Post Updated See End of Post
If you read TechCrunch, you may have noticed a post this weekend about Blueprint Cleanse, a health product designed to cleanse your body. On the surface, the piece seemed to be a “California” lifestyle piece, however, after doing a bit of research it turns out there’s a lot more intrigue, questionable journalistic ethics, and deception involved here.
This post is a bit long, but I promise if you stick all the way through till the end, I’m going to prove that Sarah Lacy lied about having paid for the cleanse product she blogged about about AND that TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington was romantically involved with a woman whose younger sister worked at the same cleanse product company.
In a July 25th post on TechCrunch, Sarah Lacy goes on and on about the values of “cleansing” and how she is getting various people around the TechCrunch office to try the product. At the bottom of the post you’ll see this disclaimer:
Disclosure: The company is sending out free samples of the product to press in California, including us, this week. I and others at TechCrunch have paid full price for this product in the past.
Issue 1: While the post may have a human readable disclosure, there is definitely a straight link which passes page rank, and is in violation of Google’s guidelines on sponsored posts (see bottom of the post for more on this).
Issue 2: The disclosure that she has paid for the product in the past is a lie …
For the real story, we’re going to have to go back to a March 16th post on Sarah Lacy’s blog called spring cleaning. In that post, she mentions she has three objections to the same product, the third being the one we’re concerned with:
Third: It’s $85 a day for people outside of New York! We’re in a depression if you hadn’t noticed. I had to take another job just to justify buying a Kindle.
However, further down the post she addresses that concern saying the company gave it to her for free:
Three: They comped my first cleanse.
This statement is a direct contradiction of her disclaimer on TechCrunch where she stated she paid for the product. Now, of course, it is entirely possible that the first one was comped and she bought another batch in the middle. However, Sarah takes that possibility out of the equation in her TechCrunch post:
I know what you’re thinking, because I used to think the same thing. I am a meat-loving Southern girl. Add in being a writer, and that means I drink more than I should too. I am the last person who ever thought she’d be doing a juice cleanse. I tried Blueprint out of pure desperation. A bout with pneumonia last year meant anytime I traveled or pulled an all-nighter I got sick. That’s obviously untenable given I’m writing a book about emerging markets and on a 10-plus hour flight every month. After just one three-day cleanse I felt healthier than I had in two years. Four months later, I haven’t so much as had the sniffles.
Again she’s admitting (emphasis mine) that she had one prior cleansing four months ago, which matches with the March date of her first post. So which is it, Sarah? Were you lying in your first post that you got it for free, or were you lying in your second post where you said you paid for it?
Should you think I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill, this isn’t the first time Sarah has been hypocritical in her journalistic ethics. On May 6, Sarah wrote a post titled News Flash: Paying for Coverage Is Still “Taboo” where she said:
There is no time during my life on planet earth or beyond that I will *ever* consider accepting payment for coverage. There is no circumstance or situation where I will respect a journalist who does, especially if the details of that conflict aren’t clearly disclosed. P.E.R.I.O.D.
Now, guess who went on an all expense paid trip to London with a bunch of bloggers in exchange for “coverage” on TechCrunch … Sarah Lacy. So, again, which is it, Sarah? Is paying for coverage wrong, but accepting free travel worth thousands of dollars OK? Or is it only wrong when everyone except you and your A-list blogging buddies like Robert Scoble do it? If you’re looking to get a link … post … umm… coverage from Sarah Lacy or TechCrunch, with prices starting as low as $85 (the cost of cleanse), that’s likely to be cheapest and most effective link you’ll ever buy.
To bring this full circle, and connect all the dots, one of the other bloggers on this free “sponsored coverage” London trip was Megan Asha (friend of blogging socialite Julia Allison). Megan has a younger sister who … (wait for it) … works at the exact same cleanse company that Sarah wrote the “sponsored post” for on TechCrunch. The icing on the cake here is, Megan (who’s sister works for the cleanse company) is, according to Valleywag, the on-and-off girlfriend of Michael Arrington. If this entire thing isn’t a textbook definition of “conflict of interest” I don’t know what is. If you don’t think any of this is a problem, let me rewrite the TechCrunch disclaimer to more accurately reflect the facts:
Disclosure: The company is sending out free samples of the product to press in California, including us, this week. I got mine for free three months ago but I’m totally going to lie to you and tell you that I paid for it. Additionally our founder Michael Arrington was romantically involved with a woman whose sister now works at this company. But really, this is all on the up, and up … honest guys …
In the past, sponsored posts were only done by “off the radar” bloggers for $25 or less a post. However, they’ve now grown up and matured. Today these types of backroom dealings are being done by PR agencies, in flagrant violation of Google guidelines, and without regard for journalistic ethics or integrity. It seems Google only likes to dole out penalties on the unknown bloggers, while A-listers remain untouchable.
While these types of arrangements may be very common in the print and magazine world, online they are a bit more problematic. For most anyone other than TechCrunch or the Internet elite, sponsored posts are 100 percent against Google’s guidelines and can result in a Web site being penalized, banned or even removed from Google entirely. Here’s a quote from Matt Cutt’s, the head of Google’s webspam team on sponsored posts:
Clear disclosure of sponsorship is critical, and that includes disclosure for search engines. If link in a paid post would affect search engines, that link should not pass PageRank (e.g. by using the nofollow attribute). Google — and other search engines — do take action which can include demoting sites that sell links that pass PageRank, for example.
Two things need to change:
- Bloggers you need to decide to you want to be journalists or bloggers? Journalists are held to a higher standard of ethics, which they are required to follow all the time. They don’t make an exception if it helps bolster their career, if someone is giving them something really cool, or even if it’s a gift they really want. They also don’t have a selective memory when it comes to disclosure.
- Google needs to be consistent in it’s sponsored posts penalties and reactions. I understand that dropping the hammer on Sarah Lacy, TechCrunch, or Scoble is going to get you some negative press, but the rules are the rules, and if you don’t enforce them equally, you look like you are profiling or playing favorites. For Sarah Lacy to claim she had no idea about sponsored posts, when she wrote an article about pay per post penalties, is laughable.
UPDATE: 2/5
So it appears there was an incident about an intern taking laptops in exchange for coverage over on techcrunch, the intern was fired and has offered an official apology. I find it amusing how the tech community finds this outlandish, but ignored the entire colon cleansing issue. Maybe they really do need that cleanser cause this two tiered justice is full of ….
PS: should any of the posts in question go missing or you not see the text, here are screen caps of the originals, yeah I’ve done this before and know how these things go down.
image credit: (cc) Shashi Bellamkonda www.shashi.name and www.solutionsarepower.com.
Related posts:- Dear Michael Arrington Please Save Techcrunch Before it’s Too Late The following is an open letter to Michael Arrington owner...
- Techcrunch Scared of Google and Caves in Like a School Girl Don’t think Google’s war on paid links has an effect...
- Using Sponsored Blog Themes For Reputation Management This is the second time I’ve encountered this technique in...
See my disclaimer about advertising and affiliate links
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 75 comments… read them below or add one }
Isn’t this a FTC violation?
Michael,
Thanks again for spending the time to compile the information for the post…
The one thing that sticks out the most for me, is how much credibility can people have when they are being compensated for writings and reviews. At least Billy Mays was up front about being a pitchman, he was authentic about it, and as such, I would probably buy the products he sold if I needed them, but what Sarah is doing, not a chance..
I think we are well enough into the Internet/Google age, that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and as such, their sites should be penalized as I don’t think they have been living under a rock this whole time, and to claim to have the pulse on technology, but not know about the frowning upon of paid posts seems to be a bit of a stretch of the imagination.
I don’t have a problem with sponsored post, i would just like disclosure, I like it when people get paid for their honest thoughts and ideas. I hate it when they get paid for their lies and deceit. And I am sure its easy for folks like Ms. Lacey to play the whole ignorant blogger type, except for the fact that she pretends to be better than that. Heralding herself as someone who came from professional journalism to work on the web. It is another slap in the face to the web writing industry and she should be absolutely embarrassment at her lack of ethics, complete arrogance, and unmitigated unprofessional behavior. In a way shes no worst than the pampered valley VC suckers that would rather goof off versus put in a hard days work.
Great Post Michael , you did very Strong research on the subject ,you could be a good detective . Where were you before you started doing SEO , FBI ??? I really liked it
I really hate it when blogs I like pull the kind of crap that is now consistently happening at TechCrunch. It’s like reaching for the carton of your favorite soy milk (mine is organic Vanilla Silk) only to find it’s gone bad. You really like it a lot, and you’re in the mood for it right at that moment, but having to drink “around the clotted lumps” is just gross.
That’s how I feel about TechCrunch lately. I really like some of the articles – and some of the authors are stand-up kinda people. Yet there are too many of those clotted lumps to have to drink around nowadays. For a while it wasn’t so bad, because drinking around clotted lumps at first is much less taxing than having to get dressed, drive to the market and buy a new carton.
Now there’s just too many of them to be acceptable, even to a lazy bastard like me.
Seriously though – Sarah “might” try to deny the whole thing eventually. She could claim that even though you “interpreted” her description of her first go with the product as meaning she hadn’t paid for any subsequent supply, but that in fact, she had paid, and just not gone into that much detail in her blog reference.
The problem with that scenario is all the other red flags you’ve pointed out. There’s a saying when it comes to coincidences – that “there are no coincidences”.
Everything you pointed out about this particular article at the very least “smells” like clotting lumps.
The whole sponsored “traveling geeks blogging tour” thing is one big clotted lump
The cumulative instances across TechCrunch in general – including their repeated theft of Flickr photos all on it’s own are clotted lumps.
So as far as I’m concerned, she can (and probably won’t) try to change her story, but doing so won’t be able to compensate for the accumulation of clotted lumps.
Thanks for another great investigative article Michael. I’m going to go and puke now.
Thank you.
Thanks for posting this, Michael. Personally, I have no issues with sponsored posts so long as there is disclosure of some sort…however subtle it may be. This is a blatant violation of Google’s paid links policy, and it’s about time somebody brought this to the attention of the masses. Google’s double standard on paid links and A-list bloggers is nothing short of hypocritical. Frankly, I’m surprised that Matt Cutts hasn’t dealt with this; his silence on the matter speaks volumes.
Perhaps Google is afraid of the bad press they would get if they did choose to make an example of a site with the reach of Techcrunch? I mentioned this in the chatroom on Webmaster Radio the other night, while Sara was on the air speaking about the Yahoo/Bing deal. Naturally, my question to her went unanswered. This is an excellent piece of investigative journalism, Michael. Well done, sir.
The point is that Google normally penalizes blogs with dofollow links on sponsored posts ( see Matt Cutt’s post on paid links that pass PageRank ), but here, TechCrunch is apparently too big and can’t be penalized like “the others” …
If Google hates paid reviews because they are a danger for AdWords, then they must penalize every site using these practices, even if it’s a big one like TechCrunch . That’s what we call transparency .
Or Google has simply to allow MODERATED links selling .
people get free products all the time and then write their reviews about them… Now if she was getting a commission per sale for every product purchased from a link on her site, I would thats a problem, but that is not what is happening.
@lame dood however the problem is google considers that a paid link/sponsored post and they ban/penalize websites for doing it
@lame dood – in that case no probs she could have just dropped and affiliate link, with a nofollow and we wouldnt give a damn – however that would be aginst FTC guidelines and a disclosure would still be appropriate.
Great post. Really nails a lot of the issues I have with Sarah Lacey. Her ethics have always seemed very questionable. IMO, I am amazed she is able to garner a modicum of respect in this industry, period.
As a blogger who has posted some sponsored reviews on her own blogs, this makes me angry. Ethically, I can’t see how someone can make a CYA disclosure statement to satisfy the FTC and then lie in that disclosure statement! Own up, Sarah. You got free stuff. You posted about it. It’s been happening for years. (Do you think Michael Jordan pays for his own underwear and sneakers?) Bloggers are just the newest players in the game. If someone like me can own up to getting some free sunglasses and snack foods, why can’t Sarah Lacy just admit she got the cleanse kit for free? Oh right. That whole paid link thing with Google. The link would have to be nofollowed like the rest of us ethical bloggers do.
I’m just a small fish in the blogger pond. I hate it when the big fish get to play by a second set of rules. Then again, I suppose it doesn’t mean they won’t get caught. And gutted, to take the metaphor to an uncomfortable place.
I couldn’t have put it better myself Christina. It’s all about the second set of rules for me too. Sickening.
You have spun the story though – for your own agenda (because whilst it looks likely the disclaimer is innacurate calling it a sponsored post is a matter of off-the-wall interpretation).
Personally I’d put spin like that up there at the top of the list of “unethical” things.
just saying…
@errant again in google’s eyes this is what constitutes a sponsored post. It can be cash but also cash in kind products or services
Great post Michael, I also believe that consistency is needed along with online content creating personalities to pick a side, blogger or journalist? I have written up a post in reply to yours, http://www.echwa.com/consistency-and-transperancy/
Disgusting.
Stop making assumptions and presenting them as facts.
“Three: They comped my _first_ cleanse.” –
She could have liked it enough and paid for the product. This being the point of free samples.
Your third point sounds disgustingly tabloid-esque (especially since your source is a gossip site). Your use of punctuation makes it seem more like sensational journalism than fact.
Your second point about her accepting the free trip has some merit. I could attempt to justify it for her, but it does seem contradictory to her post.
I’m not saying that she is innocent, but your “facts” need work.
Michael,
You’ve completely exposed her for what she is: a paid shill. I’ve noticed her posts on TC and every one of them was shady. They were all out of place there for some reason and were empty of any substance. Now we know why: she gets paid to cover nonsense!
Brilliant exposé! Keep on doing what you do best!
So its OK to out people now? When did that change?
She outed herself in her disclosure. The only problem is it appears the LIED in that disclosure. I don’t think anyone’s ever been against outing liars & people publishing misinformation.
Hi. I was just sent a link to this by a friend in London who, like me, is a friend of Sarah’s. I wasn’t going to dignify it with a response but it’s so inaccurate that you’ve forced.my hand.
1) sarah has done the juice cleanse numerous times, paying full price. You totally misinterpreted her statement that she felt better after just one. Clearly she means thY’s all it took to feel better.
2) I hosted Sarah’s second week in london. She remained in town for a week after the travelling geeks had left, totally at her own expense to do the Techcrunch reporting.
3) arrington was encouraged to try the cleanse by sarah, not the other way around. I’m trying it this week too. It sounds lime hokum to me but I’m open minded.
I dont know who you are – and don’t care – but this post is dripping with agenda, speculation and nonsense.
Leave the reporting to reporters, Bernstein.
P
@paul carr
1) she still failed to disclose that she got the first one free if she did in fact pay for subsequent cleanses
2) yes but what about the first week blogging for coverage exactly what she said she wasnt doing
3) no disclosure of arrignton relationship to meghan, sarah’s relationship to meghan or the sister who works at the company
since you guys chose to omit half of the facts calling yourself reporters is laughable
Wow Mr. Carr,
Aren’t playground taunts the refuge of he-who-cannot-support-his-assertions?
Yeah, sure – I know you are but what am I?
In terms of ethics, TC has been stepping on a lot of dicks lately and they are due for an Icarian fall. OK I guess that was a mixed metaphor, but I’ll play it as it lies.
As far as I am concerned what she did should not be penalized by Google in any way. Nor should other site owners for doing the same. The problem is also not about how Google may or may not give special treatment to A-List blogs.
The problem is the same old issue that goes back to the day when Google’s marketing team thought it would be a good idea to make PR publicly known. That was the real mistake, and they have been fighting abuse ever since. They need to keep working on their algorithm, and they need to kill the PR (at least on the user end). Once marketing people and webmasters are in the dark in regards to PR, then only can real site value show itself by audience numbers…THE ONLY REAL TRUE RANK.
my point is google says these are the rules and then selectively enforces them … that needs to stop
This is a minute example of an issue that is bigger that just our perspective from the paid links.
1) no she didn’t. You quote her disclosing it in your post.
2) there is a full disclosure statement on the travelling geek site. No one was paid a cent for coverage.
3) youre talking about a three degrees of sep. non-relationship based on gossip. You just look desperate to find a scandal that isn’t there.
A reporter works in facts. See above. From my casual glance at your blog it seems you work in marketing. Figures that you are creating fictions to spin an agenda.
Anyway, I’m busy working – just wanted to stop by and put the facts on the record. Can’t imagine you’ll do the professional thing and correct your post, deleting the libellous tabloid untruths, because then you have no story.
Good luck with you career.
@paulcarr
1) you cant reference your first useage and then disclose about any second use without mentioning that … that’s sloppy journalist
2) you cant blog and link in once place and disclose in another that … um sloppy journalism
3) facts are fact you don’t ignore or omit them as you choose that’s what we call … sloppy journalism
4) isn’t she at an all expense paid press junket today … surely not blogging for coverage for anyone right?
i don’t see any untruths since most of the post is quoting sarah …
Thank you Michael.
Paul, weren’t you just attending “Geeks at the Beach”, a bogus “think tank” hosted by lunch.com? I imagine they will be getting positive coverage on TC soon. Coincidentally, Sarah Lacy and Julia Allison were also there; the latter having an extremely questionable history when it comes to pay for play, especially in regard to the aforementioned lunch.com.
The bottom line is that people like Carr and Lacy are completely superfluous when it comes to the tech scene. They are ego bloggers to the core, writing without any ethics. They are searching for fame and freebies, and are a horrible example of what internet journalism can and should be.
@anon shh you weren’t supposed to bring that up
Oops. Don’t want to scoop your next post
These guys are all dirty. This needs to stop.
lunch.com snacks are awesome. They brought tons of goodies to a party at my friends place recently and we’re still snacking. Not sure if anyone blogged about it though.
I’ve been wanting to start a drinks for links service where I bribe people at tech mixers to give my clients links but I know it’d end up getting slapped just like viralconversations.com did, which I do think was fucked up on google’s part.
true but I dont think google should go out of their way to make it unduly unfair either, I’ve chosen to educate as many as can to google’s practices
Nice example of real journalism Michael. Sarah’s article has to be a sponsored post. She is hawking a $85 dollar-a-day subscription plan for juice! This is just pure insanity.
You must have horrible morals and ethics to even consider recommending a outrageously priced subscription plan for juice. Need another example of how this company plays ball?
Check out the image you see when you navigate to their group rates page. Lets just say marketing companies figured out years ago that people who tend to be interested in weight loss products also feel sexually deprived.
I despise companies that prey on peoples emotions.
“the libellous tabloid untruths”
It wouldn’t even count as libel in the UK, where we have the most ridiculous libel laws imaginable.
But aside from that, I’m not sure what bugs me the most, the fact that she failed to provide full disclosure, that she sold coverage for $85 (the recession must really be kicking asses over at TC) or that it was a sponsored post for a detox diet – seriously Sarah, google ‘liver’ and ‘placebo’ sometime.
It’s amazing that Google, seemingly destined to become our supreme overlords, are scared of a blog that jumped the shark years ago.
Michael,
This post is nothing more than link-bait and an ongoing tactic you use whereby you call out other affluent bloggers based on ‘issues’ you extrapolate from a bunch of random bits and pieces you pick up here and there on the web.
I could scour your blog here and do the same thing – collecting sentences, paragraphs, statements, etc. and spinning them to fit my own agenda. That’s not journalism.
In the past you’ve done the same thing to people like Scoble, Calacanis, Cutts and a few others – calling them out and pestering them until either they themselves or someone from their camp responds, like Paul Carr did above.
Paul. Sorry mate – you fell for it.
Here’s a piece of advice: Stop your “Oh woe is me I’m the victim of a double standard so I’m going to piss and moan about it until someone notices me” and just get on with your life and business. Leave this brand of ‘investigative journalism’ up to Vallaywag and “slow news day?” trolls. They’re better at it.
@nobody special guess your ok with being treated like a second class citizen by google … I’m not
Paul Carr doesn’t care that you defended him, since you didn’t use your real name.
Interesting post.
Presumably if she had bought the product, following her first use, for someone else to try, your theory would start to fall apart a bit?
Just trying to flush the truth out
@edbaines but she doesn’t mention that, and mentioning one use and disclaiming based on a second use … is palying loose with the rules dontcha think?
Interesting comments, but I couple of things I’d add in reply.
To suggest that Michael is a nobody targeting “affluent” bloggers is disingenous: Michael is a successful SEO/ Internet Marketing expert and someone who I’ve often pinged for advice…even for assistance for posts I’ve previously written at TechCrunch (you may even find him linked on the site in the archives.) He may not be highly known among the A-List Valley clique, but believe it or not that doesn’t me he isn’t well known.
As for his call outs of others: I may not always agree with them, but Michael provides well researched, thoughtful posts that always make you think…and are more often than not is right. Just because you disagree with them doesn’t mean he should stop doing them; indeed we need more of it.
As for this one: I met Sarah Lacy last year and she did impressed me. However no one is perfect (certainly I’m not) and there’s a rank hypocrisy in rallying against sponsored posts, then writing about a company that you’re getting expensive freebies from.
The other point, perhaps not articulated strongly here, is why was the post on TechCrunch to begin with. The link to the audience was little to none, and it read like ad copy (whether that was intentional or not I don’t know.) I’d expect to see this post on a health blog, not TC.
Michael mentions the FTC, but I’d bring in the serious question over the health claims as well. I know the United States is far more lax on regulation, but in Australia these so-called “cleansing” products have been investigated for making false health claims; also Doctors groups have suggested that some of these products, particularly the ones that say you shouldn’t be eating, can be dangerous to use. It’s a slippery slope when a tech blog starts offering miracle cures, let alone one that is so insanely expensive.
Keep pulling at the threads and you’ll see lots more
I don’t know Michael. I love the post but the lack of clarity about what happens after the first cleanse cuts both ways. It provides an opening for speculation that she could have been on the take but it also is not clear indication of guilt. If she is guilty she was playing loose with the rules, but if she isn’t she just wasn’t very thorough.
That said, your other observations seem to put the burden of proof on TC. Now if we can just all see Obama’s birth certificate all will be right in the world.
Michael,
I get thay you’re on a mission and I agree with your view on google but I reallly think outing people is a really shitty thing to do. If you don’t like tc then don’t visit their site but when it comes to how they run their business don’t call them out, it just makes you look jealous.
@jeff I appreciate you viewpoint, but at a certain point it becomes to much and google sticking by it’s own rules and leveling the playing field is better for everyone
This is the most childish thing I’ve ever read. Are you really a dude? “Outing” someone for doing something classless or dishonest is always seen as “jealousy” by people who are guilty. Why is that?
Nobody is “jealous” that yet another media outlet got free Blueprint cleanse, or that it was obvious TechCrunch was shilling it. No offense, but grow up, dude.
@Jeff Henderson “outing people is a really shitty thing to do”? Really?
You mean Calling attention to abuses of society is inappropriate? People should just be allowed to violate the rules of society that we all have to live by?
That’s like saying – hey – I just saw two guys wearing ski masks, grab a child off the street, jump into a van and speed away – I’m not going to speak up about that or report it because someone might think I was jealous.
Please.
Get a better life perspective.
@michael totally agree there ought to be one set of rules from google that are equally enforced but we all know that will never exist. Google will do whatever is best for google and right now they seem to think vague, arbitrary, and unequally enforced “rules” is the way to go. In the end it’s their search engine.
@alan
The same as saying don’t stop a criminal? That’s the best you can come up with?
But just for fun I say show me the victim in sponsored posts. They don’t exist. People who blindly trust the integrity of a blog or other media outlet run the risk of getting tricked into buying products they don’t need. Same as if they blindly trust any other pitchman (or woman)
The victims are those of us who follow the rules and are penalized. To that end, I we are NOT saying – let everyone get away with it. We are only saying level the playing field. The A List blogs have an unfair business model.
Why do people stick their heads in the sand with the “equality is nice but it will never exist”? That’s a lame cop-out and I stick by my analogy. It’s people like you who help to promote that very same unfair arena.
@jeff the victim is me with viralconversations.com I have to follow the rules and “web celebrities” don’t
@alan and @michael
Guys, I don’t know if anyone told you this but life is not fair. To claim you’re the victim because you follow rules your competitors don’t is just silly. If you want to level the playing field then build your own A-List blog. Don’t complain because they made the A-List and because of that they get all the perks. The perks are what drive people to succeed.
Rather than focusing your energy on leashing the big dog why not focus on becoming one yourself. I would imagine it’ll be much more rewarding.
Wow. I know you and just lost all respect for you.
Indeed, life is not fair.
However, if you do not in some way attempt to leash and heel the big dogs from time to time, whether considering a business monopoly, a powerful media influence, or a government, the dog will eventually grow to the point of tyranny. No reasonable leash will remain to apply.
That is not (complete) histrionics, as this big-dog scenario has proven real throughout history, and can be seen in various “damned glad I don’t live there” countries in modern times. To be clear, I don’t consider TechCrunch a dog out of control, nor even a big dog, nor can I imagine Michael does.
However, those who operate on a today-only basis, in life or business, risk becoming victims of far more than the arguable favoritism discussed here, and I personally believe that Michael is aware of this greater concern and the easy inertia that drives it. The potential for greater evils is usually a clear subtext to MG’s victim posts.
As I read them.
Sarah is good friends with Julia Allison who blogs at NonSociety.com and is a business partner of Michael Arrington’s former girlfriend, Meghan Asha. NonSociety was shilling Blueprint for months without any disclosure, and only admitted they were comped after howls of protests from their readers.
These self-proclaimed “geeks” travel in a very small circle indeed, and are incredibly unprofessional in the way they trade favors, glom onto freebies, and constantly name-drop each other on their respective blogs in some kind of creepy fameball circle jerk. It’s high school all over again for them, and I have no respect for TechCrunch whatsoever, particularly after the recent hiring of Paul Carr, another student of the Julia Allison method of stunt “journalism.”
@stan
Childish? Really? I think being a tattletale is childish but that’s just me.
You call sponsored posts classless and dishonest and you insist that TechCrunch is gaining an unfair advantage over you because Google turns a blind eye when they drop links in their undisclosed sponsored posts.
I can understand how a person might use such an argument to make themselves look like a victim. Unfortunately you’ve overlooked a large flaw in your position. I look at your argument and to me you’re saying that even though your competition publishes dishonest classless puff pieces for the low low price of two batches of cleansing juice that you STILL can’t manage to effectively compete with said competitor so you demand they follow some arbitrary and vague set of morals/ethics/rules you get to define.
To me that sounds a little like jealousy but what do I know. Maybe if we look at the definition of jealous, especially 2 a.
Looking at that I feel like I’m pretty spot on.
One more thing Stan…. why not post your full name? It’s not like you’re addressing a stranger, you say you actually know me so why not come out with who you are? I know people are going to disagree with me but I don’t post anonymously because I believe in what I have to say. What’s your excuse?
Tattletale? You actually used the word Tattletale? Let’s be clear on this. Anyone who voices dissent at what is believed to be injustice is not necessarily claiming to be a direct victim.
I am in complete agreement with Michael and I personally have never had any paid posts, so I am not claiming to be a victim. I am, however, a professional in this industry, and thus wish to see Google enforce one set of standards.
And when people use the web in such ways as to violate what I believe to be fair and just actions, I also believe it proper to speak up about it.
Oh wait I forgot – you’re one of those people who like to stay silent when injustice occurs. Except you’re not staying silent. You’re defending them. Actually voicing a position on their behalf. Apparently you’re jealous of Michael for having such a great capacity for bringing light to a subject.
@alan
Come on Alan, I use that word only because you refer to my argument as childish. Surely you’re smart enough to make that connection, no?
What I don’t understand is when I asked who the victim is with sponsored posts you claimed you were since you followed different rules but now you’re saying that you are not claiming to be a victim. Which is it? Either you are or you aren’t, you can’t switch back and forth, that just doesn’t make any sense.
So now it’s not really rules being broken, it’s just that you don’t think it’s fair. I just don’t get this. I think it’s unfair of google to ban or penalize websites at all period. You guys seem perfectly fine with it as long as everyone else gets penalized just as much as you do.
And as far as defending them and being jealous of Michael that’s simply ludicrous. I have blogged in the past about google’s unfair business practices:
http://www.doneseo.com/blog/google-bans-their-competitors-from-advertising-through-adwords/
http://www.doneseo.com/blog/google-bans-link-exchange/
(disclaimer: these are both pretty old posts and I no longer work at the firm where these posts were made.)
I also retweet Michael’s tweets calling out Google on their business practices on a regular basis.
The only thing I don’t agree with hear is the outing of other peoples methods and business practices. When you do so you attack the livelihood of a large number of people. Would you really be happy if TC was banned from Google and they had to lay off half their staff due to the hit in traffic? Would that make your day? Those are the possible implications that come from outing people that are often overlooked in these types of posts. I’m sure Michael felt pretty down when his viral conversations site got penalized but rather than sucking it up and moving on he’s chosen to spread those same experiences to others and I will never back down from saying that’s a bad thing to do.
Jeffrey,
All I’m attempting to say is that there’s a bottom line perspective difference. It’s not for anyone to decide the ultimate motive of any other one of us – we’re not in each others shoes.
Yet regardless of TechCrunch’s or Sarah’s motives, they cross the line consistently.
Either Google needs to open the floodgates so that anyone can obtain links on other sites by any means possible, or Google’s rules need to be applied equally across the board. Anyone who thinks otherwise is missing the much more intense ramifications of that.
Now – as far as your using the “guilt” card on me, homey’s not drinking that kool-aid today.
If a site is being run in such a way as to be deserving of penalties, I don’t care if there’s just one magic wizard behind the curtain or an entire company. That’s the whole point of penalty rules. If people who are associated with that site happen to suffer for it, so be it. My heart would go out to them if they themselves were innocent. Your position on THAT one seems to be that of the Fed – “too big to fail” mentality. Another excuse to skirt the need to do the right thing for the right reasons. Hell be damned before that happens in your eyes. Hey – we can penalize the little guys, because nobody will care. But we need to let the big players go on their merry way, else all those workers lose their job.
I’m more of the notion that a business is, itself an entity. And if the entity is so corrupt, then let it die. Let anyone associated use that as an opportunity to move on to something else. Painful as it might be for them.
I know you don’t agree. You apparently are now looking for any excuse to allow it to continue.
Here’s a post she made with an actual Amazon affiliate link (her affiliate tag) on techcrunch, without any disclaimers:-
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/25/twitters-real-edge-its-not-scary/
Roll over the first link in the article. Slight conflict of interest there. Certainly no journalistic integrity. Then she writes an article slamming paid posts. Incredible.
Hey kids! Let’s play, “Spot the Troll”!
If this had been posted on the SEOmoz blog, specifically by Rand, many people would be crying “outing is bad!” Posts would go up. Teeth would be gnashed. Google is not the only place on the Web where standards come in twos.
outing something that is on techcrunch is hardly outing, considering it’s read by over 300,000 ppl last I checked.
second what I’m really outting is google not being consistent in enforcing their penalties, only punishing SEO’s and internet marketers, while lots of other people “get away” with it. If you don’t think me trying to level the playing field for SEO’s works to your benefit … then I don’t know what to say
Hi Michael,
I’m not wanting to discuss the undesirability or otherwise of ‘outing’: It isn’t something I’ve ever done and I can’t think of an instance in which I’d be bothered to do it. Right now, I see a competitor doing something amazingly silly that Google would slap across the knuckles, but if I can see it, Mountain View can too. This is how I choose to operate, because I too believe that what goes around comes around as regularly as the Circle Line. As I repeated a number of times on Twitter, the manner in which outing takes place was not my point.
My point: even if Rand had made all the same arguments you have here in a valiant attempt to fix a problem, the pitch-forks would have come out and the loud-mouthed, angry protesters would be lining the streets. I only invite you and your readers to consider the double standards, assumptions and prejudices in our own yard before throwing stones into Google’s. If you do not enjoy watching someone else do this, do not do it yourself, no matter who did it first, and to whom.
I fully expect to be called a follower and be accused of not thinking for myself. I have thought for myself and, through consideration and a large chunk of experience in the past six months, formed my own professional opinions on the matter, none of which really matter here. I am admittedly fiercely loyal to those who have helped me, and Rand is one of the main reasons I am where I am today. This does not make me a sheep. This makes me humble enough to remember both where I came from and who gave me a break on my way up.
I sometimes point out double standards when they are applied to my friends. True: I would not bother if it weren’t aimed at someone I care about, because I have also learned not to bother myself with that which doesn’t matter. Most of the things you people tweet, blog and complain about do not matter to me in the slightest, just as most of the things I care about likely do not mean very much to you.
Today isn’t the first time I’ve noticed this thinly veiled form of hypocrisy; it just happens to be the first time I’ve said anything.
@jane
You rock! Glad I’m not totally alone here.
The problem with outing is it doesn’t work. Google doesn’t give a flying fuck if we SEOs don’t like being profiled and the more we push back the more they’re going to profile us and cause us problems. Also, creating an environment where everyone’s outing everyone else only helps Google and only hurts our community.
Jeffrey, again you use the “calling attention to a crime is a waste of time” perspective. And now you’re saying that it’s really a fear of retribution thing. There didn’t used to be anything that whistle-blowers could do. They’d get canned for speaking out.
Over time, enough people complained and raised red flags that something had to be done to change the landscape.
If you want to placate the big bad beast so you don’t get bit, please – go right ahead and do so. Use all the excuses and justification in the world you want.
Interesting post, I have to agree that if you are going to state something as definitively as SL has then flip flop British politician style and say the opposite (just as definitively) you’ve got to expect to be caught out.
I like the point you made about the differentiation between blogging and genuine journalism; it would appear that as the line has blurred somewhat people forget there is actually a code of conduct for professional journalists which is intended to protect the credibility of the press. I guess if you want to call yourself a true journalist you have to act like one and not schill for freebies.
haha, so outing is based on intent? hmm. based on intent. Where have I heard that before?
Google is EVIL and IGNORANT by penalizing one site and not penalizing another.
Wow long post and you are probably right but what is the difference, the playing field has never been level and never will. I mean if Tech Crunch specifically said that every 5th post was a paid post for $1,000 each to help support the site then do you think Google would take them out of the index? I don’t think they would!
Non SEO’s are just not going to get this post. They just see it as mud slinging and don’t see the big picture. The main point of the post was to point out how Google profiles SEO’s. I have been targeted by the Google spam team personally in the past just because I was vocal about what I was doing. I lost a website making $30k a month while people I knew that kept their mouth shut got away with it. SEO’s are tired of being profiled.
@alan
What line? You’re line? Their line? Google’s line?
Google needs to do whatever will get their shareholders the most possible value from their investment. If doing so would benefit Google that much why not rally shareholders or buy enough shares of GOOG yourself to get this policy implemented and then you can reap the profits that wise business decision would create.
Wow, you really wouldn’t feel any guilt if that happened? That’s kind of cold hearted.
I have yet to say this should continue to happen. I said from the start I don’t agree with it and I’d love clear evenly enforced guidelines from Google just as much as the next guy.
What crime? The crime against your rules? What law was broken here? And once again, who’s the victim?
Care to elaborate what you mean here?
Whistleblowers?
Wouldn’t you or Michael or Stan or whoever else need to actually work at Google or TC to be whistleblowers? And wouldn’t they need to actually be doing something illegal for it to even matter?
Yes, you’re right. I live in constant fear of ‘getting bit’ and thus bite my tongue.