Cost Per News Hypocritical DO IT ONLINE Post

I don't even know how to respond to this, Mark.

Butt...um...ok.

"I don't even know how to respond to this"

I'll assume it was an outstanding post then. You're speechless.

Thanks ;-)

Yep...Your logic confounds me into silence.

Welcome.

You're way off base Mark. Careful, you're treading into the "get traffic at all costs" blog type. Trust is falling. Credibility is failing. Is that where you want to go? Just making sure.

> Careful, you're treading into the "get traffic at all costs" blog type.

Ditto - and let the content stand on it's own, rather than planting links to it in the comments of the blogs you're commenting on.

It's different when the banners are posted as reference to a post as opposed to when it is placed to attract clicks and attention. I don't agree with Sam being called a hypocrite here...that's just wrong and too strong a word.

Mark,
If all that Sam's post contained were these banners then I would probably agree. Reading his posts I think witout the baners would be more difficult to get the point across.

It would be different if such banners had links to his blog from another site. I think he is just trying to get his point across, imo.

"rather than planting links to it in the comments of the blogs you're commenting on."

It's called a trackback, and you don't have approve it. I pointed a link here from Sam's blog and he didn't approve it.

"You're way off base Mark. Careful, you're treading into the "get traffic at all costs" blog type. Trust is falling. Credibility is failing. Is that where you want to go? Just making sure."

I think others are way off base. Instead of telling me I'm wrong somebody please explain why I'm wrong.

I think condemning somebody for posting sexy banners and then turning around and posting the same sexy banners yourself is hypocritical, somebody tell me how it's not being a hypocrite.

"It's different when the banners are posted as reference to a post as opposed to when it is placed to attract clicks and attention."

They were posted to attract clicks and attention, that's my point, and it worked didn't it?

"Reading his posts I think witout the baners would be more difficult to get the point across."

Do people bring porn to church to get their point across that porn is disgraceful?

"get traffic at all costs" blog type."

I'm just offering my honest opinion, take it for what it's worth.

"They were posted to attract clicks and attention, that's my point, and it worked didn't it?"

For the record, he's number one on bumpzee at the moment. Point made.

> It's called a trackback, and you don't have approve it. I pointed a link here from Sam's blog and he didn't approve it.

Trackbacks are automated and they show below the comments - you posted a url as a comment and included "Manual trackback" in the text.

No need to run in circles, as I'm sure you know the difference.

"I think others are way off base. Instead of telling me I'm wrong somebody please explain why I'm wrong.

I think condemning somebody for posting sexy banners and then turning around and posting the same sexy banners yourself is hypocritical, somebody tell me how it's not being a hypocrite.'

I'll just copy and paste what I posted at Bumpzee:

"I see it simply as giving an example as to what he's talking about. It's like if someone posts about a nice new car they saw. They can go into details but I like pictures :)"

And you could have just commented your feelings on his blog but decided, Hey, this is an easy way to get eyeballs, let me blog about it. Because you knew this type of blog would get some type of reaction. Focus on writing blogs of substance not tired link bait methods.

"I see it simply as giving an example as to what he's talking about. It's like if someone posts about a nice new car they saw. They can go into details but I like pictures :)"

Do people bring porn to church to show examples?

If it's so "disgraceful" for others to post the mentioned material, why did he post the same material?

For the same reasons they people he condemns did.

Why didn't he blur it out, why did he post 3 images, the violators only post one at a time?

"And you could have just commented your feelings on his blog but decided, Hey, this is an easy way to get eyeballs, let me blog about it. Because you knew this type of blog would get some type of reaction. Focus on writing blogs of substance not tired link bait methods."

1. Sam has the right to approve blog posts or not, he doesn't approve all of mine as I already mentioned above. So that option isn't 100%.

2. So you're saying it's fine for Sam to blog about this instead of commenting on the thread where he found the violation (so he could get eyeballs) but it's not ok to share my opinion on my blog?

http://www.bumpzee.com/affiliatemarketing/entries/view/9297/

What?! He's simply showing what he thinks the problem is! Does this mean that all the people who posted the Nick Robertson ASOS quote are hypocrites too?

"Does this mean that all the people who posted the Nick Robertson ASOS quote are hypocrites too?"

Sorry IAN I didn't read those blog posts.

"He's simply showing what he thinks the problem is!"

If it's a problem for other people to "show it" why is it ok for him to "show it", regardless of the motive?

Thanks for the comments all! Any more?

You've asked more than once what the difference is between what Sam did and what EComXpo did originally. EComXpo created the banners and posted them as ads for their site/service, knowing full well the intent behind the ads. Sam had an opinion about the ads, and in order to make it clear why he felt so strongly about it he showed the banners as an illustration -- his intent to alert the industry to what he considered a bad practice.

Had Sam bought ad space and used titillating ads like this to draw traffic to his site, that would be hypocritical -- the intent would have been the same. Had Sam even taken copies of the ads and modified them a bit to drive traffic to his post about the ads, that may be hypocritical as well. The intent in both cases is to use a titillating ad to drive traffic. There is obviously a difference between using an ad to drive traffic (as EComXpo did) and showing an example of the ad when discussing it's affect on the industry. The intent is different, and it was the intent that Sam was discussing, not the actual ad itself. Because Sam's intent was completely different, it would be incorrect to use the term "hypocritical" to describe it. You should simply apologize and move on.

Over at Bumpzee. Good thread over there.

"Had Sam bought ad space and used titillating ads like this to draw traffic to his site, that would be hypocritical -- the intent would have been the same."

The intent was the same.

If he would have made the post without the pictures the post wouldn't have been as "titillating". Certainly Sam was smart enough to know that.

Therefore the intent was the same.

"I find it hypocritical when Cost Per News today condemns Excompo and Wickedfire for posting sexy banners while they turn around and post the same banners themselves."

I still stand by that, no need to apologize.

"Over at Bumpzee. Good thread over there."

Thanks john, In cased people missed the URL:

http://www.bumpzee.com/affiliatemarketing/entries/view/9297/

You don't know me, so please don't try to guess my "intent," Mark. I find that highly offensive.

And no, I don't want your apology. I support your right and ability to blog about whatever you'd like to blog about on your own site. Just do me a favor and stop short of guessing my intentions next time. Omniscience is hard to come by these days, and I gather from your posts here that you haven't figured out the trick to it yet.

Good luck with all your future endeavors-
Sam

"You don't know me, so please don't try to guess my "intent," Mark."

I don't need to know you to guess your intent.

"I find that highly offensive."

I found your post offensive so we're even.

"I gather from your posts here that you haven't figured out the trick to it yet."

Nope, but I keep trying ;-)

"I support your right and ability to blog about whatever you'd like to blog about on your own site."

Good, I support your right also and applaud it. This would be boring if we agreed about everything.

"Good luck with all your future endeavors-"

Thanks, Same to you.

I have no idea what some of the commenters in here are saying. It feels like I've walked in on a conversation among friends with lots of history, but anyway.

It is completely hypocritical to blast someone for using sexy ads and then use an ad like that one. I don't see what the confusion is there. Like I said, there must be some giant ongoing context I'm not aware of for all the other commenters, because that's the only way for a conversation to go so far off track so quickly... and so vaguely.

Also, I'm sick to death of seeing ads like this on anyone's site. Ads like this always say to me, "I don't really have a product worth a damn, but I thought you might get so busy checking out this woman that you'd accidentally enter your credit card number before you noticed I'm completely full of it."

Thanks for Stopping by and commenting Sapphire.

No there isn't any history but yeah some the stuff is getting pretty far off track. Time to put this one to bed hopefully ;-) However it doesn't seem tired, lol