*sigh*

This clearly had quite an effect on Dan, but maybe the best damage limitation is to just let it die and move on?

ok Dan, we get it - you’re a good guy.
you don’t have to justify yourself to the clown comments.

It’s tough to market and promote anything new - guerilla marketing seizes every little nook to get the word out…even if it means stepping into the gray and black areas of promotion - lol, they just don’t openly admit it of course

marketers almost seems like they’re in the same boat as salesmen - no matter how clean they are, they cannot wipe out the dirty image the public portrays them as

I don’t buy it. He is trying as hard as he can to reverse back as quickly as possible. In his first post he said, “I will share some of the techniques I use to do my job: to get at least 100,000 people to watch my clients’ “viral†videos.” - so how am I to know which of the techniques he used and which he didn’t? It appears from that comment that he used all of the ones he listed plus more that he hasn’t listed.

Now he wants to become pure and claim something else? C’mon. I read his posts on NTV as well. Seems he is a bit worried/scared now. Now we should let him “lead” us on discussions in truth in advertising online? No freaking way. He says, “WE” many times during his initial post - and now we should believe his organization doesn’t utilize the things he says they do?

It’s interesting that this post was actually in the comments on the original post but now is a fresh, new post.

At least it got some awesome number of inbounds for TC (and I’m sure this one will too)! What’s unfortunate is that the post actually had a few good ideas about optimization but was overwhelmed with things that went WAY past the ethical line.

he’s coming back for some more bashing and, hence, publicity. Smart dude.

Mike - no one at TC is responsible in any way for this fiasco, I take full responsibility for allowing the post to go through as written. Yes, the post did go through the TC filter and the framing was shifted slightly, but in the end I was the one with the final editorial control.

After receiving a draft back from your editors, on the heat of the excitement about getting a guest post on TechCrunch, I did not think through the serious implications of framing the post in a way that made it sound like I was employing all of these shady strategies, rather than as a tell-all of sorts about all marketers on YouTube.

Mike - please do not think in any way that I am saying you or your editors are to blame for this confusion; they are not. If I had been more careful about re-editing my post, I would have been clearer about what we do vs. what everyone else is/could be doing. I did not intend to call anyone at TC out for manipulating my words. In fact, the post did read better - and was much more controversial - after TC’s edits. It was MY fault for not realizing that it skewed the purpose of the post.

That said, thank you for allowing me to follow up on my last post, because I have been deeply distressed by the extremely negative comments about my character and ethics. I am NOT a spammer, and I pride myself in my moral character. Anyone who knows me can attest to this.

Yes, we are effective video marketers, but we are not spammers. In most cases, our success is a direct result of our creativity in conceiving of and executing on a viral video campaign. In other words, our videos with 100,000 views are not “successes”; videos with millions of views are the successes we take pride in. This last post was meant to be an exercise in understanding all of the shady, behind the scenes tactics used by marketers on YouTube and beyond; it was not meant to indicate that WE use all of these strategies.

Again, anyone who wants to continue this discussion outside of TC, email me at dan at thecomotiongroup.com, message me on Facebook, or call me.

Dan Ackerman Greenberg

What are you trying to tell us?

Dan Greenberg wants to change the world. No one knows who he is. And….What does this have to do with web 2.0 or startup?

Dan Ackerman Greenberg. Do yourself a favor… Don’t embrass yourself.

I think people are just sick of feeling like they are being lied to and manipulated behind the scenes - by big companies, by the government, by anyone. From the payola and game show scandals of the 1950s to the Iraq war, there’s a feeling of being cheated.

And now you tell us that there may be a strategy behind Fat Kid With Lightsaber or Really Dumb Beauty Contestant? Oy.

When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn’t like it.

I didn’t inhale and never tried it again

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa (bis)

The viral video maven is BAAACK.

Dan - the best you can hope for now is a Miss South Carolina 15 mins of fame type deal

What makes someone a spammer in your eyes Dan? As someone who runs a forum, if you came in and popped a video in and then started a conversation with yourself (under multiple accounts), I’d consider that spamming.

Is this not spam - “Plenty of users allow you to embed YouTube videos right in the comments section of their MySpace pages.We take advantage of this.”

Spamming friends on facebook not spamming?

Which are the parts you don’t do Dan from your original post? Perhaps you could go over those.

As #2 said - probably best to have let this die, take your blows and move on.

I was interested and shocked to read Dan’s first post. Some of his ideas were great and some seemed downright shady, but it seemed clear to me that his company used all those methods. There didn’t seem to be any indications it was a, “this is what COULD be done” type of post, instead of the, “here’s what WE DO” type of post.

Now we get this embarrassing about-face (I think in politics we call it a flip-flop), and I’m not sure what to think. Perhaps I need to go back and re-read the original article. But, at least we need to give him some credit for being so willing to discuss this matter (email, phone, or in person - that’s brave).

Also, a question for Michael - if you agreed with all the negative comments, then why did you let the post get put up in the first place?

This is way off topic. This speaks louder than words.
How could you get into this lameduck quacking?

@Allen Stern- Sadly I agree with your comment: “take your blows and move on.”

@Dan maybe your company should make some core values. It could do wonders for your business relationships. I suggest including integrity.

Dan,

Dont sweat it so much man. Business is business. If it brings in money, doesn’t hurt anyone — and if there are customers out there willing to pay for it — its fair game.

The commotion will go away with time, don’t worry about it too much cause then it’ll get bigger and bloggers will take note of it and write more stories on it. Just chill out, it’ll end soon

How many readers here waste their time reading this nonsense article?

“The post was intended to be a how-to for marketers on YouTube, morals aside, in an attempt to bring to light everything that could be (and is) going on on YouTube and beyond. [my emphasis]”

I think that says it all. Honest, ethical individuals don’t set their morals aside. You’re not helping yourself, Dan.

Oh just admit it… like you did already.

“After receiving a draft back from your editors, on the heat of the excitement about getting a guest post on TechCrunch, I did not think through the serious implications of framing the post in a way that made it sound like I was employing all of these shady strategies, rather than as a tell-all of sorts about all marketers on YouTube.”

So you got so excited about publicity you didn’t follow through and read your coverage carefully. Real professional there, mate. I’m sure your clients appreciate such detailed effort on your part.

There’s something odd about uttering the phrase “truly go viral”, like you wouldn’t word it that way unless you were trying to game the system.

And come to think of it, if a significant portion of the most popular by _natural_, non-gamed, views don’t get in the millions of views Dan tells his clients he can get for them, then if ANY video gets that many views, you know it’s been gamed, and the views numbers are not “real viral” numbers, but gamed viral numbers. If a video can’t get that many views on its own, it’s not that good. And if it’s not that good, was the marketing message which is the purpose of the video all that effective anyway? Just because something got a bajillion views doesn’t mean it entered the cultural subconscious or that people are going to remember in a week’s time.

Bill, next time inhale. You wont be disappointed

also Bill, you don’t need too much at first. about 3 hits of premium herb and you’re good.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Could this “clarification” that the principles you applied to get millions of views not have been stated in the comments to the original post?

Even then, not all of the techniques that a lot of us find plain wrong have been disavowed - like fake conversations on forums and on YouTube.

This follow-up post simply doesn’t ring true.

With regards to spamming. If you post a fake article and start a discussion with yourself on a forum I don’t really see the problem. It is a win win situation for everyone. The forum gets more traffic from the post and the video gets shown. The myspace comment thing– users can deny comments. I believe that all of these are free game in the world of advertising.

This whole thing cracks me up. It’s just hilarious:
You’re either a diabolical advertising genius who has hatched a plan using Techcrunch and will soon be racking in tons of new clients per all the startups who read this blog.

Or…

You’re an advertising agency who failed to predict the negative impact that their smarmy self-promotion would cause. If that’s the case, you’re doomed to extinction. If an agency can’t control their own publicity, how could they possibly control anyone else’s?

My money is on the first one. Stop playing with the readers for personal gain, while it’s funny… it’s kind of mean.

“allegation”, oh come on, you guys like to right controversial dirt, you even said so in one of your payperpost pieces, we are not that dumb, the fact that something gets a little “enquirer” treatment is nothing new here, “a fairly serious allegation”, what a joke

oh, a people “incensed” about fake comments, sheesh, what world are they living in?

Maybe this guy forgot to also tell you about the fact that he employs extremely dubious practices of running “view bots” as well.. he games youtube by repeatedly loading the videos.. there are several bots out there that do this and it is akin to Alexa whacking (Veoh does this rampantly) , refreshing for impressions,click-fraud, or friend bots like http://www.tellyadder.com/ ….

disgusting, destructive, and unethical.

He also might wanna hire a PR person to bail his dumb immature ass out of this.. I guess he is learning a bit of hubris..

Maybe Demitry from Veoh (who brags about copyright infringement) and he should form a new company together… maybe they could call it The Spontaneous Combustion Group..

I have to side with Allen in post #4. The ‘truth in advertising’ comment is a red flag, in light of the deceptive nature of several of the techniques trumpeted in the first TC post. I think many of us will be left wondering if this second post truly clarifies things, or is it a result of blowback. I’m sure the blowback was felt through the halls and offices at Stanford, and didn’t sit very well with the higher ups.

I wish Dan no ill will. He’s obviously a smart guy, and may be a decent guy as well. The thing is … and I wonder if it’s being taught in business school … you can be smart and decent and completely honest in the way you do business, and be very successful. And you never have to worry about the curtain crashing down around you.

What a tool - flipflop I’m really a good guy I didn’t know I was just excited to be published for real after all my phony comments on blogs but I know all this cool stuff and helped all my clients and here’s how and now I’m sharing and we’ll have a discussion and seriously consider the meaning of all this. And I’m supposed to email you so you can explain what you really meant to say?

Internet generation (and that’s most of us now), please get a grip and find a way to improve the world instead of providing more mindless distraction and consumption. You have never gotten out of high school cliques and gossip. At age 50 you will be sadder even than reality shows about aging rockers. You are worse than the old-fashioned media in your “work” to get the numbers. Your shiny social networking toys are pitiful attempts to like yourselves. tick tock.

I don’t really understand what could could shock so deeply so many people…? Internet is just another way to market stuff, as tv, radio, newspaper and sometimes the marketing soup could seem filthy. I think quite courageous from Dan to make it public, how people make some common video “viral” stuff, and how marketers use the system to promote some videos.
You can say whatever you want, we’re supposed to be web professionals and sometimes the techniques used don’t match our ethic but they definitely exist… no one is forcing you to use thm, but we have to be aware of it, to be able to recognise fake “viral” video promoted by professional marketers from real user-generated content.
You have two choices: keep your blindfolds on and bash dan for his courageous coming-out (especially when he clearly mention his name and company) or be less naive and admit it exists and thank dan for giving us tips to clearly see the pushed viral stuff.

Were none of you ever in your early 20’s, in college, and excited about a potentially career changing opportunity? And of you who were, did you ever make any mistakes along the way, directly or indirectly? Surely you have.

We should all have the maturity to move on after this post. If he lied, oh well, it happens in this world - its a shame, but its true. If he’s telling the truth, then great, and bravo to him for putting forth the effort to see this through to its end.

Please let the drama die out now.

I really just have one serious question for Dan…

Was your company behind Technoviking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqaW15tnbcw

I would be heartbroken if that were so.

This was bound to happen. When there is an opportunity, somebody will surely take advantage of that. If Dan or his company had not done that, some other creative PR firm would have done that, or most probably is doing that. We all scream as much as we want, but the phenomenon Dan described is going to grow. At least now we know how YouTube videos become viral.

I really have to say though, it’s an eye opener for me.

Yes, Max. Let the healing begin. Just excited college kids, learning how to manipulate the system. Nothing new here. tick tock.

Stanford offers a course in Facebook? (see Dan’s opening paragraph in the first post)

Cool. That’ll attract more of the best and brightest. Spam 2.0 - 3 credits.

As I said, get a grip.

Yay, more DramaCrunch

“it ended up sounding like a tell-all about our shady business practices.”

Dan, your comments on the last post didn’t make it sound like you considered these practices shady:

“What we do is grease the viral wheels. If that means commenting back and forth between fake users, who cares? It’s all about entertainment - we’re just making the whole experience entertaining, not just the video itself.”

“Beyond commenting back and forth to make the comment thread more interesting on each video, what exactly do you guys find so morally wrong here?”

You should not judge Dan here. Its tough to market on the internet. Even though some of the strategies listed by him sound immoral or illegal I am sure most, if not all, of the companies follow some of these strategies themselves. Its time to accept that these things are happening and not just judge Dan and his company

RK

http://www.rentalandrealestate.com
http://www.FreXper.com

Fake stuff, blogging, forum spamming are all immoral!

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

Michael Arrington, as you sit by and watch this slowly fade away, you’ve accomplished your goal, hey? Yes, your “goal”.

To Dan’s initial post you write, “I will post a longer response to this later, but frankly I’m disgusted by this.” Yet, 400 comments later, you never followed up. You obviously helped steer the comments and then sat back and took notes and now relish the results of that thread’s comments as it heated up the i-world.

Now you lead here with this posting;

“Dan Greenberg took a bit of a beating in his guest post earlier this week where he revealed his strategies for taking a client’s otherwise ho-hum video and making it go viral. Readers were incensed over his almost gleeful willingness to post fake discussions on forums between fake readers, pay bloggers to post videos, and other dishonest tactics. I, for one, agreed with most of those commenters.”

I, for one, agreed with most of those commenters? Paleaze.

Signed,
Sitting back & collecting

Dan I think you should actually NOT do a follow-up post on your blog. Your follow-up here was enough and the longer you try to drag this out, the more likely it is that you and your company will be connected to something shady (which I think people put on you and isn’t accurate). Opening yourself up to a full discussion and justification will just bring more negativity on you and you’ll find yourself in a never-ending back and forth with people who thrive on internet dialog (but wouldn’t dare give you a call on the phone). So just be wary.

It’s like that movie…I can’t remember the name of it, but there’s this one key set of two lines:

Man: “But I didn’t sleep with her. I’ll come out and tell everyone that.”
Wife: “No. No. No. It doesn’t matter if you are guilty or not if you talk about it. Then no matter what, people will just remember that you were part of something sleazy.”

So take a step back and give it a few days. Don’t engage people who e-mail you. Let it all die down. People are fickle, and people on the web are the worst of the extreme. I for one would love to see a nice big post on your blog about the facebook apps that the kids in your class did and what they’ve learned that we could learn from as well.

Read Editorial process, drafts, mockups… Wow, I’m quite impressed how seriously you guys run this blog. Keep it up!

Michael you wrote:

“I will post a longer response to this later, but frankly I’m disgusted by this.â€

When can we see that?

Dan you look silly….

there was nothing wrong with your original post… just a bunch of holier than thou types who need to get over the fact that what may appear “natural” is in fact the product of clever marketing tactics.

digg is manipulated
google is manipulated (called SEO)
facebook and myspace are manipulated

this back peddling makes you look ridiculous.

For Jeff and others for whom this was an eye opener:

Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, where Dan studies:

http://captology.stanford.edu/

The key concepts of captology:

http://captology.stanford.edu/.....apers.html

One of those papers:

Toward an Ethics of Persuasive Technology (PDF)
This article shows why designing technologies with the intent to persuade has ethical consequences.

which includes the following:

“Some persuasive methods depend on persuaded par-
ties not realizing they are being persuaded—or, more
often, not realizing how they are being persuaded.
We are far less likely to believe a car salesperson
regarding the quality of a used car than we are to
believe testimonials by people with no stake in per-
suading us to buy it. Knowledge of the presence of
persuasive mechanisms in a technology may sensitize
users to them and decrease their efficacy. Therefore,
in some cases, such knowledge might diminish the
effectiveness of a generally positive persuasion. This
reasoning led us to our design principle: The creators
of a persuasive technology should disclose their
motivations, methods, and intended outcomes,
except when such disclosure would significantly
undermine an otherwise ethical goal. ”

(ethical as decided by the persuader, apparently)

and

Stanford “Web Credibility Guidelines” by B.J. Fogg, Dan’s professor

http://www.webcredibility.org/.....index.html

Dan and TC smart move, more traffic, absolute joke. Kinda make me wonder if this wasn’t a setup in the first place. LMAO, LMAO LMAO.

Dan there are more important things in life to worry about, that what these readers think. Quite frankly its almost a given that none of them can even afford your services anyway.

Your business will go on, shady marketing tatics have been around before you and will continue even after you have left this place called earth.

Remember use the web to do what it does best.

Bottom line is that phony buzz is as phony buzz does. Congrats on doing a good job for your clients. People were basically induced into watching a commercial, so what? Nothing remarkable about it, but remember that goes for the client’s long-term value as well.