I would ask, is this sick-making to me alone? — but I heard about it from a nauseated reader before I had seen it myself.
We don’t take any money out of this site at all, not even Amazon affiliate fees. I don’t want for anyone reading BloodhoundBlog ever to doubt our integrity.
I am repelled by advertising on real estate weblogs, but taking in-kind bribes for pimping vendors and their dubious wares is simply corrupt.
Until today, there were no rules for BloodhoundBlog contributors — if for no other reason than because it had never occurred to me that anyone could do something this disgusting, much less celebrate it. Today we inaugurate our first rule:
If you write for us and if you have taken bribes in the form of cash or merchandise from a vendor, please send me your resignation. If I find out that any BloodhoundBlog contributor has taken bribes from a vendor, I will fire you on the spot. I love having our contributors here, but we each one of us have to be above reproach, now and always. This is the way I built this place, and thus it will remain, even if I have to go back to writing alone.
The one bright spot in this, for me, is that not one of these jackals made their bribe offers to me.
Un-frolicking-believable…
I have two more posts scheduled for the day, but I’m so angry I could spit. I’m going to mix myself a drink and toast, one by one, the people I know for sure I can trust.
Beth Incorvati says:
A leader accepts what they tolerate – I commend you for making your position crystal clear. No worries, you are supported. Woof!
December 24, 2008 — 3:27 pm
Greg Swann says:
Bless you, Beth. I expect this will turn out to be my fault, but I don’t care.
Merry Christmas to you!
December 24, 2008 — 3:44 pm
Jim Gatos says:
Hello,
I went to the AgentGenius link and I guess what I saw is discounts and freebies given to their contributors. Most of the products are in fact “dubious” and to me, at least, pretty much useless. Please understand I’m asking in a polite and almost “naive” manner; what’s the problem? What did they do so wrong at Agent Genius?
Thanks
Jim
December 24, 2008 — 4:03 pm
Steve Krzysiak says:
Something tells me that this will get interesting. Good to know where you guys stand with vendortising ….
December 24, 2008 — 4:07 pm
Greg Swann says:
> What did they do so wrong at Agent Genius?
They’re taking bribes in exchange for favorable blog coverage of vendors’ products. It has seemed likely to me for many months (and to others who have approached me about it), that they were selling positive product reviews in exchange for advertising. All they actually did today was to confirm this policy of corruption and then spread the swag among their other contributors.
Why is this wrong? Because they’re telling lies in exchange for gifts. What they are selling, ultimately, is you — your belief that a favorable review is based in an honest opinion and is not the consequence of a bribe.
If that’s not completely clear, let me know.
December 24, 2008 — 4:14 pm
Jim Gatos says:
Well of course it’s wrong Gregg.. I personally can’t stand most, if not all of the vendors. I see what you’re saying. Thanks for clearing this up. If they are in fact, telling lies for gifts that’s a real baddie. I can see what you’re saying though. I read a blog post on “Dwellicious” a while ago, and now, Presto! “Dwellicious” is offering six months of their pro account for six months at no charge to all of our contributors. Yup. sorry I had to ask, I see it now.
Jim
December 24, 2008 — 4:24 pm
Brian Brady says:
I let Louis buy me a couple of beers at his HomeGain party. Then again, I bought him a one or two at Unchained. He knows better than to ask for favorable treatment and never has. Actually I know he prefers to earn everything he gets from us: good and bad.
I took Zillow’s money for Unchained but I’ve always told it like it. Soon before we received the Zillow check, I hammered Zillow Mortgage Marketplace. Never, I repeat, NEVER, was I asked to compromise my opinion because of that sponsorship. Spencer, Drew, Sara, and David G know the rules. There is no such thing as “play for pay” in our world or theirs.
Same with Trulia. They’ve given me some schwag but they give it to everyone. Heather and Pete don’t like what’s been said here but they know better than to try and buy good reviews. They’re straight-shooters.
Inman gave me a t-shirt and they can’t be happy with that investment. Bloggers give me T-shirts and I pimp pics of me in them; that’s for fun, though.
Glenn Kelman has earned every bit of praise he received here (and some of the criticism, too). So has Sherry Chris. Readers should note that Sherry spoke at Unchained Orlando soon after Greg tore into her parent company’s lobbying efforts.
I think you pretty much defined how we roll, Greg. We’re not always correct but we always call it like we see it.
December 24, 2008 — 4:48 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I read a blog post on “Dwellicious” a while ago, and now, Presto! “Dwellicious” is offering six months of their pro account for six months at no charge to all of our contributors.
Yeah, that one stunk to me at the time. A similar problem, in the RE.net at large, is that people become friends with vendors, with objective coverage being the first casualty. The friendships might be motivated by good intentions in both directions — although who would pay attention to me, for instance, if I didn’t have this platform? But the loss of objectivity is consequential for the same sorts of reasons we’re talking about here.
December 24, 2008 — 4:51 pm
Benn w/Agent Genius says:
I never comment nor respond to your posts about Agent Genius, but the notion that any of these sponsors paid to be included is incorrect. We simply wanted to help our writers save a little cash in 2009, and if our friends can get a little press for their giving, then so be it.
Thanks, and Merry Christmas to You and the Family
Just a thought though, you did take money from Zillow, and Trulia to fuel UnChained among other sponsors I know you approached- some of which are listed at Ag. I’m not so sure that you can really set such a rule for others that determine their financial futures in such a way, although we ask that our writers not endorse products for Ag, but rather do it on their own sites. This has been the rule of thumb since the beginning.
I’ve never really cared enough about bhb to really care what you do, it’s your site, you’ll run it as you wish. I simply ask the same of you.
December 24, 2008 — 4:54 pm
Brian Brady says:
Greg,
I know you hate this but this is should be chalked up to Benn’s inexperience or wide-eyed admiration of Inman News. I really think his intent was to build up value FOR his readers and not necessarily TO pimp the vendors.
“Jeff Turner, President of Real Estate Shows knew that Lani would have virtually no use for any of the above mentioned gifts and has graciously filled the gap with a beautiful new Samsung NV24HD camera, pictured below! Lani had just received a new camera prior to Inman SF this year, and had it stolen on the trip! Ag and I both send out a huge thank you to Jeff Turner at RES!”
THAT, however, doesn’t look good to fostering unbiased opinion whatsover.
December 24, 2008 — 4:56 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I think you pretty much defined how we roll, Greg. We’re not always correct but we always call it like we see it.
Trulia sent me some pens a long time ago, back when they used to like me. I gave them to Cameron. This is where the tee shirts go, too.
We definitely do have a disclosure issues with Teri: Real Estate Shows gave her a two year membership for free. I knew about this at the time and didn’t object, first because I don’t perceive Real Estate Shows as having any value and second because I knew Teri would never say anything she does not believe to her core. All of the contestants in Project Blogger were given free one-year Ubertor sites, but Teri never made use of hers. TheBrickRanch.com is hosted for free by BloodhoundRealty.com, LLC, but that’s for my convenience, not Teri’s.
As I was drafting my response above to Jim Gatos, Benn Rosales called me, wanting to vent. As I have discussed in other contexts, I don’t talk to people where there is any chance what I say can be misrepresented. I asked to record the call, but that got nowhere, so I suggested he take the matter up by email. I truly don’t care what excuse he has for taking $63,000 in bribes and then bragging about it, but ’tis the season for full disclosures.
December 24, 2008 — 5:02 pm
Ken brand says:
Bribes, jackals, pimping, corrupt?
Looking into someone’s soul and judging character when we’ve never met seems unjust, I respect your perspective, I disagree with it.
Splashing “what” from “where” across the front page is transparent, candid and honest. I imagine readers who have issues with it will unread.
As Brian shared above, I do know how you and yours roll, I enjoy reading and learning from you and all your contributors, I respect all that’s shared, of course I don’t always agree, that’s the beauty of sharing and America.
I see no evil and I roll with integrity and pride as well.
December 24, 2008 — 5:06 pm
Greg Swann says:
> but the notion that any of these sponsors paid to be included is incorrect.
They parted with $63,000 for no reason. All you did today was admit what has been obvious for months. A better defense would be to claim you didn’t know it was wrong to take extremely valuable gifts from the people you write about.
> you did take money from Zillow, and Trulia to fuel UnChained among other sponsors
Brian can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the only sponsor we have ever had is Zillow, which bought the naming rights to Unchained in Phoenix, 2008. No one (other than the students) got anything out of that. Zillow’s money paid for the food and part of the room. Zillow got nothing out of it other than its logo on the program and the DVDs.
It’s not like you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, Benn. You pimped your blog and your contributors’ good names to a gaggle of sleazy vendors, then bragged about how much you were able to shake them down for. I’ve known for months that you were actively corrupt. Now everyone else does, too. That’s a nice Christmas gift for everybody.
December 24, 2008 — 5:21 pm
Russell Shaw says:
If there is any financial benefit to posting on BHB or on AG it has not arrived where I am yet.
To date I have never been offered anything to make any post of any type.
But if someone was going to make me some sort of an offer, please let it be a *really* nice one. If I do get a really good offer I will tell them to also contact you, Greg, as you seem to love vendors more than just about anyone. 🙂
December 24, 2008 — 5:23 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I really think his intent was to build up value FOR his readers and not necessarily TO pimp the vendors.
They’re all advertisers on the site. And, amazingly enough, every one of those advertisers got a glowing review from AG about a week before the ad went up. It’s been obvious to me for months what’s been going on. Today is just the icing on the cake.
December 24, 2008 — 5:32 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Brian can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the only sponsor we have ever had is Zillow, which bought the naming rights to Unchained in Phoenix, 2008.”
…among other things. We heaped praise on them in Orlando, where we accepted no sponsorship money. I’ve heaped praise on them, since then, for their “investment” in the RE2.0 revolution. I still will because I believe they made that “investment”, in spite of the negative yelp of the dozens of people in the RE.net. I believe that Zillow is owed a collective debt of gratitude from the wired REALTOR for advancing best practices and always will.
I still criticize ZMM for the unverified rate requests that come from trolling voyeurs. I think they could help the mortgage origination community immensely if they vetted borrowers the way they vetted the providers…but that’s not their objective. Zillow’s objective is consumer first, above all else. I hate that as an originator (but I still deliver quotes each month.
Zillow’s no great friend to the originator but it’s no great enemy.
I solicited co-marketing help, in the form of e-mails to members (as a promotion), from 4-5 different vendors, for Orlando.
Only HomeGain promoted the conference (through their blog); the other four declined. Never, I repeat, NEVER, did we solicit money from vendors for Unchained Orlando.
December 24, 2008 — 5:40 pm
Benn w/Agent Genius says:
Brian, what about Phoenix 08?
December 24, 2008 — 5:43 pm
Brian Brady says:
“It’s been obvious to me for months what’s been going on. Today is just the icing on the cake”
I don’t see it the same way. I think Benn’s trying to build value for his community. There are better ways to do this but I see where he’s going.
December 24, 2008 — 6:02 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Brian, what about Phoenix 08?
It doesn’t make any difference. Zillow got to attach their name to our event, that’s all. Your advertisers are giving $64,000 in merchandise to your contributors in exchange for the value you have already delivered to them in the form of positive reviews. I’ve been watching this process for months, Benn, wondering when and how it would blow up.
The move you are deploying here is the Fallacy Tu Quoque, a favorite of people who have painted themselves in a corner. People try to smear BloodhoundBlog all the time, but this is because everyone knows they will never find us on the shady side of honor.
December 24, 2008 — 6:10 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Brian, what about Phoenix 08?”
Nope. Paid vendor-free zone.
I’m glad you brought that up, Benn. Unchained Phoenix ’08 is a University-style conference and tuition was priced so that we’d break-even at about 55 attendees. We’ve a long way to go but we’re well ahead of events past. Should we sell out the conference at 75 seats, Greg and I will bring home about $7-10K a piece. That would be the first time we drew a check.
Unchained has been a labor of love to date. We had a great trip to Orlando and a helluva conference in Phoenix. It would be wrong to say that I didn’t profit from the lender/REALTOR relationships I forged there. The marketing ideas I picked up, at both conferences, were helpful, too
We’re stupid, right? Maybe. I just don’t think we know where to head with this. I think our profits lie in product sales or automated coaching but I’m not pushing the third-career just yet.
December 24, 2008 — 6:11 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I really think his intent was to build up value FOR his readers
> I think Benn’s trying to build value for his community
Coming back to these ideas. The readers got nothing, The community got nothing. The contributors will split $64,000 in bribes.
Not bribes, you insist? Then why are they proffered? The vendors want to get their products into the hands of webloggers, unrequested and at no cost, in the hopes of generating even more favorable coverage. At a minimum, their hope is that the gift will create a feeling of obligation and thus not result in negative coverage.
Do you agree that is the vendors’ motivation?
If so, do you agree that all of this is foreseeable?
And if you do, do you concede that Benn Rosales has no rational defense for spearheading this catastrophe?
I believe they have been selling positive product reviews to advertisers for months, but even if you hold that premise in doubt, can you dispute that the vendors are giving $64,000 in merchandise to AG webloggers — and not to AG readers or to the homeless — in pursuit of underhanded objectives?
Is there any reason in the world to expect anything else of vendors?
I think we’re done, Brian. If you want to insist Rosales was a fool, I don’t need convincing. But there is nothing of honor or wisdom or probity in any of this. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
December 24, 2008 — 6:24 pm
Benn w/Agent Genius says:
So you’re on record that no money for sponsorships was solicited for the first phoenix unchained? I want to be absolutely clear on this.
December 24, 2008 — 6:38 pm
Brian Brady says:
Do you agree that is the vendors’ motivation?
Completely.
I think the vendors would give it to most anyone who requested it, though. EG: I think most anyone could negotiate the extended subscriptions offered, in this market. I think Benn’s actions fell just a bit short of highly publicizing the fact that he secured a $5 off coupon at Safeway, too.
If so, do you agree that all of this is foreseeable?
Yeah but the goal of AG seems to be much different than BHB. AG commercialized their “product”, as a “national REALTOR magazine”, from the get go. It makes complete sense that they’d follow the Inman News model.
BHB is different. It’s never been about fame and certainly never been about fortune, here.
“I think we’re done, Brian. If you want to insist Rosales was a fool, I don’t need convincing. But there is nothing of honor or wisdom or probity in any of this.”
I’ll stipulate.
December 24, 2008 — 6:44 pm
Barry Cunningham says:
Aaaaah..where’s Kevin Tomlinson when you need him. I was getting a bit bored with the wrapping of presents and now i’m gonna have to put a bit more rum in the egg nog and watch the show.
Seems that there are creatures stirring…
You know being the black sheep of the Re.net world has its priveleges…been thrown out of better bars then what exists on the re blogosphere but I find something interesting…
Greg you being a classic rock fan must have heard the lyric of Geddy Lee, Neil Peart and Alex Lifeson…
“All the world’s indeed a stage
And we are merely players:
Performers and portrayers,
Each another’s audience
Outside the gilded cage”
That being said, we’re all marketers. And as Seth Godin Says…All Marketers Are Liars. (metaphorically speaking)
hey as much as I have a problem with AG, and even BHB at times, I could care less what you make money on and what you endorse. If I thought endorsements and sponsorship were a problem I could never go to the movies, watch tv, go to a sporting event, shop in a store, read a book, …we live in a world of advertising, sponsorship, marketing, product placement…all for the reason of making money on that which we sell.
Greg, the problem is that you don’t give people the credit that they have the same insight that you have. Do you think you were the only one who noticed what was going on at AG? Of course not…We’re all smart enough to discern and understand.
We also have the innate ability to choose to purchase the product offered by the shill or not.
Do you really think Tiger Woods drives a Buick, or that Shaq uses Icy Hot, or that Billy Mays has a never ending supply of stuff…well maybe Billy does..he got my wife on the Sham Wow..or was that the other guy?
Point is you need to somehow understand that the reader has sense enough to come out of the rain and see things as they really are, even if the can’t pen a 10 page Ramblin Gamblin Willie story.
December 24, 2008 — 6:44 pm
Brian Brady says:
“So you’re on record that no money for sponsorships was solicited for the first phoenix unchained?”
Lord, no. I never said such a thing. I turned over just about every rock imaginable, Benn; much to Greg’s dismay. Benn, I also saw stars in my eyes, with Unchained Phoenix ’07. When it was over, I was glad that it worked out the way it did.
I’ve made my mistakes and you’ll make yours. Hopefully, we’ll both deliver a credible offering balancing the need for the commercial with the probity Greg likes to see.
You got a bad review from Greg Swann. I get them from plenty of people. Santa’s still coming tonight, Benn.
December 24, 2008 — 7:01 pm
Greg Swann says:
> So you’re on record that no money for sponsorships was solicited for the first phoenix unchained?
To the contrary. I know Brian talked to a number of potential sponsors.
This is still the Fallacy Tu Quoque. You should quit while you’re behind.
December 24, 2008 — 7:02 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Do you think you were the only one who noticed what was going on at AG?
People have been raising the issue with me for months. Judging by public pronouncements, the only people who don’t know are AG’s contributors. 😉
Merry Christmas, Barry.
December 24, 2008 — 7:04 pm
Barry Cunningham says:
@ Greg…didn’t know or din’t care?
In any event..Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. Unplug the computer for the night, step away and fight this fight on Friday…it’s a very special evening!
December 24, 2008 — 7:10 pm
Jay Thompson says:
Good grief.
As one of what, five people? on the planet who has contributed to BOTH Bloodhound and AgentGenius I can safely say this:
I have never been told what I can and can’t write on either platform. Both Benn and Greg have given me free reign to write whatever I feel like.
I can also say for a fact I’ve never gotten any form of direct compensation from contributing to either site. Here or on AG, I’m neither expected or required to pimp any particular vendor, product, service or thought. The day I am is the day I leave.
I don’t see the point in the sniping and attacking. If someone doesn’t like BHB, or if someone doesn’t like AG — whatever the reason — the solution seems simple.
Don’t read them.
If anyone thinks my integrity has been compromised because I contribute to AG, or because I run ads on my own blog, oh well, I could care less. The people that know me don’t question my motives, and the people that become my clients swiftly come to understand my goals, motivations and integrity. Those are the people I hold myself accountable to.
I get emails and phone calls all the time about both BHB and AG. I’ve met in person many of the contributors to both blogs and of course I have opinions about each and every one of them. But when I get a call or email about either platform I just tell people to read and make their own decisions.
People are smart (generally speaking) and perfectly capable of making their own decisions about what each blog offers and the motivations of the contributors.
Merry Christmas folks. Maybe next year we can all get along or simply ignore those we so vehemently disagree with.
December 24, 2008 — 8:10 pm
Kevin Tomlinson says:
Benn, Greg, Barry, Brian et al
The REAL black sheep of the RE.net is here. I’m so fried that I’m sitting in the parking lot of a Panera Bread in Cleveland,OH, writing this.
First off–this ALL starts with Inman, which I have been saying since AG won in San Fran (Benn this is not a dis).
Inman will only pick groups/vendors for their awards or people who sponsor/advertise. Did you notice their Top 25 Most Influential Bloggers? Except for a few, it was ALL vendors, sponsors or advertisers.
Sherry Chris and influential blogger? Come on! How many franchises have they sold….4??? I don’t know of anyone who follows Sherry (except for Inman because BHG is a big ol’ sponsor).
That 25 list is a joke, joke, joke.
BHG most innovative broker? Por Favor! Inman *rightfully* likes to be in bed with other vendors who sell TO the industry– not actually people IN the industry.
Do you think if BHG wouldn’t have sponsored Inman that they would have won (Most Innovative Brokerage)????
I could go on and I know I’m a “little” off topic but the stink from this stuff needs to be aired.
All of Inman’s winners are companies that sell stuff to Realtors or people who sponsor or advertise.
I said my peace.
December 24, 2008 — 9:26 pm
Jim Gatos says:
After reading these comments coming on my Moto Q phone while I’m @ a XMas Eve Party, brrrrhhh, I can say, some of you folks scare me!
However, a lot of important points were raised. I personally find great value in reading both Agent Genius, and Bloodhound Blog. There is a lot of “revolutionary” writing in the posts that I read, and I have fine tuned Firefox with the Sage Extension so I can catch up daily with these blogs and of course, others. I can say I don’t agree with some of the writing at times, on both blogs, but that’s okay. It would be a boring world with there were no disagreements.
I also took every ad at Agent Genius right now and used “Ad Blocker Plus” to nuke them. They’re gone, poof! Greg, maybe you should do likewise.
I can’t say I agree with everything every time. For three years I’ve used the WordPress platform and for a good amount of that time it was self hosted. To me it was like an enema. I switched to Typepad and immediately my life improved 300%! Am I a Typepad Shill? Yup. Paid? Of course not. But ask me and I say Typepad. I went against the norm, and I LOVE it!
No, I don’t like the posts I read where the advertised products get positive reviews one week BEFORE they become advertised products, on Agent Genius. However, I find great value in Agent Genius overall. Some of their posts are sheer genius. I devour them. They certainly influenced my business and how I do things.
I think you have a LOT of gentle souls who sincerely want to help people and some may have been personally insulted by this post. Maybe Greg, you have a point, but perhaps you should have made a comment on Agent Genius about this whole issue, rather than this post here.
Not to say Greg has no merit, but perhaps in reflecting, some of those “gifts” may be worthless, after all. Does everyone use Diverse Solutions? I don’t think Russell does, but I do know Jay does. Jay runs an ad by Diverse. You know what? I can’t stand Diverse Solutions. I think there are better, cheaper alternatives for my market area. Then again, I read Jay’s blog every day and respect his writings. Sometimes of course there may be a post I may not care for, but that’s human nature. I can overlook Diverse Solutions. I think Jay’s written a positive post about them. I can overlook THAT post.
The ads from Agent Genius were hardly noticeable and never really “in your face”.. Kinda sad that only the contributors got the perks; that’s okay, If I need a service, I will have a list of advertisers that Agent Genius has and GO TO THEIR COMPETITORS.
That’s how I vote. Should I? It’s my decision. I can tell you, when possible, if I can give a referral, I make it a point to try giving my business to the bloggers I see here and at Agent Genius. Again, that’s how I vote…
Merry Christmas. Greg, maybe this post should have been said, but maybe on the day AFTER Christmas.
December 24, 2008 — 9:34 pm
Greg Robertson says:
I feel a response is needed from the “gaggle of sleazy vendors” (have you no shame Mr. Swann?)
I thought I might give our perspective on these free accounts, I’m not speaking for all vendors just ourselves.
For years we have given free software and access away to real estate speakers, high producing agents, and industry “thought leaders”. At first our hope was to gain exposure for our new products/services. But over the years we found we got something much more valuable.
A lot of these types of people see a whole lot of real estate software, services, and go to a gaggle of real estate conferences, where they get to see a lot of new stuff. And they turn out to be really good testers and evaluators due to this fact. What they helped us do is make our product better, in a shorter amount of time – Sort of “hyper-beta” users.
Sometimes we got positive feedback and reviews sometimes we got horrible feedback and reviews. A lot times we got great ideas for a new feature or application for the product. But it’s the horrible feedback and reviews we valued and still value the most. It makes us work harder to get our products better.
As far as giving away products for building awareness, that has always been hit or miss for us. But I’m sure there was a reason Steve Jobs gave David Pogue and Walt Mossberg an iPhone 2 weeks before everyone else, as I’m also sure Apple ran more than a few ads on their respective company websites.
Cheers everyone and a Merry Christmas!
December 24, 2008 — 10:06 pm
Thomas Johnson says:
31 comments on Christmas Eve.
Do we have a life or what?
December 24, 2008 — 11:16 pm
Greg Swann says:
> “gaggle of sleazy vendors” (have you no shame Mr. Swann?)
Welcome to BloodhoundBlog. Shoe pinch?
You could do us all a favor by producing a list of the alleged “thought leaders” you’ve tried to bribe with free software. Or we could just run a quick search in Google Blogs and figure it all out in no time flat.
December 25, 2008 — 12:30 am
Greg Swann says:
> 31 comments on Christmas Eve.
> Do we have a life or what?
I talked about this in Orlando. Our lives are on line. Our lives are 27/7/365 and the unplugged moments are brief and sporadic. We are what we are. I embrace it. I like it.
December 25, 2008 — 12:37 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Benn –
What about the censorship of commentators who point out flaws in your advertisers’ products?
December 25, 2008 — 8:18 am
Mack Perry says:
Memo To: Greg and Benn
From: Mack Perry
Subject: Thanks
Date: December 25, 2008
Gentlemen, Please accept this memo as thanks to both of you for the educational platforms that you provide to agents. Please feel free to run whatever ads you feel necessary to properly fund your sites.
After reading the posts on this article the one thing that comes to mind is, are we in the Middle East were no one gets along with anyone? There will never be peace in that part of the world. Gentlemen, this is America. You have the freedom to write whatever you like and I have the freedom to read whatever I like. While I may or may not agree with what you write I will defend your right to write it!
I think both platforms have a lot to offer and again I thank you both. It’s Christmas Day, can’t we all just be friends?
December 25, 2008 — 8:25 am
Eric Bramlett says:
And FTR – I don’t see anything wrong w/ free schwag for bloggers as long as there’s full disclosure. I see BIG problems when “authoritative” sites aren’t fully transparent.
Benn, if you’re still reading, here’s how you write sponsored reviews:
http://weblogs.about.com/od/monetizingablog/p/SponsoredReview.htm
You need full disclosure at the beginning of the review, and you need nofollow tags on any advertiser links.
December 25, 2008 — 8:43 am
Greg Swann says:
> I can also say for a fact I’ve never gotten any form of direct compensation from contributing to either site.
But this is false. Rosales announced yesterday that you’ll be receiving your split of $64,000, and you celebrate this fact in the comments. Are you now renouncing these bribes?
> I don’t see the point in the sniping and attacking. If someone doesn’t like BHB, or if someone doesn’t like AG — whatever the reason — the solution seems simple.
This has nothing to do with anything. You’re changing the subject, as are some others in this discussion.
> If anyone thinks my integrity has been compromised because I contribute to AG, or because I run ads on my own blog
But this is exactly what any thoughtful person would think. Like it or don’t, your reputation has been sold to AG’s advertisers.
This stinks like a Higley dairy farm, Jay. You — of all people — would have no trouble smelling it if you hadn’t been rolling around in the cowshit yourself.
December 25, 2008 — 9:17 am
Greg Swann says:
> First off–this ALL starts with Inman
I could not agree more. But as corrupt as Inman is as an organization, I will bet they have a policy of what gifts their reporters can and cannot take, in what quantities and on what terms.
Merry Christmas, Kevin.
December 25, 2008 — 9:24 am
Jim Gatos says:
From Mack Perry…”I think both platforms have a lot to offer and again I thank you both.”
Me too.. I think BOTH sites have a lot to offer. I haven’t seen any of this spill over to the comments on this post over at Agent Genius; too much “ooing and aaahhhing” happening over there LOL.. and although I find extreme value at Agent Genius, Greg makes a VERY strong point. VERY VERY STRONG.
Oh, well.. live and learn, I guess. Eric Bramlett hit the nail right on the head!
December 25, 2008 — 10:03 am
steve norris says:
Greg, I respect your opinion, integrity and intellect. I dispute whether this is a worthy windmill at which to tilt.
Advertising is everywhere and as long as there is capitalism, it will be. AG’s model is different from your own. That’s OK. Will some of their contributors be influenced to write positives about a product simply because they got a freebie? I suspect, in the vast majority of cases, the answer would be no. Too little benefit for selling one’s reputation.
Might the vendors get some positive press from some contributors? If the contributors genuinely like the product, probably. I don’t see the harm. The potential, yes, but I don’t think you are giving adequate credit for the integrity of AG’s contributors.
On a separate note, thank you for BHB and all you have put together here. I value the thoughts and ideas I get from you and its contributors daily. Merry Christmas
December 25, 2008 — 10:16 am
Greg Swann says:
> I don’t think you are giving adequate credit for the integrity of AG’s contributors.
There were a few that I expected to have sense enough to be able to identify a Trojan Horse. As Jim points out, the “gifts” themselves are largely worthless. So far I’ve been disappointed.
> thank you for BHB and all you have put together here
Bless you, sir. Thank you. Merry Christmas to you!
December 25, 2008 — 10:28 am
Russell Shaw says:
Me? I can’t wait to get some of the wonderful prizes so I can tell the entire world just how great each of the products are.
I’ll say anything necessary to make that vendor happy, just so long as I personally get something free. If you are a vendor, please keep me in mind for any and all promotions. Not only can I be bought, I can be bought really really cheap.
December 25, 2008 — 11:59 am
Kevin Tomlinson says:
Me too! Heck, I’d do it for a PR4 backlink.
December 25, 2008 — 12:10 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Not only can I be bought, I can be bought really really cheap.
I’d say I’m disappointed in you, Russ, but that would imply that I didn’t predict with precision exactly what you would do. As here, you’ll figure out in a few days why I am right about this, but by then your opportunity to exercise real leadership will be gone. Means nothing to me. I like it when people do the right thing in difficult situations, but I don’t expect it. But I’m sad to see you squander your moral authority just to make a few dumb jokes. “Greg Swann takes moral stance, mindless mob pokes fun.” That’s a pretty tired story line.
Brian and I were reflecting on how this is a learning process for us, too, as for everyone. If you go back in our archives, you’ll see that I was much less strident in the early days about Inman or vendors or advertising or the whole vendorslut conspiracy of the NAR. I’ve learned a lot since then, which is why we won’t touch any of it. I am actually very proud that the pimps who are giving all this crap to you knew better than to even approach me about bribing the Bloodhounds. But it was you, in those early days, who convinced me that advertising was nothing but the door to whoredom. For being so right about something I didn’t understand at the time, I will be in your debt forever.
Happy Holidays to you and to Wendy.
December 25, 2008 — 2:09 pm
Jim Gatos says:
This was the post from Agent Genius that bothered me.
http://agentgenius.com/?p=7493
Was this a “new” find from Benn?
Was Benn approached by Dwellicious?
When will the madness stop?
Yes, I can see a use for this, however, every week another one pops up. When will it end?
Why are some of the AG contributors so “gushy wushy” over this?
Is too much made out of nothing? Jay advertises “The Garbage Guy” and I think he charges him. http://garbageguy.com/index.php
However he also posted that he had a good experience with him. http://www.phoenixrealestateguy.com/an-interview-with-the-garbage-guy/1102 I really don’t see anything wrong with this. If the same thing and opportunity happened with me, to promote a vendor, then you bet I’d take it.
I suppose there is a difference between recommending a service provider to your readers and recommending a real estate vendor for profit. Where is the line of division?
Although I agree and understand Greg’s position about not prostituting his site to advertisers, in some cases it may actually be more of a public service, to get a “good egg’s” name out in the public.
But as I said before, I pretty much find the advertisers Benn promotes as pretty much useless. Even if I got them for free, I don’t need “real estate narcotics”. I was with Top Producer 7i for a couple of years; that was bad enough. Eventually the “freebies” will want something from you. The price may be TOO high to pay. That’s how the mafia works, right?
December 25, 2008 — 3:27 pm
Barry Cunningham says:
“advertising was nothing but the door to whoredom”…umm a bit storng don’t you think, since there must be at least 20 posts alone ADVERTISING Unchained here or does advertising one’s only stuff not constitute advertising in Swannese?
Russ and I and many of those on agent genius butted heads many a time. In fact I just had a blog run in with Todd Carpenter over a post here…yet will not fault Todd for promoting and getting sponsors for ReBlogworld, wouldn’t fault Russ for running his commericals nor fault you for marketing unchained.
We’re all marketers! C’mon Greg this is a bit much do you think anyone really cares that the AG contribs are getting free stuff?
Hey if it works..fine..if it doesn’t then people will see.
Homegain was a sponsor of ours for quite some time. Didn’t stop Louis and I from having a run in as to who his product was suited for.
I just got finished eating and the first commercial I saw on tv when I turned it on was a commercial for Bank of America…you know the bank who just took a big bailout…followed by a commercial for ford..and we all know what’s up with the car industry.
Geez..you’d think the writers at AG were Pul;itzer candidates. For Pete’s sake they’re REALTORS…what single person in the general public would even care what they endorsed…but wait…almost every product mentioned was for other Realtors…
Are you then intimating that other Realtors are not smart enough to discern the difference between a video and a hyped up slide show? Perhaps you are then correct…but heck man, they should then be exposed for the ignorant hacks that they are but does it really mattter.
I have just one question in all of this and I’d truly like you to answer it.
If this is truly a bribe, and if any of the products truly have any functional utility, why haven’t these products been used by the recipients prior to the gift? I mean if they are such great products would they really need 20 or so people shilling for them or would they already be using them?
My point being this, if one is a professional and the tools a professional needs to up their game are readily available, does a professional wait until they are given to them for free?
Me thinks this is much to do about nothing. This is the selling of houses which most aren’t succeeding at anyway.
These toys won’t help the unsuccessful be successful so IMO it’s like giving the Detroit Lions a new uniform.
Still gonna be 0-16 at the end of it all!
December 25, 2008 — 4:14 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Interesting discussion. There was a time – not that long ago – when honorable men and women considered the mere appearance of impropriety to equal the impropriety itself.
Now of course, we endure the adult world of faultless children raised on Dr. Spock and entitlement. There’s a reason you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression.
To those who would say “my intentions are pure despite how my actions look,” I say Honor: Google it sometime…
December 25, 2008 — 4:17 pm
Ken brand says:
Sean – It doesn’t read like much of a discussion.
More like ranting, finger pointing, blanket judgments and for some, a magical ability to look into the hearts and minds of people never met (me for example) and proclaim them evil, pimping and corrupt.
I know what the definitions of honor, integrity, injustice and character assassination are. Examples can be found in among these many comments.
In closing – I hold no personal animosity at this turn of events or accusations. It’s been interesting and informative and maybe a bit entertaining too.
I have and will continue to enjoy and benefit from what’s shared here and I will occasionally comment. I’m thankful for BHB.
I contribute articles and comments at AG as well. I will continue to enjoy, contribute and benefit from the AG community as well.
Peace People – All the BEST in 09′ and beyond.
December 25, 2008 — 4:51 pm
Russell Shaw says:
First, I didn’t think the jokes were all that dumb.
As far as advertising changing the editorial policy of any type of media outlet – there is no question, in my mind, it does just that. Years ago when I was involved with a morning radio show it was made crystal clear by management that no jokes or routines of any kind were to make fun of any of the station’s advertisers. Since then, more than once I have been interviewed by the by a talk show host at a station where I advertise. It has been normal for my sales rep to go out of her way to either walk into the control room with me or give me something that would be obvious to the show’s host that I was a client of the station. Translation = no rude questions towards Mr. Shaw. But I wouldn’t have gone on the show in the first place if I wasn’t willing to be asked whatever I was going to be asked.
Benn asked me over dinner once what I thought of him accepting advertising on AG and my answer to him was completely different than the answer I gave you. I didn’t see any possible harm from AG having ads (or Benn & Lani earning a few dollars from them). There has never been a time on AG that it was suggested to me what company or service to not write about. I don’t even know who the advertisers are but if I had something to say (good or bad) I would say it. About the only thing I have personally ever wanted to “review” were books that I truly thought were worthwhile and helpful. It has happened that I have been given a book as a gift (by the author) where I later wrote a favorable review of that book. As I have such an enormous willingness to be completely out of agreement with anyone about anything it has honestly never occurred to me that I was somehow “bought” into doing the good review.
If someone read a positive review for a product on AG then saw that company’s ad on AG and was then somehow suckered into doing business with that company I don’t know about it. I seriously doubt there are any people in that category who were unhappy with any of AG’s advertisers who could not get their issue resolved or get a refund. In fact, I would think any person doing business with any of their advertisers would have even more leverage than they would with some other company that was not an advertiser. In short, I don’t see advertising or PR (including the giving away of software to “thought leaders”). The usual name for these people isn’t “thought leaders”, BTW, it is “opinion leaders”. Opinion Leaders most definitely influence what their friends and associates will buy. They normally can hold their opinion leader status only by continuing to be perceived as knowledgeable and unbiased. Which is to say that their opinions were not based on they were paid to say it. A hint of that and their status as someone to listen to is pretty much gone.
Why did I say to you that accepting ads would be a “bad thing” but told Benn that I couldn’t see a problem? Because you wrote this post. Benn would have never initiated a post like this one just because he saw you writing something that wasn’t something he would have done. I don’t say that as an attack, just an observation. One of the most admirable points about you is your complete willingness to “take on all comers”. This can be a blessing or a curse, depending: a blessing when the attack is correctly aimed at a bully or some other anti-social personality; a curse when the attack is aimed at a social personality who is “guilty” of trying to do something for others he thought would be a nice thing. I reserve all of my heavy attacks for anti-social personalities. The people who are factually wrecking the society. To accuse all of the writers on AG of being sell-outs, or to have “discovered something sinister” in a favorable review of some company who bought an ad isn’t my idea of a worthwhile opponent. The world wouldn’t instantly, or even slowly, become a better place if AG took all of the ads off the site. Nothing that really matters would change. Maybe the look of the site would be better due to a bit less clutter but BHB has its share of clutter too. My important fights are not “against clutter”, and I don’t believe yours are either. But if you fail to distinguish the difference between a social personality – who deserves help and respect and and an anti-social personality who factually deserves attacks and to be stopped – whatever the cost – you fail the most important test of all. It is the anti-social personality who habitually selects wrong targets. I believe you are better than that and I also believe you were in error to have written this post in the first place.
December 25, 2008 — 6:21 pm
Jim Gatos says:
Frankly Russell, I have been trying to say the same thing you just did, that this post probably should have been thought out more BEFORE Greg wrote it. I can understand why Greg wrote what he wrote, but the whole post seems very angrily written. Might have been avoided if Greg contacted Benn privately and personally first. Yes, perhaps Benn should have followed a different path too, but really, this whole post has turned into a lynch mob. I think Greg could apologize to Benn for not privately bringing up the matter before the post; I think Benn could come clean about the whole ad policy of Agent Genius, but not for me. Personally, I don’t care about the ads themselves, “Ad Blocker Plus” or not. And Yes, Russell, I read up on the “anti social personality” @ the Scientology Handbook website MONTHS ago; I don’t give a damn what anyone thinks of me doing that, really…
Gee, I hope I don’t get “attacked” now.. LOL..
December 25, 2008 — 7:07 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I know what the definitions of honor, integrity, injustice and character assassination are. Examples can be found in among these many comments.
This is called characterization: You claim to have been injured without producing evidence of your injury. You can back up this claim by quoting directly from the comments where you feel yourself to have been attacked.
To my knowledge no one has spoken of you at all, at least not directly.
No one is saying that Ken Brand has elected to have been bribed. The point of the entire matter is that the vendors’ motive in proffering “free gifts” to the contributors of AG is bribery — just as the motive of a “buyer’s agent’s bonus” is bribery. You can insist all day that your heart is pure, but by accepting either bribe, you call your character into question. Cum taces, clamas.
December 25, 2008 — 7:22 pm
Greg Swann says:
> this whole post has turned into a lynch mob
You must tell me the names of the other members of this mob so I can renounce them. You will very often find me standing alone against a mob, Jim. You will never find me joining one.
December 25, 2008 — 7:28 pm
Jim Gatos says:
Greg.. The “Lynch Mob” may be turning on you, I suppose. I AM NOT joining that.. that’s why I suggested that you and Benn have a nice discussion and YOU both put this post behind.
Taking a step back from yesterday to today, there are more pressing issues than THIS one. I may not agree with Benn’s approach but I can’t keep thinking a wise man once said to his friend the following;
Felix, shut up! you made your point, don’t push it!
(Quote from an episode of the Odd Couple, mid seventies TV series)…
The amount of GOOD both your blogs do FAR outdo any garbage you both may spew out. The garbage you both spew out is sooo insignifigant I can’t even place it now.. I would have to spend hours pouring over post after post after post and I don’t have the time or energy or desire. From being a casual reader a couple of years ago I now read blogs voraciously, plus of course I have my own. I am indebted to BOTH your blogs for information and tips I have picked up. To Lani Rosales, I want to publicly say thank you for those couple of emails you replied to a couple of months ago when I was still on WordPress. It’s Christmas, for God’s sake. Let’s say Merry Christmas and move on. It doesn’t seem to me that this “gifts” are being pushed down anyone’s throat. I personally wouldn’t take most if not all; I don’t like being “indebted” to anyone. That’s me..
December 25, 2008 — 7:57 pm
Greg Swann says:
> The “Lynch Mob” may be turning on you, I suppose.
Doesn’t seem to be, but I wouldn’t care if it were. Fifty million Frenchmen can be as wrong as one.
I fished a comment of yours out of the spambot. My apologies. I was at grandmother’s house all day.
And, yes, the Dwellicious campaign stunk to high heaven. It’s headed straight for the dead pool, once it actually launches. The same dumbass “idea” has already failed several times. To say anything else is absurd. The developer has shown up in this comments thread, FWIW — Greg Robertson.
For the rest, I keep my own counsel. You seem to be a sweet and gentle man, and I respect and admire that. But I’m going to pick my own battles and fight them my own way.
December 25, 2008 — 8:20 pm
Brian Brady says:
“I can understand why Greg wrote what he wrote, but the whole post seems very angrily written”
Of course it was, Jim; that was the point of it. Weblogging can be thoughtful and deliberate or spontaneous and visceral. By your measure, it was not necessarily the message with which you take umbrage it was the volume and meter of the voice with which it was delivered.
What surprised me was the equally as visceral response from Benn and the willingness to try and shift the argument back. If I were Benn Rosales, I’d have said, “Greg Swann can jump in a lake. This is my property and I’ll do with it what I want. If I choose to make a few sheckles from advertisements, so be it”. Instead, Benn played the victim and tried to say “you’re dirty, too”.
The lynch mob, in fact, always turns against “that damned Swann” when he writes such a criticism, especially when it’s pointed at them or theirs. Outrage that he would criticize ANYONE (who appointed him Czar?) It always ends with some pretend statesman playing the Rodney King card.
Greg Swann wrote a bad review towards AG and he wrote it in a style that is classic Greg Swann. I’ve been on the receiving end of such a review and it stings…for about three hours. I find it best to try and read it objectively and analyze what’s being said. In the end, it’s just a bad review from a man with a strong opinion. I respect that man’s opinion and sometimes disagree with it.
This shit matters ONLY if you want to be considered to be an unbiased credible source. A biased credible source isn’t a bad one; it just has bias. I consider Agent Genius to have bias but it doesn’t stop me from reading the some of the fine work being produced there.
December 25, 2008 — 8:28 pm
Brian Brady says:
Let me share with you classic Greg Swann. He privately warned me of my unholy alliance with RSS Pieces. I now wish he would have flamed me here with a piece such as this one.
Greg knew that my acceptance of the free RSS Pieces blog platform would bias my judgment. He knew that my success on that platform would lend credibility to it and cause people to purchase it. He privately warned me that I couldn’t objectively endorse them because of the hundred dollar a month bribe I received.
Oh, how I wish I listened to him. Today, the RSS Pieces/McKnight drama affects no less than ten people who relied on my endorsement. I can’t say to them “Well, we’re all in the same boat” because I spent nothing while they spent thousands. Thousands of hard-earned dollars.
This “shit” matters to me because I lent my credibility to an unsavory cast of characters and got mt friends burned.
December 25, 2008 — 8:39 pm
Greg Swann says:
> He privately warned me of my unholy alliance with RSS Pieces.
I have to come clean there, too. Last Spring, Vance Shutes asked me privately for advice on how to combine and refine his web sites. I sent him to RSS Pieces thinking that that would be the best overall solution for him. There was nothing in it for me, but I failed to foresee the turmoil that has beset that company. I get the impression that Vance is chugging along all right, and I certainly hope that’s the case. My normal advice, of course, is self-hosted WordPress, which, as Jim notes, doesn’t work for everyone. In Vance’s case — in every case — I gave my best advice based on the knowledge I had at the time. But even then the risks are huge. If one’s views are colored by swag or friendship — or animosity for that matter — so much the worse.
December 25, 2008 — 8:50 pm
Russell Shaw says:
Brian, I love your comments. I will only point out that there are NO people or viewpoints without bias. Precisely none. My dog is the cutest, my daughter is the smartest, etc. are usually obvious. Even those who pride themselves on “always being logical” still make their decisions emotionally. This does not make their decisions wrong or right. Wrong or right is a matter of viewpoint. If you can see something you are viewing it from some point. That – in itself – is a bias.
My “bias” against Realtor.com does not make what I say wrong. But I don’t want to pretend that my views are without bias. Same with Greg’s posts about NAR, vendors in general or divorcing commissions – there is a bias there, just as I have a bias against the divorced commission.
If I was the Rodney King here, I’m okay with that. Except for the “pretend” part. 🙂
December 25, 2008 — 8:50 pm
Greg Swann says:
> It always ends with some pretend statesman playing the Rodney King card.
I love it! That’s good writing!
December 25, 2008 — 8:51 pm
Teri L says:
>just as the motive of a “buyer’s agent’s bonus” is bribery. You can insist all day that your heart is pure, but by accepting either bribe, you call your character into question.
That’s *exactly* what I realized this morning -a pleasant thing to wake up to on Christmas, btw. I would not want the people that matter to me- personally or professionally- to ever question my character. It’s an awful thing to have someone doubt your integrity, and once lost, trust is a difficult thing to regain.
I appreciate your vote of confidence regarding my commitment to honestly, Greg, but I’d prefer that you not have to compromise, disclose, or explain anything on my account, and regret putting you in position that you’d have to do that.
Merry Christmas y’all!
December 25, 2008 — 8:58 pm
Brian Brady says:
“If I was the Rodney King here, I’m okay with that. Except for the “pretend” part.”
Not you Russell, all of us. I often adopt an inclusionary posture to temper people’s acerbic criticism. I did it when you (rightfully) called Todd Kaufmann on the carpet for his abuse of power.
Nobody seemed to care that I indicted the banks for their non-disclosure of TARP funds; I was equally as visceral in my disdain for that abuse of public trust. Nobody was offended because we always hold money lenders in collective disdain…but we shouldn’t.
December 25, 2008 — 9:05 pm
Brian Brady says:
“regret putting you in position that you’d have to do that.”
That’s some pretty harsh self-examination, T. We’re all learning as we go along. None of us (including Benn Rosales) do this for evil motives.
December 25, 2008 — 9:07 pm
Ken brand says:
One thing for sure – in any event – it’s been interesting to note the tone, intention, depth, volume, confliction, conviction and affection of all the commentators.
Where else could this stew of opinion bubble and steam and burn and tease and hopefully shape, whittle and wisen?
God bless America and AG and BHB and you, and mine and yours.
December 25, 2008 — 9:18 pm
Teri L says:
Did that sound harsh? Nah. Lesson learned, moving on, next…
December 25, 2008 — 9:21 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Lesson learned, moving on, next”
Ditto. Out (for tonight)
December 25, 2008 — 9:24 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Years ago when I was involved with a morning radio show it was made crystal clear by management that no jokes or routines of any kind were to make fun of any of the station’s advertisers.
This was the explanation you gave to me when you advised us against accepting advertising.
> It has happened that I have been given a book as a gift
This is specious. A book costs $20, at most, and review copies are ubiquitous. The bribes you were personally awarded yesterday are valued at thousands of dollars.
> They normally can hold their opinion leader status only by continuing to be perceived as knowledgeable and unbiased. Which is to say that their opinions were not based on they were paid to say it. A hint of that and their status as someone to listen to is pretty much gone.
Indeed. You have successfully arrived at yesterday.
> Why did I say to you that accepting ads would be a “bad thing” but told Benn that I couldn’t see a problem? Because you wrote this post.
This is just word salad. You said nothing of the kind. Your concern was that advertisers would try to influence BloodhoundBlog, and now you are trying to paper over the fact that advertisers are trying very hard to influence AG’s contributors.
> This can be a blessing or a curse, depending: a blessing when the attack is correctly aimed at a bully or some other anti-social personality; a curse when the attack is aimed at a social personality who is “guilty” of trying to do something for others he thought would be a nice thing. I reserve all of my heavy attacks for anti-social personalities. The people who are factually wrecking the society.
I think this is completely specious. When I appealed to BloodhoundBlog’s readers for money for Vlad Zablotskyy’s defense fund, you were all over the idea of punishing Ben Behrouzi as a so-called “anti-social personality.” Nothing came of that, not that it would have mattered. But what does matter is that you gave not one red cent to Vlad’s defense fund.
You can hunt down hypothetical super-villains — when you have spare time. I’ll deal with real, everyday evil — every day.
And again, as with Brian, if you want to argue that Benn Rosales is too dumb to know that he was compromising your reputation, and that of all the other contributors to AG, I’ll stipulate the point. That changes nothing. In another post, I’ve shown what I would do, if my reputation had been sullied in this way.
As I said, you had an opportunity to exhibit real leadership and you threw it away. Too bad for you. Too bad for me, too, since I’m sad to say I knew you would.
December 25, 2008 — 11:34 pm
Russell Shaw says:
What Would Greg Swann Do? WWGSD?
Simple: without warning or provocation, intermittently behave in an unbelievably overbearing smug, self-important, holier-than-thou, pompous manner.
The things that others have done are just sickening and awful; irreparable, in fact. These actions are transgressions against Gregg. They are, after all – for the most part – very inferior people. How are these very inferior people defined? Again, simple: anyone who isn’t doing what Greg Swann thinks they should be doing. Greg is always right. Always. There are no exceptions to this rule, so don’t bother looking for any.
If it should seem like Greg has done something similar to the very thing he is currently accusing others of – it just isn’t so. There is a difference; a huge difference. Yes, it may look the same to you, the untrained observer. But it isn’t. If Greg did it there was a good reason and it was right (as Greg is right). If you were to have done the very same thing on the same day that is no defense – you are still wrong. Face it. The things Greg does are right. One of the ways you can tell it was right is that Greg did it. That fact alone makes it right.
WWGSD?
Once he takes a position do or say whatever to “be right”. Actual rightness isn’t much of an issue. Being right is the only thing.
December 26, 2008 — 2:08 pm
Jim Gatos says:
If anything, these comments are worth reading for the answers Greg and Russell are trading on each other. I’ve given up on the original issue; I’m only in this for the “entertainment” value.. and the laughs..
Russell, I wasn’t even sure if your comments were intentionally humorous or not, but whatever, I sincerely hope you guys don’t go too far with each other. I still have your educational podcasts. What treasures they are, seriously…
No matter what I still read both blogs. These issues are spilling over to multiple posts here and a post (as of this writing) @ Agent Genius. I suppose no one’s turning the other cheek in here, LOL…
December 26, 2008 — 2:26 pm
Greg Swann says:
Nice going, Russ. Jay Thompson’s huffing-and-puffing performance of outraged virtue wasn’t up to this standard.
The important word is performance.
Now you’ve burned your bridge to me — possibly the best friend you could ever have, but you never bothered to find out — and you’ll have to spend the rest of your life pretending that this ugly exposition of your character was somehow my fault. And just as with Jay, I told you in my post last night exactly what you would do.
So much simpler just to admit that you were wrong and you will strive to do better in the future. You see me do this all the time, several times in this one post. How can this be beyond your moral reach?
December 26, 2008 — 2:32 pm
Kevin Tomlinson says:
Oh guys come on. I’ve been blogging for over 2 years now and this is “tame” GS. This is nothing compared to what I would witness Greg do long ago.
I’m a “himbo”;this is great stuff! I think Greg felt like he had somethin’ to say– and he said it!
Bravo!
December 26, 2008 — 2:40 pm
Teri L says:
I suppose that answers the question WWRSD.
December 26, 2008 — 3:05 pm
Bob says:
Do you really think those AG contributors will endorse what they don’t like? Do you truly believe that they will sell out to what doesn’t improve their business or make their lives easier?
Most of them are not like me. Few would ever take to task any vendor, or challenge the value of their product or service (aside from fee for service brokers), which I have done here with one vendor that you have lauded on occasion and one vendor who advertises on AG. They would simply not use it and move on.
It’s one thing to disagree, but you took what was meant to be a nice gesture, assigned your own intent and motivation to it, and then used it to paint some decent people with a broad brush.
Not cool. Not cool at all.
December 26, 2008 — 8:32 pm
ines says:
Of course I’m late to the party and it had to do with celebrating Christmas with my family. Greg, I totally get that you have strong feelings about this issue and put it out in the open – I may disagree with your methods, but that’s neither here nor there.
Whether or not Ben made a mistake I think it’s subjective and depends how you choose to scrutinize the equation, but one thing is for sure – Ben’s intentions are pure and all of Agent Genius’ contributors know that.
As for us accepting “bribes” and insinuating that these would lead to good reviews of certain products is a ridiculous assumption – If I don’t believe in a product, I will openly say so and have on different occasions.
I have become friends with many vendors and I can see where people may think my judgment may be obscured by such friendship….but the truth is that I will never be afraid of giving constructive criticism because I know ultimately that will only help their business.
December 27, 2008 — 12:26 am
Greg Swann says:
> insinuating that these would lead to good reviews of certain products is a ridiculous assumption
But I didn’t say that. This is why it’s a matter of good practice to quote the text you disagree with. In this case, you’ll find it’s not there. What I said was that the motivation of the vendors in proferring the bribes was to induce favorable reviews, or, at a minimum, to “guilt” the recipients into not posting unfavorable reviews.
That they are attempting to buy you does not mean you have been bought. But if you were seeing these events unfold as an uninvolved third party, what suspicions might they arouse in your mind? Recall that I heard about these bribes from a reader who viewed them as evidence of corruption.
December 27, 2008 — 12:36 am
Brian Brady says:
“If I don’t believe in a product, I will openly say so and have on different occasions.”
When and where, Ines? Certainly, not on Agent Genius, right?
I’m pulling a Jay Thompson on you. Both you and he have denounced “certain” vendors, in the comments thread, of this post. I’m just curious about which vendors you have denounced. I haven’t seen it (at least not on Agent Genius)
December 27, 2008 — 2:46 am
ines says:
>They’re taking bribes in exchange for favorable blog coverage of vendors’ products. It has seemed likely to me for many months (and to others who have approached me about it), that they were selling positive product reviews in exchange for advertising. All they actually did today was to confirm this policy of corruption and then spread the swag among their other contributors.
December 27, 2008 — 3:22 am
Greg Swann says:
>> They’re taking bribes in exchange for favorable blog coverage of vendors’ products.
But of course that refers to the owners of the blog, not you, Ines. Or is it you who has been writing what to me and to many other have seemed to be blatant — but undisclosed — paid reviews?
As Brian says, I would love to know which of the bribe “gift” products you have criticized on AG. I’d welcome news of that sort from any AG contributor.
December 27, 2008 — 6:17 am
Teri L says:
Ines-
First of all I hope you had a very Merry Christmas!
If you step back for just a moment and look at this-
A reader, of both blogs, someone who does not write here, someone who frequently comments and openly disagrees and agrees with all of us, on both blogs- IOW, not a fan boy, not someone with a personality conflict, not someone with a long history of pissing people off; but someone who wants both blogs to succeed because they know that we can elevate the profession and would like to see that happen- can that be any clearer?
This reader, of all of us, found that particular post, that particular action, to be unseemly and corrupt. Greg is the one who delivered the message. You may hate the way he did that, but it doesn’t dilute the point.
Ines, I do not for a moment believe that you want any reader of yours to get the same impression that this reader now has of AG. You can state that you are honest, and I believe you are, but now a reader has doubts. Does that not give you pause?
December 27, 2008 — 6:28 am
Greg Swann says:
> This reader, of all of us, found that particular post, that particular action, to be unseemly and corrupt.
My correspondent also asked, if “gifts” are to be handed out from the advertisers’ largesse, why not do so in the form of discount codes for the readers, not pricey bribes to the contributors? That’s not something that I would do here, but it is at least closer to an above-reproach relationship with vendors.
December 27, 2008 — 6:44 am
Chris Brown says:
>That they are attempting to buy you does not mean you have been bought. But if you were seeing these events unfold as an uninvolved third party, what suspicions might they arouse in your mind? Recall that I heard about these bribes from a reader who viewed them as evidence of corruption.
As thought leaders, plausible deny-o-bility isn’t enough. It is not that impropriety can’t exist – that’s a given. Even the appearance of it must be avoided and sometimes that means even avoiding the benign.
December 27, 2008 — 8:16 am
ines says:
>When and where, Ines? Certainly, not on Agent Genius, right?
Brian, yes on Agent Genius – there have been a couple of products that I have questioned from the get go and have stated so openly – have also said I would give them a try to see if I was wrong (without a bribe of course). I recently did a review on Brownbook.net and openly stated that it is too new to know where it will go and will have to be on standby to see results (never did brownbook call me to endorse their product or was I asked to do a review).
Greg – thanks for clearing that up – when pointing a finger at “they” at Agent Genius, you are pointing a finger at all of the contributors…..just saying. And even with that – we don’t ever question the solid intentions of Ben and Lani who always want the best for us. (We can certainly disagree at times as I’m sure contributors here disagree with you)
Teri – I can see your point, but those disgruntled readers may misinterpret anything we do even if we have the best of intentions. And Merry Christmas to you as well.
December 27, 2008 — 8:28 am
Kevin Tomlinson says:
What’s really interesting about this, as the real story is revealed, is that I had no idea that there was all this “back-door” stuff going on.
I would DEFINETELY now look at anything said on AG with a more discerning eye.
That will be the fall-out from this whole situation.
December 27, 2008 — 8:51 am
Teri L says:
Ines-
>but those disgruntled readers may misinterpret anything we do even if we have the best of intentions.
Oh Ines, if you could hear me, I’d be whispering this to you, and everyone on AG.
Why would you make such an assumption about this reader’s intentions?
This was not a disgruntled reader. This is someone who wants all of us to be the best we can be and was disturbed by what they saw. I’m not lining up here against AG, this isn’t us vs them. Please listen, this is someone who is telling all of us, me included, that there is a problem. Benn and Lani are doing what they think is a good thing, but one of our readers, who contributes a lot to all of us, is telling us it’s not right.
The message has become distorted in your minds because of the messenger. I’ll not argue that, but that shouldn’t diminish the point…
December 27, 2008 — 9:14 am
ines says:
>The message has become distorted in your minds because of the messenger.
LOL Teri!! It is always about the method of delivery, but I do tend to put emotions aside to look at the message. Thanks for putting it out there. I see it as a way of Ben and Lani to thank us for our solidarity and trust. I can see where it may be misinterpreted. Funny thing is that I will not claim any of my prizes, but that’s me. I still found it generous.
December 27, 2008 — 9:27 am
Brian Brady says:
“I still found it generous.”
Of course it’s generous, Ines; that’s the idea. The offer so many of us took from RSS Pieces was generous, too. Look where that got us. The tacit endorsement we lent them cost people who trust us money and time.
Thanks for specifying your vendor reviews.
December 27, 2008 — 10:59 am
ines says:
Brian ….”cost people who trust us money and time” ….and loss of business – I still don’t know how to make it right and never saw it as a bribe until this post. Thank you for that.
December 27, 2008 — 11:09 am
Ken brand says:
What a crazy thread.
All – Reflecting and rereading, I think what’s rubbing me wrong is the personalization, blanket judgments and name calling (corrupt, pimping, Jackals, etc.) I can respect “it’s not right”. I understand, “I don’t like it.” or “I wouldn’t do it.”, personal attacks and name calling seem off.
Greg, you’ve asked for examples:
[GS: “I am repelled by advertising on real estate weblogs, but taking in-kind bribes for pimping vendors and their dubious wares is simply corrupt.”]
Ken: I have no issue with Greg being repelled by advertising on a blog. The second half of the sentence “taking in-kind bribes for pimping vendors and their dubious wares is simply corrupt.”, doesn’t really call anyone specifically corrupt, it implies that the gifts mentioned are bribes and the receivers are pimps and corrupt. Implying and inferring is a hand tool for twisting, turning, claiming miscommunication and claiming deniability. The way I read it, if you accept these gifts, you’re a pimp and corrupt. Simply stated, I find the implication and accusation rude. What I won’t do is start calling Greg names.
And this comment from Greg:
> What did they do so wrong at Agent Genius?
[GS:They’re taking bribes in exchange for favorable blog coverage of vendors’ products.] Who is they?]
Ken: I assume “they” is everyone who writes for AG, it’s implied. You are smearing with the word “Bribe”.
[GS: All they actually did today was to confirm this policy of corruption and then spread the swag among their other contributors.] Ken: Come on. With a straight face and pure heart, you believe and know that AG (Benn & Lani) are corrupt because they negotiated free stuff for their writers? You’re personalizing and vilifying.
[GS: Why is this wrong? Because they’re telling lies in exchange for gifts.]
Ken: How do you know they (whoever “they” are?) are telling lies? If a review doesn’t meet your magnificent standards, is it a lie? Can one person love something and another not, ie., MAC & PC, AG & BHB? Again, I understand a position or perspective that expresses disagreement or disapproval, or here’s how we roll, but I don’t believe that stating “they’re telling lies in exchange for gifts” is correct.
[GS:If that’s not completely clear, let me know.] Ken: No it’s not clear.
And this comment from Greg on Benn’s question to Brian (confusing I know)
> Brian, what about Phoenix 08?
[GS: It doesn’t make any difference. Zillow got to attach their name to our event, that’s all]
Ken: What kind of response is that? Suppose Benn’s response to personal attack and smear was exactly the same as your response above? What then? I imagine Zillow believed there were benefits to your endorsement of them as a sponsor. I also imagine that some people might think that Zillow sponsoring your event is BH Unchained endorsement of their product. Some people might think Zillow sucks, does that mean they should say everyone sharing or associated with Unchained is a corrupt pimp and they are telling lies because your blog Zillow was sponsor? NO. Of course not.
Next – WWGSD? There’s some merit to that, if I’m creating things related to real estate technology, on-line media, modern marketing, guerilla tactics and many, many things uber effective, yes absolutely. But as a moral authority, or human communicator you’ve got be kidding? Right?
In conclusion, I have no issues with constructive criticism, personal opinion and passionate perspective. Personal attacks, blanket judgements and mass vilification are crude tools I wouldn’t recommend.
Perhaps if Albert had read this post and all the comments he might have said this again:
“We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.” ~ Albert Einstein
December 27, 2008 — 11:11 am
Brian Brady says:
“I still don’t know how to make it right”
You just did.
December 27, 2008 — 11:24 am
Greg Swann says:
> What a crazy thread.
Ken Brand: For the second time: No one is talking about you.
If you want to demonstrate that you are incorruptible, I’m all for it. I showed you and everyone exactly what I would do if I were stuck where you are.
If you don’t want to do that, don’t.
If you want to whimper over your imaginary wounds, go ahead, but don’t expect me to waste any more time on you.
> But as a moral authority, or human communicator you’ve got be kidding?
Ahem. I expect you know nothing at all about me. That seems to be a badge of honor for people who presume to teach me how to write. But if you scroll up and read the post I wrote on Thursday, you’ll see that, if you wrote here — and I have no idea if you can write at all — you wouldn’t be in this pickle. That’s how much I don’t know about morality, human behavior and the art of incorruptible weblogging.
December 27, 2008 — 4:21 pm
Robert Kerr says:
If you write for us and if you have taken bribes in the form of cash or merchandise from a vendor, please send me your resignation.
Excuse me, but that seems quite hypocritical coming from anyone who dervies income from commissions. And yes I’m aware of the subtle differences, but I’m also aware of the gross similarities, which are being ignored.
December 27, 2008 — 5:33 pm
Russell Shaw says:
If you write for us and if you have taken bribes in the form of cash or merchandise from a vendor, please send me your resignation.
It IS hypocritical, but not just for that reason. If Greg simply wanted to issue a policy to BHB writers he would have just sent it via email. What he intended to do (which he will deny) was attack and attempt to smear AG and everything about AG.
Check it off as a done.
December 27, 2008 — 5:54 pm
Greg Swann says:
> If Greg simply wanted to issue a policy to BHB writers he would have just sent it via email.
I do everything of moment in public, as I have discussed in public many times, precisely because of smarmy innuendoes like this.
In any case, this is ad hominem, as was your last comment. If you can’t conduct yourself as a civilized human being, you’re done here.
As you and I both know, I host many hundreds of megabytes of your audio and video content, serving it up at a rate of around 2 gigabytes a month. I detest this behavior of yours — and I cannot imagine how an “anti-social personality” acts if it’s not like you are acting right now — but that has no impact whatever on my behavior. I will continue to host your content, at my expense, for as long as we control our servers. If you want it removed, instead, I will delete every byte of it.
You cannot begin to imagine how disappointed I am in you, Russell. Sad to say, it’s much, much worse for Cathleen, and has been for months. You can’t undo the damage you’ve done with us, but you can do better in the future. I hope and pray that you do.
December 27, 2008 — 6:29 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Excuse me, but that seems quite hypocritical coming from anyone who dervies income from commissions.
Well, Robert, I really thought you had taken the prize — against fierce competition — for most specious comment, but it just was not to be. Better luck next time!
December 27, 2008 — 6:33 pm
Kevin Tomlinson says:
Russell
Your comment:
>The things that others have done are just sickening and awful; irreparable, in fact.
Even though I’m a wise-ass, I sit back and kinda laugh at how GS gets all the people here worked up.
If I was Benn, I would be like: “ok so GS thinks I’m a this-or-that. I don’t care.”
I myself find everyone’s attitude toward GS the most humourous thing of all.
If GS thought I was a complete buffoon (sp?)–I wouldn’t care. It’s the people that continue to care SO much what GS thinks- and vent here with such rage- that I find so entertaining.
I can’t write as well as Greg or do I even profess to know what all those words he uses are? Nope! I keep on MY OWN track, believe what I believe. One thing I do know, which is the reason I’m here: I sure can move a hell-of-a-lot of real estate.
Am I a great writer/debater/thinker/intellect? No to all. And I’m REALLY fine with it all. I am though REALLY good-looking! (joke!)
Don’t worry so much about WWGSD or what GS thinks, or why he’s wrong, or why he’s right!
GREG: PLEASE DO NOT EVER MIX UP THE KOOL-AID, because I truly believe you’d have long lines of people waiting to drink it whether they believe it or not!
December 27, 2008 — 7:25 pm
John Kalinowski says:
Wow! I’ve slogged through this crazy post, and read as much as I could stand, and my only thought is “what a complete waste of time and energy, particularly on Christmas!
Attacking each other and criticizing each other’s blog or policies seems a bit ridiculous. If what you have to say is worthwhile and important, people will read it and talk about it. We shouldn’t waste our time attacking others. If what the other guy is doing is so terrible, people won’t participate and it will go away.
By the way, I enjoy Russell Shaw’s humor. It provides an enjoyable break from so many people who take themselves way too seriously! Life’s too short for the silliness found in most of this post and in the comments. Lots of wasted energy that could have been spent selling more homes, or with your family during Christmas.
December 30, 2008 — 9:13 am
Greg Swann says:
Each man to his own saints, John. That’s freedom. I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but nothing matters to me more than principle. For me, this is simply a matter of first things first.
Happy New Year to you and your family!
December 30, 2008 — 9:33 am
John Kalinowski says:
Understood. Happy New Year to you too!!
December 30, 2008 — 9:34 am
Ney says:
Some of you may point out that we are all marketers, however, we are (and should be) marketers up to a certain degree.
Greg is a marketer; that is true. However, Greg is a marketer for his BHB and Unchained projects which he truly believes in. He is not a marketer for a product he does not truly believe in, but most importantly he is not a bribed marketer (as far as I can tell).
Tiger Woods might not drive a Buick but that is the beauty of having an unobstructed understanding that Woods is not a car expert. On the other hand when you have REbloggers raving about REproducts in exchange for a monetary or non-monetary compensation, many consumers won’t be able to easily see the true intentions that fueled the review….and that is a problem, no transparency!!
Receiving indirect compensation is just as bad as receiving direct compensation for a review. In the same way that receiving peanuts in compensation is just as bad as receiving monetary compensation in lieu of a positive review.
If you fail to understand this……you are the problem!
I am not here to defend BHB, Greg does it very well on his own, and I am not here to accuse AG of anything. I am just denouncing the poor choices made by some to accept (indirect or direct) monetary compensation in lieu of their reputation and integrity.
Happy Holidays to you all
December 30, 2008 — 1:06 pm
Greg Swann says:
Good on ya, Ney. Thanks.
Your blog is a lot of fun.
Here’s wishing you every good thing for the New Year!
December 30, 2008 — 1:22 pm
Geno Petro says:
Wow. Missed the shitstorm, yet again. Sorry to drop in ex post facto and read such hard feelings between peers; what a thread indeed. The internet is only make believe anyway…ISN’T IT???
December 30, 2008 — 3:02 pm
Ney says:
Thanks Greg,
I also wish you and everyone a happy and prosperous New Year 2009
December 31, 2008 — 6:17 pm