35 replies to this topic

[Jill]

would there still be some seal of approval I could claim to have earned?

Some how I doubt it. I would guess they don't go through the approval process until you actually pay or agree to pay. (I know that contradicts the other guy's post in this thread, but so does Victoria's post.) I'm not sure what the truth is there.

[ScottSalwolke]

I don't fault the companies who have the budget to pay for this as it's good marketing. But I still think it totally sucks because there are readers of those magazines who will never know that the companies they think are "most dependable" are really just those with the biggest budgets.

Bravo!

[Webmaster T]

Jill, I agree if there were some shenanigans in the disclosure process GoldLine tainted this badly. I think I understand what you are saying about the list of companies. I think I know why you are saying it... and I'm of the same mind. Do I disagree with the company we are keeping. How couldn't I?... knowing what I know about some of the listed companies. That wasn't my decision to make. However, expecting GoldLine to not "annoint" some vendors which are over hyped in the industry pubs is possibly setting the bar a little high... shouldn't we hold non-industry people to the same standards as we do those in it? What I liked about this was the opening up of the books ie: client feedback since that is a good yardstick for "dependable". They didn't say "best"... dependable depends on client expectations. Would I have chosen all the firms... no... but... I do know they are at least "dependable" to execute. Otherwise how could they be so prominent The results... welll... that's always the $64 question isn't it? I'd gladly help GoldLine gratis free next time because I think they are on to something, so what if it's paid or otherwise, so long as it's known before... I don't see a problem.

[qwerty]

T, are you on the list?

[Jill]

If they're disclosing to the public who might read these lists that being chosen is dependent upon paying over $5000 (not in tiny type) then I have no problem with it.

But my understanding is that that's not going to be said when all is said and done.

I haven't seen anyone who has created a press release saying they're the most dependable mentioning that they had to pay this "processing" fee.

[mcanerin]

"Dependable"

An interesting choice of terms, IMO. Not "best", "qualified", "competent" or even "trained" - just... "dependable". A highly subjective term - almost meaningless.

Dependable for what? Getting good rankings? Getting clients banned? Answering emails? Stealing cars? There are any number of things that you can be dependable about - it's such a wonderful sounding non-word. The potential client just fills in the blank for themselves, and it's not your fault if they think you are dependable about something you never directly said you were dependable about, now is it? I'm sure everyone is dependable about something - some people are even dependably undependable!

Legally, it's an interesting phrase, since it's very much in the camp of "puffery" and therefore isn't measurable or comparable in a legal sense. It's a very low threshold to meet, so there is little to sue over should someone be of such a mind or inclination. You pay, you get listed, and you are not presented as anything other than a meaningless and rather weak-kneed superlative applicable to almost anyone.

There is nothing wrong with this. Of course, I can't think of anything right, either...

Caveat Emptor

Ian

[Randy]

Dependable indeed !

They like the phrase so much, they've registered it as a trademark! Or technically just the numbered version of The 10 Most Dependable® and not the Ten version.

I don't have a dog in this fight, thankfully. I suspect however the bit Ian mentions about the choice of the word dependable was important. If for no other reason than to attempt to keep from getting sued over the FTC's Truth In Advertising ideal. Of course there is the part of this that says advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims...

[Jill]

It still doesn't seem to me that they should be able to use the word "most." Since they haven't put every single company in the running, how can they claim that those who paid are the MOST dependable of all?

[mcanerin]

Perhaps they are the firms that are most dependable for paying their invoices on time to the company - that, at least, can be proven...

Myself, I can generally be depended upon to view this sort of thing as a waste of money and time - perhaps I should get an honourable mention for that...

Ian

[Webmaster T]

T, are you on the list?

Yes and no, I'm Marketing Manager at desme, and they pretty much do a lot of the stuff that guys like you used to do for me before you became too busy and quit taking my calls... :-)
So I may seem biased but... if I owned the company and was in their position ie:wanted exposure to the Inc. audience I likely would have anted up, but luckily for me I didn't have to make that decision. All I really was told was that desme would be in Inc. and I suggested doing some targeted ads showcasing the feature. IMO, not much point in that now:-(
Pretty much a waste of days for me but I guess that's "just the way she goes boys" in the web marketing world. I don't see the need for the kind of disclosure Jill is suggesting since SES doesn't say theses speakers may or may not have
1. Paid thier own expenses to speak at the conference
2. Possibly major sponsors
3. Buying advertising
but.... IMO, the US has laws that are meant to protect people from the need for that kind of disclosure. I come from the realty world where these kinds of advertorials are often the cornerstone of a campaign with print/online and radio visibility. I doubt this is the first time Inc has published a report like that. Jill has her opinion, I have mine. Like I said I think this is similar to JDPowers and I welcome the industry exposure, we can make it negative or we can celebrate it and hope the good ones get the biz. ;-)

Bob, as you know client interviews have always been something I and some others found intriguing and useful to a vetting process, however, I doubt GoldLine use a client discovery process anything like we have done at SeoPros. ;-)

Edited by Webmaster T, 17 August 2008 - 09:48 AM.

[Jill]

Webmaster T if the company you work for paid to be in the Inc thing, you most certainly should be marketing that to the hilt and touting it to the world.

No sense wasting the $5500. You already paid that, so now play the rest of the game.

It doesn't matter what other SEO companies think, they're not your target audience. Being in Inc. as one of the 10 most dependable companies will bring credibility to your firm (rightly or wrongly) and that's what the $5500 was all about.

[qwerty]

It still doesn't seem to me that they should be able to use the word "most." Since they haven't put every single company in the running, how can they claim that those who paid are the MOST dependable of all?

I guess it depends on how seriously the reader is going to take it. Would it be considered dishonest if everyone clearly knew money had changed hands, even if it didn't specify that fact? Every year, People Magazine publishes a list of the 50 most beautiful people in the world, and somehow, I've never made the list It's really the 50 most beautiful public figures whose publicists managed to get the magazine to accept them, probably through promises for exclusive interviews and lots of nagging.

[Jill]

Would it be considered dishonest if everyone clearly knew money had changed hands, even if it didn't specify that fact?

The problem with that is that everyone wouldn't clearly know, only those that know about this kind of stuff.

[MaryKrysia]

Since the one sure word used to describe me throughout my entire life has been "dependable," I am shocked and dismayed that this "research firm" did not know this and did not contact me. Sigh.

On the other hand, this so called "honor" to be listed in the esteemed group of 10 most dependable firms is clearly reserved for the ones who want to or can afford to pay for inclusion and not necessarily for those who are truly the most dependable "anything." Are these firms truly the most dependable at "anything" or the ones with the deepest pockets? Since this is a paid ad, I mistrust the whole concept. A well written article for the same magazine on the "dependable SEO firms" would be more trustworthy than this setup.

Please . . . . . . . . .!!!!


Mary

[Jill]

A well written article for the same magazine on the "dependable SEO firms" would be more trustworthy than this setup.

Yes, but not as profitable.