In my mind, there are three kinds of entrepreneur: inventors, modelers and marketers. All can be successful, but in my mind, only one kind of entrepreneur is on the surest path to building a business that survives… and thrives.

So what’s the difference between the three? Well, keep in mind that the three terms ‘innovators’, ‘modelers’ and ‘marketers’ are just labels. I think, though, that as you read my definitions, you’ll get the distinction between each entrepreneurial type. And, sure, I’m generalizing - there are probably people who fit into each category in different situations.

(more…)

What should you do when the top few search engine results for your company include one or more listings that are blatantly negative? Articles that are wrong, biased, misleading or worse?

One approach is to contact your lawyer. If the person behind the negative listing has lied or defamed you or your company, you may have a case for defamation. But litigation is costly. Moreover, the culprit in question may not necessarily have defamed you in the legal sense. They may have simply published an item of ‘free speech’ that is negative, but not strictly defamatory.

Another approach is to complain to the search engines. But they’re unlikely to do anything unless you can show them that the negative listing is unlawful or the result of ‘gaming’ the search engines.

A more practical approach is to beat the negative listing at their own game: use search engine optimization (SEO) techniques to push down their listing in the search engine results pages (SERPs).

Now, as with anything to do with SEO, you can take a ‘white hat’, ‘black hat’ or ‘grey hat’ approach. A ‘black hat’ approach is to try to game the search engines; a ‘white hat’ approach is to follow the ‘rules’ i.e. the rules of relevance and authority; and a ‘grey’ hat approach is somewhere in between the two.

The problem with black and grey approaches is that while you may be able to get rid of the negative listing in the short term… in the long term you run the risk of losing your own listing altogether and damaging your reputation among the search engines.

This is rarely a risk worth taking when dealing with your company and/or brand name and main website.

On that basis, a ‘white hat’ approach is the only approach I recommend for optimizing your main site AND for defending against threats to your search engine positioning and/or reputation.

And what if you actually rank highest for your company name anyway, and are simply trying to get rid of a negative listing that sits BELOW your listing? In that case, it’s not so much a matter of optimizing your main site or page any further… but to get other favorable listings to rise above, and push out, the negative listing.

One way to do that is to build and optimize alternative websites… but that’s likely to take a long time and a lot of effort on your part. This is because, among other things, the search engines tend to be slow to rank brand new domains highly in the SERPs.

Here’s a much easier - and more effective - way suggested by Aaron Shear: build a presence on various popular social media sites.

The search engines tend to rank the popular social media sites highly. Therefore, by establishing a page on all the major social media sites - Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitter and so on - you’ll have a shot at getting those pages ranked… and ranked higher than the negative listing you’re trying to get off the first few pages of results.

The key, of course, is to put some unique, compelling content on those pages, and attract in-bound links to those pages from authoritative sites. But it may not be as difficult as you think. Placing videos on YouTube, for example, is something you might be interested in doing anyway, and will likely to have many benefits (in terms of traffic and conversions) other than ousting those negative sites from the top listings.

Indeed, building a presence on the popular social media sites is a recommended traffic and SEO strategy and, by including links to your main site, can also aid in achieving or maintaining a high ranking for your main site.

It’s certainly your best bet in terms of getting rid of those negative listings that just don’t seem to go away.

Source: Aaron Shear, “Maintaining Your Company’s Image in the SERPs”, Search Engine Watch, November 4, 2008

I was pushed off my soapbox today. This time by a Kikabink News subscriber with a beef about marketers using – or should I say MISusing - the word “free”…

Gregg (last name withheld to protect his privacy) emailed the following to me. I have edited the message for readability and to protect the innocent/guilty (depending on how you look at it). I offer my views at the end:

“Now, how many times have you seen something offered as ‘free’ when in fact it is not. I am 61 now and I think I know the meaning of “free” versus “buy one get one free”.

A prime example of this is [Name of Marketer withheld] who usually has some free items but, for the most part, if you read the fine print, you have signed up for something at $30 a month and so on.

‘Free’ to me does not mean ‘pay shipping and handling’. That means it costs whatever the shipping and handling is. Shipping and handling (S & H) of $9 for a disc means, to me, that the thing costs $9 and is not free. If it were truly free, send it to me without any S & H costs.

‘Free’ does not mean if I buy one of someone else’s product I get their deal free. It means to me that if I buy one, I get one free.

‘Free’ for 30,60 or 90 days if you show a credit card and bam, they slam your card when you order… is not free.

There seems to be far too much bullshit in the ads going on. I have returned items that I wanted just out of spite over this crap.”

What are your thoughts? Is Gregg right… or is he being pedantic?

Well, in many countries - certainly in Australia and I believe in the U.S. and U.K. - the law is firmly on Gregg’s side: if you say something is ‘free’ without any qualification you are implying that someone needn’t pay any money to get whatever you are offering.

Obviously I can’t give legal advice within the confines of this newsletter. I can say, however, that (as an Australian qualified lawyer) I have reviewed numerous promotional offers and advised clients that unless they clearly state any applicable qualification - e.g. that there’s a shipping and handling fee, or that a customer must buy something else to get the free product or service, or that the offer only applies under other limited circumstances - they are engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct by presenting the product or service as being ‘free’.

Do some marketers get away with saying ‘free’ when they don’t mean it? Sure they do. Government regulators have limited resources and simply can’t prosecute everyone. But sometimes it only takes a few people complaining before a regulator sets their sights on a particular marketer.

And just as ‘free’ attracts the attention of consumers… it also tends to attract the attention of consumer regulators.

Gregg has subsequently contacted me about a couple of other practices he objects to. I’ll share them with you in an upcoming issue… I’m not sure I entirely agree with his objections, but I’ll let him have his say.

What about you? Want to get something off your chest? Send it to me or feel free to comment on this (or any other) article in the newsletter.

It’s all about Chrome this week, isn’t it? What can I say - Google Chrome is major news. It could be a category killer - in at least two categories: browsers and operating systems.

On to an issue that Read Write Web brought to the fore a couple of days ago: the Chrome terms of service.

Apparently, in its original form, the terms stated that while a user owned and retained rights to any content submitted, posted or displayed on or through Chrome… Google would also get a “perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute” such content. Yes, that would include ANYTHING you wrote or uploaded via Chrome, from blog posts to passwords to credit card details.

It seems we can relax - Google has removed the offensive clause and now includes this in its Chrome terms of use:

“Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content…”

How did the original wording get into the Chrome terms of use in the first place? Was Google being evil or was this something the lawyers overlooked? As a lawyer familiar with reading and writing plenty of terms of use it pains me to admit it, but… it was probably an omission due to copying and pasting the terms from elsewhere!

And you know what? This is one instance where Google’s “launch quickly and iterate” is NOT appropriate. As I wrote the other day, this approach IS desirable for launching many kinds of products. But it’s definitely not desirable when it comes to legal terms.

Source: Marshall Kirkpatrick, “Updated: Does Google Have Rights to Everything You Send Through Chrome?”, Read Write Web, September 3, 2008, Google Chrome Terms of Use

Take it from a recovering perfectionist: being perfect doesn’t always translate into being successful.

Whether it’s a product, a promotion, a newsletter or anything else in your business… spending that extra time or money to make sure it’s absolutely perfect…

…may be a complete and utter waste of your time and resources.

By all means, aim to produce only top quality products. Aim for excellence in your marketing and, in fact, everything you do.

But, trust me, there comes a point where investing any more time, effort or other resources into something, will NOT yield any greater benefits (in terms of sales or otherwise). And there comes a point after that, when further tweaking and refining may actually UNDERMINE your success.

That may be because you end up “over cooking” your product or marketing initiative… because you lose momentum in getting it underway… or for some other reason.

There ARE situations where being anything less than perfect is completely unacceptable. As a lawyer I would never dream of giving a client “imperfect” legal advice. And I wouldn’t want a surgeon to be anything less than a perfectionist either.

So how do you work out when you SHOULD aim for perfection and when EXCELLENCE will suffice?

When faced with that question, I suggest you ask yourself these four questions:

1. Would anything less than “perfect” be acceptable by most people’s standards?

• If not, aim for perfection.
• If so, consider Question 2.

2. Does getting it perfect improve the result in a substantial way?

• If so, aim for perfection.
• If not, consider Question 3.

3. Does being perfect improve the result in a small, but noticeable way?

• If so, aim for perfection.
• If not, consider Question 4.

4. Is getting it perfect necessary to satisfy some internal need?

• If yes, and the matter is NEITHER time-sensitive nor resource-intensive… then PERHAPS aim for perfection. But it would probably be BETTER if to trained yourself NOT to get it perfect. On the other hand, it’s very unlikely that an aspect of your business is neither time-sensitive nor resource-intensive (whether such resources are money, people or simply your energy or attention).
• If no, then…

FORGET ABOUT GETTING IT PERFECT AND JUST GET IT DONE!

I’ve spent part of my working life as a lawyer. Since I am very entrepreneurial and have a range of business interests, I am occasionally taken aback when someone who doesn’t know me assumes that because I’m a lawyer, I’m “risk averse”. They are equally surprised when I suggest that, as a business person, they should take MORE “risks”.

Here’s what this person doesn’t get: there’s a difference between legal risk and business risk. There’s also a difference between being averse to legal risk and being averse to business risk.

When it comes to the law… I don’t believe in taking “risks”. If something is unlawful, I don’t do it. And I would advise any business person against doing it too. If the issue is “grey” I’d suggest getting advice from a legal expert in the area. If I don’t - or the business person doesn’t - agree with the law, I would lobby for change. But not breaking the law while it IS a law.

However, when it comes to “business risk” I believe in weighing up the pros and cons, and if the risk is worth taking - i.e. the risk can be mitigated and there are potentially very high rewards - I am all for it!

Trading professionals (i.e. those who trade the financial markets) favour trades where there is unlimited upside and a known, limited downside. They avoid trades where there is a limited upside and an unlimited downside. My approach to risk is the same.

In fact, it astounds me that some companies take the very opposite approach when it comes to business. They will take legal risks - where there is very often a limited upside and an unlimited downside - while avoiding business risks that offer limited downside and unlimited upside!

Even worse, some companies will take legal risks - sometimes an “easy” option - instead of doing the hard yards and investing the time and effort to come up with creative business solutions.

Take business risks, not legal risks.

As a lawyer and a marketer, I’m acutely aware of how regulated many marketing activities are. In certain industries it’s not uncommon to see advertisements where the disclaimer is longer than the copy! So why is marketing so regulated?

Well, it’s the same reason for all our laws:

1. A few people (or possibly a lot of people) do the wrong thing - they lie, cheat or steal;
2. Customers complain; and
3. The regulators end up imposing laws to prohibit, punish and deter further wrongdoing.

The problem is, of course, that this often adds to the costs of marketing. For one thing, suddenly you need those pesky lawyers reviewing your ads before they go to air! This, in turn, is fed into the prices of goods and services. And everyone - except perhaps the lawyers - ends up paying for a few people’s misdeeds.

Now, some industries are more regulated than others. And although the general laws may apply to all, some industries are also more scrutinized than others. All it takes is a few people doing the wrong thing, a significant number of people complaining, and suddenly the various government watchdogs start paying way more attention to that particular arena.

That’s why it worries me when I see some of the practices used by Internet marketers, including some of the big name “gurus”. For example, one very well known Internet marketer sent an email that said the following:

“I just wanted to shoot you a quick email to let you know I got you
a 97% discount on [name of product].

He sells it for $176 on his site, but you can get it for just $4.95
today.”

When you go to the site, you discover that it’s only $4.95 in the first month. After that, the price goes back up, and you pay this on a monthly basis.

Guess what folks? That email is, in my opinion (and this is NOT legal advice) an example of misleading and deceptive conduct under Australian law. And since it came into my inbox, here in Australia, that marketer is also subject to Australian law (a lot of people don’t realize that when they market to people in other countries they are actually subject to the laws of those other countries).

Now, I have no reason to complain about that particular incident. Frankly, I couldn’t be bothered. But it’s a clear indication of the ignorance of people who should know better. And unless gurus and others alike start abiding by the law like other businesses are supposed to, it may be just a matter of time before the regulators in the U.S., Australia and other countries start taking much more notice of what Internet marketers do.

Of course cleaning up the various dubious practices may be a good thing… but we are all likely to pay the price of greater government regulation and/or scrutiny in some way. And with the tendency of some regulators to be overzealous at times, some “innocent” people are likely to be pinged.

So let’s all try to stay within the law. It’s better for our customers - I’ve always found that honesty works quite well in business - and it’s better for us.

After announcing in April that it would require Australian based eBay sellers to, firstly, provide its PayPal online payment service as an option, and, secondly, to require either PayPal or cash to complete transactions, eBay has abandoned the second requirement.

eBay insists that its move away from requiring sellers to complete transactions with PayPal or cash was a response to eBay users’ complaints about the plan. However, it’s also likely that eBay was sufficiently scared off the plan after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) issued a draft notice to eBay that denying consumers choice of payment methods may be anti-competitive. Putting on my lawyer’s hat, it looked like “third line forcing” under Australian law - where a company forces customers to use another company’s products or services in order to use the first company’s offerings.

Phil Leahy, president of the Professional eBay Sellers Alliance in Australia, said that eBay may have been using its Australian marketplace as an experiment to see if it could get away with requiring PayPal as the primary payment method. If it could, it would attempt to do the same thing in other markets.

That could be right if eBay was primarily concerned with its customers’ response to such a requirement. It doesn’t make so much sense if eBay was primarily testing the “regulatory waters” since the competition laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It’s possible that eBay could get away with forcing customers to use PayPal or cash in certain jurisdictions where the competition laws - and regulators - are not so tough.

At the end of the day, eBay’s decision to back down is good news for eBay users, who retain the ability to choose the means by which they pay and receive payment.

Source: Mylene Mangalindan, “EBay Drops PayPal Plan Down Under”, The Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2008