Machiavelli and messenger shooting

Dan Ackerman Greenberg, he of the Dark Arts post, has written an update comment in the TechCrunch comments section. Its worth reading, so here it is as its way down in the comments section:

To all of who who’ve commented, positive and negative: thanks for being part of the first round of a much longer discussion.

The internet is changing, and it seems that this post has really struck a nerve. Hopefully we can use this as a jumping off point for an open discussion about the future of truth in advertising online. Whether we are talking about gaming strategies for YouTube videos, SEO strategies on Google, review optimization strategies on Yelp/Amazon, or any other behind the scenes guerrilla marketing that’s happening online, there is a lot to talk about.

The goal of this post was to pull back the curtain on some of the strategies/techniques that marketers are using online every day, on YouTube and beyond. The way I see it, if we can identify and understand the marketing strategies that are going on behind the scenes, we can move forward towards a more open, honest internet, where content truly does prevail.

That goal has certainly been hit - and as we noted earlier, the naivete of some users was frightening. He goes on to note that this is a Machiavellain Text, not a list of his Dark Arts:

That said, there were some facts in this post that I’d like to clarify. This post was intended to be a how-to for marketers on YouTube, morals aside, in an attempt to bring to light everything that could be (and is) going on on YouTube and beyond. However, I DO NOT EMPLOY OR ENDORSE ALL OF THE STRATEGIES USED IN THIS POST. I’ve been holding myself back from responding to each and every commenter because I want to let this discussion play out on its own, but there are a few key things I’d like to clarify.

1) We do NOT spam email lists. This would be an effective strategy, but unless you have a list of people who have opted in to receive email of that nature, it would be illegal.

2) We do NOT pay off bloggers to post our videos as if they were real blog posts. Rather, we pay bloggers to embed clearly marked video ads in their sites, with no false endorsements of any kind. Again, it would be an effective strategy, but I don’t endorse it.

3) We have NOT manipulated any of the comments in this post. (Though I do wish that all those deeply negative comments about me were actually fake.)

Take them as a bit of messenger shooting....

Again, I want to thank all of you for participating in this discussion, particularly those of you who offered calm, reflective criticism of some of the techniques described in this post.

I’ll be posting a longer followup to this later on my blog, and I hope that we can all engage in a positive, constructive discussion about marketing, advertising, and the future of our interactions through the internet.

As we all continue to develop our thoughts and plans around internet marketing, it is important that we all many of these views into account, as I surely will.

As noted in this earlier post, we think the 1st Generation Advores / PRTards / Marketeers risk bringing regulators crashing down on their heads, and these sort of descriptions of what is going on behind the scenes are very illuminating - hopefully all those incensed commentators will reflect that, having shot the messenger, they still have to think about how they will deal with the message....