Ok…I have tried to stay off of this topic for a LONG time, but I keep seeing stuff that brings me back. Brad, errr..Mr. Inman? I have never met you. I know you have a lot of power in the real estate news sector, because InmanNews reaches many agents and brokers.
Here’s the deal. I see SO much advertorial content and self promotional crap in the real estate space that it is hard to keep up with it all. Then I see this little gem. Seriously…please go look at it before reading further.
Even in the comments people are chiding Joel a bit for it being an advertisement. So Joel does have a disclosure in there saying that TurnHere is owned by Inman.
Then I went to WHOIS and found out that this blog Future Of Real Estate Marketing is OWNED BY INMAN.
Anyone want to tell me that this blatant self promo was NOT an advertisement? I really am willing to listen if someone wants to make that case.
Joel, you said that how this came off was 100% your bad. Ummm, can you argue that you have 100% editorial control when it isn’t your site? Methinks not. Since the site is owned by Brad Inman, my request is to him. Please tone down the advertorial content. Also, a more complete disclosure as to who owns the site would be far more transparent. If this was totally Joel’s bad as he says in the comments, perhaps some editorial control (on a site you OWN) is in order, but I really don’t think that was the case here.
I hope I am wrong.
Responsibility for content lies with the owner of the domain.
Thoughts?
Jeff Brown says:
Though I understand the post’s point, why do folks care so much about other’s sites? There’s nothing wrong with anything you said, and clearly your points are well reasoned and supported.
Still, why do so many care about others’ sites’ practices so much?
June 7, 2009 — 9:18 am
chris e says:
Well you have a point, yet if there are idiots (I cannot find a better word to describe it), that pay $140.00 membership fee to Inman site,just to read average news, then Inman is a genius and has to be duplicated.Seems to me that real estate people are so desperate to “belong” and to find some “silver bullet” to make a buck, that are committing to about everything that is well packaged and promises the above.I have red some of the articles in the Inman site and I find them very common with practically no value, containing information that can be found all over the news for free.It is all in the packaging.
June 7, 2009 — 10:15 am
Eric Blackwell says:
Jeff-
All I can answer was/is my intention with this post. To understand my frustration, you need to walk a mile in my shoes. I am the technologist of a large RE/MAX brokerage.
Most of the agents in our brokerage ask me my thoughts on most every piece of REALTOR technology that you can imagine. They expect an honest answer. And they often spend their money accordingly, so I feel the need to be right.
Much of this technology or services, I have not yet had the ability to try, so I need to rely on the experience of others whom I trust.
An example: If Dave Smith at the realestatebloglab.com tests a WP plugin and says it is good, I am VERY likely to give it a try with my bloggers. Sight unseen. WHY? Because I trust his approach and his integrity.
I spend two hours most Sundays scouring the real estate web for stuff that I likely will get asked about in the coming weeks/months. It is the only quiet time in my week for doing that.
It frustrates me to have to dig through advertorials to find someone who has a) used it b) has measured the results and c) is willing to share them. This example is by no means the only one…wish it were so.
This just happened to be the one that ticked me off today.
Software companies produce phoney baloney “white papers” is another one that gets me. Working title for an upcoming post: “White paper = White wedding dress: Should you REALLY be wearing that?” 😉 They are simply cheapening a good thing (blog posts where people truly share what has WORKED for them) for their own marketing purposes.
That said. You make a good point that I need to clarify. This is not intended to “start anything” with Mr. Inman or Joel Burslem or anything like that. This just happened to hit me right this morning when it came to my attention and I found it hard not to comment.
June 7, 2009 — 10:32 am
Jeff Brown says:
I get it, Eric — thanks.
June 7, 2009 — 10:41 am
Greg Swann says:
I disagree, Eric. We know with certainty that we can’t trust these stooges to be honest. That means we have to learn to trust them to be dishonest — to regard everything they do as being a sleight-of-mind trick. That seems wise to me.
June 7, 2009 — 10:44 am
Brian Brady says:
We finally arrived here. There is no doubt that the opinion offered, by Joel Burlsem, who sold FORM to and works for Inman News, is an advertorial BUT…
…he openly disclosed it.
I like a lot of what Joel writes and think I’m savvy enough to discern between the wheat and the chaff. I get that Joel has a job to do and don’t have a problem with it if he discloses the potential conflict of interest.
June 7, 2009 — 12:22 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I get that Joel has a job to do and don’t have a problem with it if he discloses the potential conflict of interest.
What? The video being promoted was crap — completely useless as marketing. An honest broker would have panned it or ignored it. Pitching the product was a product pitch, and there is no amount of disclosure that makes that anything but deceptive.
June 7, 2009 — 12:33 pm
Brian Brady says:
“White paper = White wedding dress: Should you REALLY be wearing that?”
That’s good writing, Eric
June 7, 2009 — 12:24 pm
Teri Lussier says:
Tangent alert:
>Still, why do so many care about others’ sites’ practices so much?
Passion?
That ain’t a bad thing.
June 7, 2009 — 2:25 pm
Brian Brady says:
“The video being promoted was crap — completely useless as marketing.”
I blanked out this post as soon as Joel disclosed it was an advertorial. I didn’t even watch the video because it was an advertorial.
Joel offers some good analysis and disclosed sales pitches. The disclosed sales pitches are ignored.
June 7, 2009 — 7:52 pm
James Boyer says:
Good catch and advice Eric. I agree with you but also with Greg. Inman is very much looking at thier bottom line in most everyting they do. If they want to be a news source be a news source, if they want to be a add rage, then stop trying to look like a indepent observer. The real estate industry already has 2 black eyes, do we need more damage as well?
June 9, 2009 — 8:12 am