Miracle Worker – Out of Business Sunday, Jun 29 2008

For a long time, people using the Internet thought that there was some type of silver bullet that would dramatically change how we do business. In the twinkling of an eye, in the flash of a second, a cataclysmic event would occur and millions upon billions of dollars of profits would happen overnight for each and every person who turned away from their 9 to 5 jobs and ventured forth with their entrepreneurial ideas turned endeavors. All it took was a little more tweak here or a minor adjustment there, optimizing your settings in just the right way for the search engines. Then all of those other pickle-brained ideas that others hatched (and many followed) would be shattered because this new way of tweaking and adjusting outdid the rest. Besides that, it was free and we got to reap all of the cash profits!

Then the year 2000 happened. That was also the year that the Internet bust happened. People learned there was a tomorrow that was demanding payment. No payment? No dollars? Then you’re out of business. Not only that, if you’re not in business and you’re no longer working, and you’ve invested everything you had into one of those fly-by-night Internet start-ups. Being part of that crowd meant you were also history.

Well, we’re still recovering from The Bust. But we still haven’t learned the ultimate lesson from it. Free just doesn’t work. There are a few exceptions. I call them miracle workers and it appears the better title for them would be “Rats” as in those who have traits of individuals born in the Year of the Rat — resourceful, industrious, turning negligible scraps into incremental opportunities built upon one another until reaching success. These are the people who seem to walk on water, defy gravity, and simply make the impossible happen.

The other lesson to learn from The Bust is that barter or exchange does work. Still, we keep feeling as though “free” is the way and any kind of “free” is great because there’s no price tag. Not everyone can survive this. Actually, it’s only an appearance that there’s no price on what’s done or received. Ultimately, we all must pay the piper in some way. Resources stretched too far for too long can exact severe tolls on various things that are extremely dear to us.

The layman’s term for this state is “burnout.” The creativity, the resilience, the cleverness are gone. They could be reignited with some difficulty. Even then, the flame has a short wick and quickly flames out again. Positive traits are replaced with fatigue, tension, biting remarks. There’s only so long that it can continue — the drudgery of coming up with alternatives that will compensate for no pay. There’s only so long that things that should come with a dollars and cents price tag can be skirted or parlayed into barter or substitutes used to make the product. Yet it appears no one, absolutely none of the partakers have any appreciation of the effort that went into producing the deliverable. They seem to only hunger for more and more and more for free.

Then there’s the competition that will layer on demands and encourage requests for more from feigned and legitimate supporters. The goal is to deplete, to devastate, to empty everything and thereby eliminate the competitor. Meanwhile, notes are taken to determine what seems to be popular and what works. Then duplicate while also setting up roadblocks for the competitor until they simply drop.

The answer to the miracle worker syndrome is to not do it too long, too often. The answer is also to find a means of being compensated for the deliverable. Even a token payment is better than constant free. Constant free is the same as being taken for granted. It’s the same as being taken.

Don’t let this be your status. The tactics of your competition are illegal and you are complicit in your defeat. Shutter up this madness called “free.” Offer samples, offer two with the second for a percentage off, offer exchanges. But get rid of “free.”

Additionally, hang a sign outside your door that reads

Miracle Worker – Out of Business

Consultant Available

Leave a Response »

 

Hacker Alerts and Unfair Competition Thursday, Jun 19 2008

The third one in a week’s time reached my Facebook account. This third one, it seemed, was justified in being circulated. Following the instruction attached to it, it was forwarded to all of my Facebook friends and associates.

Earlier in the week was another warning away from association with a particular person who is a hacker and identity thief. I had just added that person as a “friend” although we had no connections in regard to other people but a few interests that looked like potential. And there was the first one of the week that didn’t look too promising at all.

As I forwarded the third alert, a thought occurred to me. Those who belonged to the Recruiting.com blog sphere, the Blog Swap sphere, and those who are now part of the RecruitingBlogs.com sphere, many ERE users (plus a few others) have the belief that they are entitled to use any tactics they see as appropriate in order to gain the upper hand in getting traffic, attention, notoriety, and therefore revenue. In fact, one member of these groups said (in Wild, Wild West of the Online Recruiting Frontier style), “We’ll do whatever we want to do.” That includes inducing loyal members to leave under false impressions and promises that cannot be fulfilled, fomenting anarchy and disruption while placing blame on the leader, unequal application of rules, and failing to give attribution for innovations and development of others.

Some tactics used in the past are circulating proposed content for the blog swap among their numbers while delaying the publishing of the content. Then they drum up a conversation on the topic of the proposed post. Once the conversation is hashed out to extreme and dead, the post is published. There’s no real reason to read it any more. What’s more, it isn’t novel; it’s merely a repetition of the conversation so it also has no impression of being cutting edge.

Another tactic used by these groups is to diminish the validity of a blog or website by using a form of blacklisting. They find the sites that are linking to the target blog, contact the owners of the sites and ask them to remove links to the target blog/website. An alternative to this peculiar practice is to post the name of the site or blog but then include a URL that either goes to another site, such as the one pointing to the site, or else pointing to a URL that no longer works. The ultimate result is the same. There is no traffic that’s being sent to the blog or site. Again, its desirability as a link partner or business development partner is lowered because it draws little to no relevant traffic.

There’s also asking certain sites to not publish the content of a particular author. Yes, it’s outright blacklisting. To the extent that these sites cooperate, it can be effective. It’s also pretty cowardly. It indicates the one who desires to silence simply cannot compete. So rather than compete on a quality of content basis, on the basis of relevance, from the perspective of forward-looking content that pushes the envelope, there is no comparison. The one being blacklisted should survive. But the partnership dollars and traffic win every time.

There are still other tactics used by the members of these groups. One is misquoting what someone has said. Another is starting out on one track and then easing the focus onto another area that is not related to the original thought. Then the strayed train of thought is credited to the one being damned as the one going through hystrionics screams foul.

There’s an emerging tactic that’s quickly gaining ground and is similar to the Blog Swap blog strategy. It is copying what one person has said on a topic — even using their topic title — and simply paraphrase what the original post said — without acknowledging the original author.

All of these begin to approach the state of discouraging readership of certain blogs and websites which in turn depresses web traffic and business opportunities. These acts can be construed as interference with business and tortious in nature and effect, violative of the Lanham Act, according to a 9th Circuit decision. One of the good things about our United States government is the fact that it wants everyone to be able to earn a living in order to first pay their bills, support their own selves, and contribute to the support and livelihood of the national infrastructure.

So as I considered forwarding the latest hacker alert, the thought passed through my mind that this could be yet another form of unfair competition by falsely accusing someone of hacking and identity theft when they are actually just striving to build their numbers and stumbled upon a group of strangers who enjoy this blood sport. But it was sent. Today the words of a long-time friend who is very sensible and level-headed responded to the hacker alert. His admonishment read:

I won’t be forwarding this post – that in itself would be a form of spamming. It behoves one NEVER to add anyone to your facebook friends whom you don’t know.

His words ring true in many ways. These hacker alerts, when they become forwarded content on a grand scale, also become spam. They become spam because there’s little to no thought put into what’s being forwarded nor why. There’s been little to no research on the subject of the message to prove or disprove the allegation. Wouldn’t it be interesting if one of these ultimate “don’t associate with” alerts was actually about you? Have you lost associates for no explainable reason?

My friend’s sensibility also had relevance in regard to the accepting friends in a willy-nilly manner. Many in the recruiting industry are anxious to build their contact list. In order to have more contacts, they will accept as a “friend” anyone who extends an invitation to them. There is no effort at determining who the person is, developing some type of rapport with them, nor anyone associated with them, finding out where their specialities are, nor evaluating how this relationship could have future potential. They are accepted. And after the fact (and the dirty work is done), the truth is sometimes discovered.

All interesting things to consider. Far more important, however, is whether what is being advocated is actually a form of unfair competition or interference with business veiled as a friendly warning.

One Response »