I was pretty shocked to see this ad show up in my inbox from WebPro. Not meaning to complain about any company’s choice of sponsors as such, but I am curious as to what level WebPro considers the claims of their sponsors in letting them advertise or if it is considered at all. Most WebPro users would probably define this as a bit of snake oil:
Ad also seen here: http://www.webpronews.com/2006a/0115.html

Reality: When it comes to “more comprehensively than any other service”, that’s a pretty tall claim to make. This isn’t like say, “We’re the best”. This is making claim to a quantifiable statement of fact that is or is not true. When it comes to “get listed faster… than any other service, that infers a special relationship with search engine that nobody else knows about or a loophole that they’ve exploited. Again, another quantifiable statement of fact that excludes any other service in the world. That seems to be a bit more than sales fluff, doesn’t it? Ford might get away with saying they’ve got the best vehicle, as this is an opinion. But if they say that theirs is the fastest car in the world pound for pound, they’d better be able to show it.

What is MOST amazing is that their site lists search engines that you will show up in and one of them is “Microsoft Internet Explorer”. Yes, evidently Microsoft Internet Explorer is no longer a browser, but a search engine. It is sometimes amazing what you can learn from spam. And yes, I did screenshot it and save it as a PDF. I am a strong believer in CYA.

Reality 1: “They”??? Who is saying this? Wpromote or WebPro? If it were “We”, then it would certainly be Wpromote making this claim. Saying “They” definitely takes it out of the first person and makes it sound like a WebPro statement. So is WebPro standing behind this statement?
Reality 2: So who in their right mind think this needs to happen or that it does any good? And every 30 days… obviously submitted with software??? I don’t know, but it sounds a bit risky and certainly pointless to be pounding search engines with submissions every 30 days. Pounding sites in China, Brazil, Germany, all over. WOW!

Now I am not saying that Wpromote isn’t legit. And I don't expect every publisher to verify and validate every claim of every advertiser. But some of this stuff is pretty obvious, really isn't even gray area, and I don't know, but it reminds me of another email that I got from some poor sap in Nigeria who evidently has millions of dollars to share with me. It could be real, but I gotta pass.

First and foremost, like any other commercial medium, I would remind you that claims made by sponsors are solely the responsibility of the sponsor. This certainly isn't unique to WebProWorld or the Internet even.

You only have to watch a little TV or listen to a little radio to see this at play. You will find 'male enhancement' commercials, hair loss or some other 'miracle health' supplement, quick to riches work at home opportunities - all on mainstream 'serious' TV and radio news programming.

While your critique may have some merit when discussing commercial advertising in general, I don't think it's necessarily fair to single WPW out - particularly in this instance. There isn't anything wrong with Wpromote. They are members in good standing of several credible orgaizations - including the BBB - and have a history back to 1999. Internet years are like dog years. You find a company that's been doing business online for 7 years, you can bet they are doing something right.

__________________
WebProNews Videos

I do understand your position and won't ask for further comment. Not good business policy to make anything other than positive remarks about paying clients.

There is some value to be found in any medium in evaluating their client list, beyond the clients’ ability to foot the bill. Television has more or less abdicated any sense of responsibility to the public, and I don’t know anyone who considers television as a whole to be serious or credible, so I'm not sure that using that model is particularly beneficial. However, your comparison between television running “enhancement” ads and WPW running Wpromote ads is not lost.

The difference is that you’ve got your analogies mixed up. A website is to the Internet what any show is to all of television. You cannot analogize any given website to ALL of television. While television control over advertising is limited, television shows do control their own advertising, as they know that there is a certain amount of credibility flow back and forth between the show and the commercials that run during the show. Jerry Springer would probably do ads for enhancement pills, Dr. Phil would not. Though the latter could probably sell a bunch of them in the short run (no pun intended), his show’s credibility would be damaged in the process, and the “Jerry Springer does it” or the “we’re not responsible” statements just wouldn’t be enough to hold steady on the credibility meter.

The question that WPW must ask is the same that every other website must ask and that is, “Do we benefit more from Dr. Phil ads or Jerry Springer ads?” It might not be quite that serious, but advertisers that promise to get your site listed in [sarcasm] the famous search engine known as “Microsoft Internet Explorer” [/sarcasm] probably bleed more credibility from WPW than give it.

As far as longevity goes in being a status symbol of “doing something right”, I don’t know about the company, but their domain was registered in 2001, not 1999… but coincidentally only months away from the launch of Enzyte. (Your comparison strengthens.) Time in business is not an indicator of legitimacy. We could all come up with examples, but no point in going there.

Nuff said – only my perspective and opinion, take it for what it’s worth to you.

Noted and appreciated.

I actually don't mind discussing the concept at all, it's got a LOT of implications that I find quite interesting on a personal level. I would prefer however to not bring specific companies into the discussion for the sake of decorum if nothing else.

That said, I would like to clarify one perhaps... 'misconception' that might quite reasonably be construed from your comment about the need for us to be "evaluating their client list, beyond the clients’ ability to foot the bill".

We do take these things into consideration. You will not, for example, find any adult themed sponsors in our network. (Yeah, I know an easy one, but hey their money spends too) The line isn't limited to porn however. We have also 'not had the inventory to place' a number of companies that do business in several niche areas germane to our network. I could name names but again, for the sake of decorum, I'd just as soon not. Besides that, "beyond the ability to foot the bill" just kinda makes us sound like, well... a whore, for lack of perhaps a more appropriate term.

I also see your point insofar as the weakness of the TV analogy is concerned. However I don't agree that it's completely off base. WPW is part of a network too. And, much like the folk in TV world, the network calls the ad shots to a great extent. Though you're right insofar as suggesting we probably have a slightly higher degree of control.

just for the record though, I think if you really paid attention you could probably see an ad on just about any show that is just flat out scammy. Not that it's the host or show's producer's call in any capacity (in some/most cases), but you'll see em nonetheless.

Betcha (for example) you can spot a bogus diet supplement/program/product on any show running in the daytime slots (Phil, Oprah, take your pick...). If we're talking afer primetime (10pm+) all bets are off. You're apt to see anything on just about any channel you hit.

And, on perhaps a more tangential but no less repugnant thread, I think it's safe to say that you are gonna see a pharmaceutical ad of some sort regardless of what you're watching/reading/listening to or when. You know, the commercials that list off about 25 things that could be wrong (they're banking on catching you with one of 'em anyway).

Now that you've been 'diagnosed' youre supposed to rush out and 'ask your Dr. about 'fillintheblank''. What is more damaging that that? What has less credibility and/or a higher slime factor? I can't think of many. But those ads are on everything.

So philosphically speaking of course, isn't it prententious to some extent to hold a Phil ad in some higher esteem than a Jerry ad? It seems to me that at the end of the day 'money talks' to all of 'em and the fact that pharmaceutical companies have more money than anybody means they're goin' on. So in the end, if you're going to be picking and choosing your moral high ground based on a few $$, it doen't really make you any less of a whore, it just means you cost more.

Of course we call this marketing. It makes the media world go 'round. God Bless America, damn the torpedoes and all that. You just gotta love it. Right?

I wanted to get into the whole concept of the 'free web' and all that (which is also fascinating) but I really got a little sidetracked on a different soapbox. I'm gonna go pop a couple Paxil with a zoloft chaser and maybe we can get into that one later. It's a good topic.

__________________
WebProNews Videos