mini-skirts. Jessica Simpson excluded.

    -sorry just had to add that :)

  76. Beat Biondi

    November 25th, 2007 at 12:55 am

    So which is it Michael - just a matter of learning that not everybody is going to like you, or something you wrote in the top of this post:

    “Readers were incensed over his almost gleeful willingness to post fake discussions on forums between fake readers, pay bloggers to post videos, and other dishonest tactics. I, for one, agreed with most of those commenters.”

    The fact that he, and you by publishing it, tried to present this gleeful dishonesty and get over with it. Now you are getting sanctimonious with a simplistic kindergarten lesson? Do you agree with the criticism or not? Where is your longer reaction?

  77. www.CARversation.com

    November 25th, 2007 at 1:00 am

    sorry Dan, no one likes you or will, just let it die down you spammer.

  78. imma

    November 25th, 2007 at 1:11 am

    so Dan’s sort of sorry / didn’t mean it to sound like it did
    is techcrunch sorry for publishing? *grins*

  79. Michael Arrington

    November 25th, 2007 at 1:26 am

    Hey, I’m glad this was published. Like I said in the comments to the original post, I think it should have been anonymous and not linked back to Dan’s site, though. I think Dan now thinks so, too.

    The reason why it wasn’t published anonymously is that our writers have autonomy to post what they like. We occasionally edit after the fact to, say, improve the writing, but once Dan’s name and link was out there, removing it was pointless.

    My longer response never came because quite honestly I took Thanksgiving off and moved on to other things. Besides the conversation progressed just fine without my additional input.

  80. royston

    November 25th, 2007 at 1:49 am

    give it to dan.. he really knows how to go viral.. look @ these two blog posts. I haven’t seen so many comments here in ages. wldn’t be surprised if TC collaborated w Dan 2 create this “controversial” post

  81. American Hell

    November 25th, 2007 at 1:51 am

    Shane,

    Are you suggesting that we have to have a startup/venture/facebook app in order to be entitled to throw stones?

    Do I now have to actually make movies also when I want to criticize them or how they’re marketed?

  82. elegance

    November 25th, 2007 at 1:52 am

    Its really funny I have a good friend with very high morals and he is also a SEO. He considers all his techniques to be white hat, yet Google have come out and said NO to buying links, he’s been buying likes for his clients for a long time. So is he a black hat now? accordingly so. Dan is a black hat, you are a black hat, I am a black hat, were all black hats whether we know it or not!

    Content is not king on the internet. You can spend your life making great content and I can assure you no one will give a shit. What counts in the end is how many pages you have in the Google index, how relevant they are to the markets demands and how much Trust (links) you have acquired.

    Though TC has a loyal set of hard core readers, it’s core traffic comes directly from google search, and mostly they steal the thunder of the new wanaby startups that are doing their own marketing. That could also be considered black hat to some whether MA and ‘intended’ to steal anything or not…

  83. Raoul Teeuwen

    November 25th, 2007 at 4:03 am

    Hi Dan. I think it’s great people showing what it going on behind the curtains, so thanks for that insight! Now we only have to hope it is a true story (which i do for now), since you never know :-)…

  84. k3nt

    November 25th, 2007 at 4:43 am

    I’m sort of with elegance..How did all the big name bloggers get their traffic? Was it not by friending other bloggers, leaving comments on other blogs, link backs from friends and associates, forum posts, using key words and meta tags? Was that not as calculated and viral as Dan’s efforts? Are you telling us, Mike, that you made no effort to get recognition?

  85. francois Covillard

    November 25th, 2007 at 5:39 am

    “Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn’t. “

  86. Eric Rdz

    November 25th, 2007 at 6:42 am

    Dan:

    Wow !!! What a hot discussion !!!!

    Besides all this Internet Marketing Ethics debate. One point is missing.

    What’s the role of offline tools to make Viral Marketing Online more powerful ?

    My point:

    Viral Marketing 100% online is not enough to make a really sucessful Online Brand Campaign.

    I mean, simply there is too much noise in sites like YouTube that it´s almost impossible to get the Brand Message noticed in the crowd for very long.

    and YES, INTERNET MARKETING MUST BE 100 % HONEST

    Best

  87. D. Himes

    November 25th, 2007 at 6:58 am

    I’m surprised by how many people are surprised that these techniques are used. In discussion forums, fake users jump in to talk about some great product they found (and usually another fake user says, “Thanks.”). I discovered this when I replied to one, commenting for all to see that the level of sophistication of the recommended content was well below the level needed (I am somewhat of an “expert” in the field).

    There are certainly reviews on Amazon that are suspicious.

    A lot of it is similar, in concept anyway, to having a paid model on a tv ad say, “I love this product.”

  88. Sprague

    November 25th, 2007 at 6:59 am

    As Michael says, this is a great big learning experience for Dan — but it’s also a sign of the immaturity of the online marketing space. Maybe it’s time for an industry oversight group, like the ASA in Europe, to start coming up with guidelines that marketers must adhere to when promoting their stuff online.

    As the negative blowback here shows, it’s in the marketer’s best interest…

  89. Gustav

    November 25th, 2007 at 7:05 am

    Nice post- very interesting to see how these things work. I’m not sure I totally buy what he is selling, but I do appreciate the followup.

    @39- dramacrunch, lol.

  90. Big Tone

    November 25th, 2007 at 7:13 am

    As I read thru Dan’s second post, I noticed the words “Drink Coca Cola” flash on my screen a couple of times. I also noticed a bucket of popcorn…I think. Is there any way that TC and Dan are testing out a subliminal messaging system on us?

    I am hungry.

  91. Shubham

    November 25th, 2007 at 7:29 am

    Well ! Seems like the line between ethics and marketing is murky. The ultimate aim of a marketeer is to get to the maximum number of people …. and the means employed — passing on flyers at a train station, starting controversial conversations about your products in a tv ad, bumping up view numbers on you tube, product placement (pepsi CEO a while back had a marketing coup when he got a US president to drink pepsi on tv) — tread that fine line.

    In traditional media, a lot of the spam and ethic-challenging techniques are considered effective. And while, I detest spam and i think as a marketeer, its downright ineffective for legitimate businesses these days, getting to more people and enabling conversations about it … is key to selling the products. So what Dan does works, morals aside, probably works. And I am guessing he’s just doing things online, that a whole bunch of successful marketeers have done in brick and mortar environments.

  92. Chris

    November 25th, 2007 at 7:55 am

    Dan Ackerman Greenberg = Victor Conti
    Comotion = BALCO
    Whatever shit you promote = Barry Bonds

    The club is growing, have a seat. PayPerPost, SEO, baseball players juicing up, spam, teachers helping students cheat. Those cadres are small but those inside are great at self-delusion and have marvelously designed towers of self-reinforcement.

    So what if the crowd can sniff out your bullshit. Tough shit. You’ve got some extra benjamins in your pocket, have fun. Just man up and admit you are a cheater.

  93. Dave Q

    November 25th, 2007 at 8:03 am

    Wow, Dan doesn’t need to defend himself. He really knows how to go viral. He’s demonstrating it right before our very eyes.

  94. Big Tone

    November 25th, 2007 at 8:15 am

    starting to look like a stock message board here

  95. Ray Burt

    November 25th, 2007 at 8:18 am

    The sanctimounious comments here no no bounds!

    Dan did the community a great favor..he shared the business practices that are gong on.

    We are all better off knowing them.

    And, even if Dan doesn’t do all of these things, it’s clear others do.

    It’s just a healthy reminder never, never believe everything you read: not rankings, postings, blogs, newspapers, company websites.

    You can believe this comment though.

  96. indiworks

    November 25th, 2007 at 8:29 am

    To all those who think that marketing and promotion have to be done in ways as suggested by the original post and to all those who say no one should be surprised that this is how it is done:

    • I am not a marketing expert, but from what I read in the comments and from what I happen to know there are many successful marketing/advertising businesses that would never consider using the grey area methods described in the original post (by the way: it seems that from December 31 2007 onwards faking online posts like a fake happy customer praising a product will be illegal at least in the UK, probably just a matter of time until others will follow..)

    • Do you people care about democracy…? One vote per person and all votes are equal…? Would it be OK to to buy votes (=clicks…)…? Would it be OK to have people say party X is better than party Y but in fact they don’t mean what they say because they just got paid to say it…?

    Do you people care about fair play in sports…? Is it OK if some athletes perform better than others not because they are better but because they dope themselves…?

    I knew of course that individuals and companies were gaming sites like YouTube, the techniques described seemed like “common sense” to me from a spammers point of view. I was only astonished about how successful those methods are - if of course what the authors claims to have achieved is indeed true. (And after reading more from him in the comments I am not so sure any more…)

    What I found and still find shocking is just how quickly some people or companies are willing to give up basic principles of fairness, basic democratic principles, when it comes to making money and just how shamelessly they tell you that you’d better accept the fact that money can buy anything and that’s just the way it is…

    Of course you can buy many things with money, of course spam works, of course you can game sites like YouTube. But: should we do that…? Just like in elections: should we manipulate votes…? Or in sports: should athletes dope themselves…?

    For me it is a question of being able to look in the mirror every morning. I’d rather have what I hope is high quality alternative online video content that I promote in all fairness and maybe only reach a smaller audience - but reach those who want to see what I offer, those who care about my content - than having a “viral” hit that does not mean anything in the end because

    ** its wonderful performance is just the result of some spammer’s work **

    ** it is just as insignificant as the athlete who wins a gold medal for his performance and then has to give it back once the true cause for his great performance comes out. **

    I don’t want to be in that athletes position the day after he has to give back his gold medal. I don’t want to have to look in my mirror the morning after that!

    It is true that cheating, lying and faking brings you many advantages - at least in the short run. And maybe it’ll even work out in the long run. But:

    - don’t expect others to like you and your business practices and

    - don’t be astonished when one day it will all just crumble and you and all the others can see what your real achievements are… It won’t be a happy day.

    Oh…, and once the money is gone you might find that many good friends and all your good contacts are gone too. Good luck - maybe you’ll understand then why it matters so much to others to play fair…

  97. Amanda Kelso

    November 25th, 2007 at 8:34 am

    I think Dan points to tactics that are, for the most part, no different than what is being employed for SEO on websites — it is just about viral videos instead. The biggest concern for marketers in this space is to not alienate their consumer base by using unsavory engagement tactics, or not being transparent in their approach.

    This is a great resource for marketers who are interested in learning about how to be ethical and transparent when they engage in new online media seeding tactics.
    http://www.womma.org/ethics/

  98. Jenny Young

    November 25th, 2007 at 8:45 am

    I’m just annoyed that Dan hasn’t replied to my emails. So much for being able to contact you.

  99. E.T.Cook

    November 25th, 2007 at 9:12 am

    #95 is right on the money. We all employ some shady practice in our day to day operation, whether it be some of the business practices we employ, or something as simple as the overestimation of a donation on your tax return…but the public as a whole LOVES to scapegoat and hang an individual as a result of their judgement of his moral “turpitude”. It makes people feel better about themselves; their indignant attitude proof positive of their self-righteousness.

    What if Dan did employ these tactics? Have you ever utilized a contact that you shouldn’t have? Have you ever used information that you shouldn’t have? Have you ever made your firm look bigger than it really was in an appeal for a contract? I know that I will get a truckload of individuals that will now comment back, shouting at the top of their lungs “I haven’t”. And maybe so…maybe you personally are our gateway to moral clarity…but I would bet not. Leave the man alone, and give him the benefit of the doubt…wouldn’t you want to be treated the