Grass roots marketing, aka Viral Marketing, is fast becoming the promotion tool of choice among many alternative eCommerce venues. Grass roots marketing is pretty much where you blog about the site and spread the word on sellers forums in an effort to get the name out there and to get it recognized. It is a sound and inexpensive promotion tactic that is effective if used properly but can be a disaster if it is taken too far or abused.
I am all for positive promotion of an eCommerce site but common decency dictates that there should be a limit as to how far the supporters of these sites should go for their chosen venues. There are some venues that have supporters who will stop at nothing and attempt to destroy or discredit anyone who may have a different opinion of "their" site. It stops being a grass roots marketing campaign and becomes the equivalent of internet brownshirts who use axe handles and hobnail boots to attempt to cower anyone and everyone who dares to suggest that things might not be quite right.
The owners of these sites are partially at fault. They set up special clubs or groups and the venue's "media" blitz is focused through these groups. It is an inner circle of site member numbering anywhere between 20 and 100 people who are told to go out and spam any article talking about eCommerce or eBay in an attempt to get some "buzz" or "noise" for the site. It is an organized and concerted effort to numb the average reader's senses with the name of the site making it appear to be something it is not. For most sites, it is sufficient to see a post or two mentioning a new venue but when the clubs are let loose you will see 25-30 comments on a single blog or article about a particular site that is not even mentioned in the article or blog with the purpose being to take away the original focus and to put the focus on the venue, in essence, they are hijacking or minimizing the point of the article from its author.
These cyber thugs are also sent into sellers forums to constantly spam them and to attack anyone who has a different opinion of their venue. The attacks are ruthless, plan and coordinated. They will disrupt the forums in an attempt to make those with a different perspective just leave the forum. Forums that were once full of useful information, constructive dialog and debate suddenly become battlefields because of these tactics. They will make up facts that do not exist or can not be verified in an attempt to manipulate other sellers into joining up. The will make outrageous postings in an attempt to start controversy so that they can attack anyone who has the gall to correct them while at the same time playing at being the victim, the ones who have been wronged.
I recently saw a blog from someone who had the audacity to comment about one of these venues and the blogger mentioned that she wouldn't recommend a particular site to her clients because in her opinion, things didn't seem quite right at that venue. This site was not attacked. She stated her opinion about the site as she saw it. She was immediately hounded mercilessly by members of the cyber gang that supports the site. She was attacked personally, accused of having "motives" or an "agenda" for not sucking up to this site. Her business was threatened and there was an attempt to blackmail her into changing her point of view. She was having to constantly defend herself against baseless and ridiculous charges. Which was the whole point of sending this lynch mob after her. To keep her on the defensive while at the same time getting the word out there. This gang of cyber thugs decided to make her life a living hell because of what most reasonable people would consider to be an open and honest article.
Who are these people who would act like this? It sounds like tactics that would be used by a skinhead or Neo-Nazi organization with a bit of a Charles Manson Cult Tactics 101 thrown in for good measure but they are not. They are not young and angry street thugs using the internet as a medium to release their hatred. For the most part, the average supporter of sites that uses these tactics is an upper middle aged woman who, if you ever saw them in person, would seem like they would be above such activities. They are targeted specifically by venues to be inner core supporters because they are mostly likely bored, neglected and lonely individuals with a low self esteem who are looking for something to be a part of. Something that makes them feel good about themselves and something that makes them feel like they belong when nothing else in their lives seems to fulfill those needs. This type of person was targeted by fringe cults in the 1970's and today they are being targeted to be fanatical supporters of various venues as promotional tools and stooges.
When I see a site's members promoting their site a little bit too heavily with statements that are a little bit too far fetched to believe, chances are, something is not quite right and I make it a point not to accept the offer of some Kool Aid.
Don't believe the hype. Look beyond that and most of all, come to your own conclusions. Don't let anyone else think for you.
Edited at 0100 EST, 24 February to add
This is an article about cyber thug cults sites and how their members operate to try to smear and spam the website trying to attack or smear people who choose not to look at their site with blinders on. No sites were named and no bloggers were named either. If you come to try to defend actions which have not been speficified in an attempt to hijack the article and misdirect the point or to attack me as the writer as the article, your comments will be deleted. I feel that decent people should try to combat and reign in tactics such as this and it will not be encouraged here either. My theory is that if you ignore these people and do not feed them, they will wither away and die. Which is best for everyone, even those people who use these tactics themselves.
Comments
Thanks for writing about my experience. You know who I am and how to find me. Would you please get in touch with me? I am interested in your take on all of this. Thanks.
Spot on and now being seen by many people for what they are.
Its like all such organisations. They come and they go, but unfortunately they leave behind a very sour taste for many people.
I have watch the evolution of the gang mentality in forums, articles and blogs and to be honest it has totally turned me off to ever participating in these sites. I am tired of reading comment after comment by the same people saying the same thing over and over again. I have watched many good people be attacked in forum posts for simply voicing their opinion to the point that at some forums I refuse to even say where I list for fear of similar retribution. I is ok to be passionate about what you believe in but stormtrooper tactics can backfire with a wider audience. The web is full of ecommerce and online storefront/auction sites and not every site is a fit for every person and they should be allowed to make their own choices without being browbeaten for disagreeing or voicing their opinions.
Great article Ken and something that needed to be said.
I agree with this somewhat, But to make it sound like just because people comment on blogs, or articles such as this and post along the lines that the tried other sites and they think the site they are on is better for them and to call that wrong is well...wrong, in my eyes.
And IF someone is going to put up an article, and refer to it in theirs, I feel they should link to the ORIGINAL article so their readers and judge for themselves if the viewpoint expressed is simular to the viewpoint they would draw from it.
Being upfront with your reader goes a long way. And allowing opinions that differ from yours to be heard goes a long way also.
In response to Renegade's post, I am not going to link any articles or blogs which show the type of behavior I am talking about for a couple of reasons, First, I am not going to give oxygen to a site that might be using these tactics because that is what these sites are looking for anyway.
Second, I gave an example to illustrate what readers might want to look for and judge for themselves if they see this type of behavior from a site. I am not going to post a link that encourages cyber thugs to turn this into a similar bloodbath.
The cyber gang cults seem to have been popping up everywhere and drowning out the voices of reason. It's not going to happen here.
"I am not going to link any articles or blogs which show the type of behavior I am talking about for a couple of reasons, First, I am not going to give oxygen to a site that might be using these tactics because that is what these sites are looking for anyway."
I think that's awesome. Otherwise your point gets lost in he/she said debate on which site said what first and your point is lost.
The point is, don't do anything on a random recommendation alone. You never know if that recommendation is spontaneous or not.
Let me point something out. This article is about tactics used by ctber thugs to try to intimidate and cower people into speaking only what they want to hear or not speaking at all.
I am not naming any specific site nor blog and I will not. There is no need for anyone to get defensive and or feel a need to attempt to justify their own actions. This is about cyber thugs and tactics they use.
It is more appropriate to post something like. "Why yes, I think it is ok for people to act this way" or "That is disgusting that people feel they have to act in such a manner"
Keep posts relevant to the topic please.
There is some mistaken impression that I do not know what set off one of the examples I cited. That is wrong as I followed the whole situation closely from the beginning.
I am sooo glad that this is being discussed, finally. I can't stress enough how much of a turn-off these forums have become. And as someone who doesn't normally post but who refers to the forums more for a learning experience, I am to the point where I won't post at all because of the possibility that my views may not be a popular one. I have been banned from one forum in the recent past because my opinion wasn't in tune with the others.
There are sites now that I won't become a part of [in the forums] because of the personal attacks I have read directed at anyone who dares to question the site, openly worry about the lack of sales, or voice any concern that may not be agreeable to the site in general.
IMO, this is a sad reality that the e-Commerce world has to go to these extremes. "If you don't have anything positive to say, don't say it"
Ken,
Since you have removed comments related to this story that were not inflammatory (other than not agreeing with your original premise or that of the blogger you refer to as being the victim in this case - without naming same)... and since you say you followed the situation from the beginning and know all the facts.
I suppose you agree with the idea of changing ones published material and/or editing your audiences comments to only present your own point of view - just as the original blogger did in this instance, the one you have so indelicately taken up as a cause to protect.
Could you explain to me what Journalistic ethics you are aspiring to abide by here at the Examiner?
I just would like to know, because your one sided account and your tolerance for changing published material without printing a retraction and then basing a new story on the altered material seems to be out of whack with what the Examiner is supposed to stand for.
Have you checked with your handler at the Examiner on this? It seems you may be walking into difficult territory without a net.
Just FYI
One question for you and it is regarding the topic of the article which will not be side tracked by anyone.
Do you think that it is ok for cyber thugs to attack anyone ruthlessly without mercy because they might have an opinion that is not popular with these cyber thugs?
A YES or NO supported by a brief statement on the subject is all that is neccessary. Any attempts to hijack the point of the article or topic as I described will be rebuffed.
This will not turn into a circus in an attempt to change the focus from the point of the article and my "handler" had already weighed in on this issue long before this article had been published.
Ken,
Of course not. I have never condoned the type of forum behavior you describe and commonly found on the PSU forums, eBay forums, OLA forums or elsewhere. Anyone that will attack and gang up on any individual who is simply asking a question or presenting a point of view which is not the same as that of the majority is not worthy of being included in any worthwhile community.
But this was not the case in the instance you have selected to make your point.
In this case the "victim" joined the forum to cause trouble in a weird attempt to gain business for her own company. She seems to think that her observations will inspire the targets of her attacks to call her for advice.
Drumming up business is all well and good, but if you use the type of tactics that your so called "victim" has used, time and again, to stir up controversy and rancor, and then sit back and claim innocence and play the part of a martyr, then I do not agree that the source material of your story was as simple as you or she has made it out to be.
To harangue any forum member for presenting a differing point of view is deplorable. To go about in groups and chase these dissenters down is also of no value to anyone.
But in the particular case you have written about this did not happen. What happened was people were presented with a ludicrous attempt of causing a stir by a person who considers these tactics a marketing method for her services. And the true victims here reacted with reasoned and reasonable responses. There were no threats, no gangs and no personal attacks other than to call it what it was.
For you to take this particular incident and make it about the very common practices that you wrote about, found on other forums, is not exactly in sync with the point you are trying to make.
I agree with your basic point, just not the example, because there was way more to that story than you have allowed yourself to understand.
I ended my original comment (since deleted) with a heads up, and that is exactly what this is... Be wary of your source here...
Reply to Joeseph-In which case, we must be talking about 2 completely different incidents in regards to the blog example. But we agree that sometimes promotional tactics used by sites can cross the line. Just where that line might be is a matter of opinion depending on which side you stand.
Thank you
Joeseph. I am wondering why you think the example I gave is the same one that you are talking about if they example I gave is nothing what you are describing.
My question would be why would you consider it to be? If it is 2 different cases then why would anyone take offense or get defensive? How could someone connect the dots between my point of view and this totally different perspective? No need to answer these questions because it would distract us further from the topic.
I could have posted links to my example but as I said, anarchy would erupt here and it would take away from the point of the article.
And you have a good point about trusting a source. I only trust my own eyes and I come to my own conclusions. You should note that I tell people the same exact thing in the articles I write. I tell them not to trust me. I tell them to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
This is about cyber thugs. If this has something to do with your blog then by all means, post your thread there but if this is defending something that is different than what I am talking about, then it doesnt belong here and will be deleted.
Ken,
Why would you manipulate the comments here to make it appear as though my previous comment was re-posted each time you entered a reply?
I certainly did not copy and paste my comment and post it here 3 times verbatim.
In addition, why are you suggesting that someone is getting defensive?
My point is that you are not using the best or most accurate example of the poor behavior that we both agree exists on discussion boards. Surely there are hundreds of stories that can confirm the group thuggery which is the focus of your article. I agree it is a problem which needs addressing.
I am not suggesting you change your article, I am not offended by the main point of the article, I am not defensive at all about the forum bashing issue because I have never participated in such behavior. Using the single source that you have as an example has tainted the entire theme of your article because in that case there was no cyber thuggery as described.
The idea of the article is spot on, and cyber thuggery certainly exists but when you use the wrong situation to prove your point the whole focus of the article falls apart.
What I am doing here is suggesting that your source for this particular story has not given you all of the facts and that you may have been better served to of checked those facts or possibly confirm your original story idea with a seperate set of facts with a different unrelated source which demonstrates your point accurately. Then present the story in a balanced manner which would not have drawn anyone's attention for being unfair or inaccurate.
All part & parcel of good journalism. The examiner believes in good journalism, right?
I can not "edit" comments. If you are refreshing the page after you make a comment, the comment will appear again. I will remove duplicate comments from you.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!