Sylvie Fortin here, and I have a bone to pick with Google.

On September 23, 2009, Google launched a new, free service that purports to be the next big thing in social communities. It gives everyday people the ability to provide their own comments on ANY web page they visit, in a frame that resides right next to the page they are viewing.

(This is exactly as if Google installed a gigantic graffiti wall in front of your storefront, handed out paint cans, and invited passers-by to write all over the wall, without giving YOU the ability to erase anything. Ummm. Are they serious? Do they actually believe that only honest people would ever use the wall?)

At first glance, one might think this is a great idea, after all, it isn’t like Google has done anything particularly innovative. Diigo, Stickis and Fleck are all services that allow the general public to annotate the web and share their comments about websites they happen to be visiting.

But there are a few things that make Sidewiki dramatically different from all the rest of the web annotation applications, things that all website owners should pay close attention to. Because with the introduction of Sidewiki…

… Your workday is about to change in ways you may not realize.

Let’s start by recognizing that Google has become the undisputed champion in the ongoing battle for eyeballs. According to a recent B to B Magazine article, Google currently controls a solid 90.54% of the global search market share over its competition.

There was some speculation that Bing was going to beat Google, and for a brief shining moment, it seemed to be on the rise, but after the initial curiosity clicks passed, Google once again took back its market share to stomp Bing and every other search engine.

Knowing this, it is critical to avoid the mistake of dismissing anything new that Google does. Because unlike all other tools and software applications that get released and must spend a great deal of money to reach out to all those eyeballs, Google launches its new applications already owning over 90% of the world’s eyeballs.

And it doesn’t cost them a dime to reach them.

Think about the sheer power of that market share, and now think about how important it is that you don’t ignore the latest Google application… the Sidewiki.

In effect, this tiny little application has the potential to completely alter your business model, adding new costs and frustrations to your workday. How?

By allowing absolutely everyone to comment on any page of your website, and allowing clickable links within those comments, it has flung open the doors to brand new ways to mess with your life.

This means that anyone who has the Google Toolbar installed, including your competition, now has the ability to say anything they like about you or your products, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Nothing. Zip. Nada.

Yes, you do have the ability to click a tiny link next to their comments and “report abuse”. Whoopty-doo. Based on early tests, it takes Google moderators at least 48 hours to get around to removing abusive comments.

If you run an online business like I do, 48 hours is a lifetime if you’re staring at a nasty comment that is appearing on your own website, one that hundreds of visitors can see while they are deciding whether or not to buy your product.

Think about the many ways this tool can be abused.

• Your competition could visit every page of your website and post a vicious lie about how you are a known sex offender and that if people want to buy products from good people, they should visit his site instead.
• People could post direct download links to your products on your order page, thus sabotaging your sales.
• Your own customers could confuse Sidewiki with your customer support, posting private information you are unable to respond to or correct in any way.
• Have a product for sale? Others can post their “better price” for that product and completely kill your sales.

And the possibilities are endless.

So in essence, by opening up this type of “social commentary” for the general public, and by not allowing website owners to have any kind of control over what appears on their own websites, Google not only enjoys 90% market share of all search engine traffic but also they now control over 90% of YOUR customers, YOUR traffic, YOUR ad space, and YOUR money.

If you think for one minute that Google isn’t going to slap ads all over it, you are deluded. So, if you’re running a site that has Adsense ads, you will most likely see your revenue decrease rather quickly when Sidewiki introduces ad supported comments.

Instead of Google being your source for traffic, it now becomes your traffic hijacker by piggybacking your website and diverting people away from it instead of towards it.

People have argued that this is wonderful for the “end user”, because it allows you to make decisions about vendors in a more open and fair way. If you’re about to buy a product from a scammer, Sidewiki has the potential to “protect you” by allowing you to see what other customers have to say about their experience with you.

The argument is that if you are a good vendor with great products, then you have nothing to worry about, and that the only ones who should be worried are the scammers.

This, I would argue, is blatantly false, and the exact opposite of what will actually happen.

The fact is that ethical business owners are usually not as creative or inventive as scammers. We’re usually far too busy building quality products and websites to think about how to use tools like Sidewiki to abuse people.

But the scammers and spammers are VERY creative and spend a great deal of time thinking up new ways to abuse systems, software, and applications. They are rubbing their hands in glee thinking up ways they can destroy your business and your reputation, and Sidewiki is going to be so easy to manipulate.

Imagine how much time and money you’ll waste trying to stomp all the potential negative comments that can appear on each and every page of your website?

At the time of this writing, there is no simple way to locate new Sidewiki comments that have appeared while someone is viewing different pages of your website, so the only way you can protect yourself is to load each page of your site manually, while Sidewiki is open, and reporting comments as abusive… manually.

If you have only one website with only three pages, this is no big deal. But most of us have multiple websites, with multiple pages.

The prospect of having to load each page of each website every day, just to see what people are saying about us, is patently ridiculous. You would need to hire a full time reputation management team to keep track of it all.

So, how can you protect your business from these types of scavengers? That’s a terrific question, and I wish I could easily answer it. This is simply too new a problem for an effective and simple solution.

There are some bright programmers writing code, as we speak, and a few scripts that are supposed to block Sidewiki from appearing on your site at all. But how effective they are remains to be seen.

Michel and I will be following this story closely in the coming months, and will be providing you with updates on the most recent tools and solutions. For the most recent Sidewiki blocking tools, go to our Updated List of Sidewiki Blockers where we will keep track of the latest and most effective solutions to protect your site.

Stay tuned, because this is going to be a very bumpy ride.

Sylvie Fortin

P.S. There are a number of discussions going on about this issue, and there are some interesting points for and against Google Sidewiki. For further research, here are some points others have made that I find particularly interesting to note…

• Paul Myers provides clear-headed advise about Sidewiki:
  Google Steals The Web and What To Do About Sidewiki
• iCop sounds off about the issue
• Google asks for public feedback about Sidewiki
  (read the comments and see what website owners have to say about this issue)
• Jeff Mills discusses the ramifications
• The Natural Search Blog’s perspective

Update (You’ll Want to Read This!)

A couple of people have implied that we’re fearmongering here, and should just “get used to” the idea of the Social Web. (Bah, humbug!)

So, because lingering doubts may still exist, I decided to do a bit of sleuthing to see what I could find, for your convenience. I decided to take the plunge and go dive into the disgusting world of Sidewiki comment spam, willingly exposing myself to some of the vile stuff out there. (You’re welcome.)

I thought I would start my search by installing Sidewiki and checking out what people have chosen to post on it while viewing Google.com itself. After all, if Google believes in true “transparency”, then they should have no problem with letting the general public post whatever they want on their own website, right?

Following a few threads, I was introduced to a writer I’ve never heard of before. His name is John Varley, and he is spitting MAD about Sidewiki. So angry, in fact, that he is on a personal mission to spew as much vulgarity on Sidewiki (while on Google.com home page) as possible, every single day, until Google deletes the comment garbage that currently is displayed on his own website.

This is the message he wants Google to hear, and it is his hope that Google will listen, especially since they claim to be properly moderating Sidewiki in a prompt and efficient manner, what with their RELIABLE spam-sniffing algorithms and all.

Strong Language Warning! John Varley’s clear message to Google on THEIR website. UPDATE: John’s Sidewiki entries were deleted, sometime between 10/17 and 10/18. See Update #2 below.

Also, here’s John’s message on his own website (this one is clean and intelligently written), where he explains his thoughts on Sidewiki, and why he wants it to die: Varley.net (See the big yellow box at the top, entitled “The Sidewiki Abomination!”)

(Or you can click here to visit “The Sidewiki Abomination” directly.)

I don’t blame him one bit, to be honest.

Take a look at the screenshot I took, after seeing the kind of garbage the real John Varley is seeing on his Sidewiki (I’ve edited the swearing out of it and added notations):

Also, another interesting Sidewiki comment popped up when I visited my Facebook page. Apparently, someone was smart enough to post a warning to Facebook users, since some people may think Sidewiki comments are from Facebook Friends, when they’re not. (Or that their Facebook accounts were hacked.)

Worst still, some people are posting on their Facebook’s Sidewiki, thinking it is private (like Facebook’s “Wall,” for example) since they are someone’s friend and their account’s permission settings is set to “friends only.”

The potential for Facebook users to think Sidewiki is part of Facebook is enormous. In fact, the above alert goes on to say that Sidewiki entries are PUBLIC and not controlled by profile permission settings, and warns users to be careful.

That’s precisely the issue, here. Sidewiki creates the perception that the comments are from the website or are part of it, which can lead to some serious liability issues — reputation aside, it only takes one hateful or libelous comment to seriously damage and even completely destroy one’s business and livelihood.

So, do you still think that Google Sidewiki is harmless?

Really?

If so, then there’s nothing more I can possibly say to convince you.

Until it happens to you, I suppose.

Update #2

Since I wrote the update #1, Google has proven my point by censoring Sidewiki entries that they didn’t like. Not because they broke the Terms of Use, but I suppose because the comments were directed AGAINST Google.

The real John Varley’s Sidewiki entries have been deleted completely. Mysteriously vanished. Strange, if you ask me. In fact, here’s a screenshot:

I guess Google doesn’t waste time deleting comments they don’t want appearing on THEIR site, huh? Could it be because they want to protect THEIR OWN reputation?

But interestingly enough, the FAKE John Varley’s sidewiki smarmy entries remain intact at the moment, fully two weeks after they were posted, even though multiple complaints have been submitted about them. Google has made a clear decision that these types of comments are perfectly acceptable, by leaving them there for all the world to see.

This is utterly ridiculous, in my opinion.

Want more examples? Fine, here are a few more. (Yes, all are screenshots, so that I don’t have to keep posting updates when Google employees come here and try to close the barn door after the horse has left the barn.)

Example of how Google gives Sidewiki spammers the royal treatment

Another spammer’s example

A smarter breed of Traffic Hijacker

A particularly vile example of what you can do with Sidewiki…

Click images to view full sized version…

Oh yeah, I’m totally comforted by Google’s crack team of moderators who seem to be doing a bang up job of removing Sidewiki comments that violate their rules.

Clearly, I have nothing to worry about. There’s no such thing as spam. All people will use Sidewiki to post meaningful and thoughtful commentaries about sites they visit. And Google will block all comments that violate their terms.

Right.

(If you believe this, then I have a bridge to sell you.)

Bottom line, you can’t have it both ways, Google. Please listen to what we’re saying here.

We love Google, and have always spoken highly of your tools and objectives. We think you’re brilliant. And we use many of your tools in our own business. But this specific tool needs to be fixed. Please. Before more innocent people, websites, and legitimate businesses get hurt.

Yesterday, Ed Dale posted an article to his blog that kind of struck me. In it, Ed submits that hard-sell marketing is better than soft-sell, even when people are jaded and annoyed with such aggressive approaches.

If you think I’m saying this because I prefer soft-sell approaches, think again.

The reason it struck me is that, and with all due respect to Ed, his post may be a tad misleading.

I agree with the fact that people today are annoyed, jaded, and even frustrated when buying products online — specifically, products in the Internet marketing industry. But I don’t think people are annoyed with hard-sell marketing at all.

They’re annoyed with something else entirely.

Before I dive in, please understand that Ed Dale and I are friends.

In fact, when Ed posted about his recent decision to dump all his friends on Facebook and promote a “fan page” instead, not only was I one of the first ones to agree with him and applaud him, but also I followed in his footsteps.

My comments here have nothing to do with Ed Dale as a person or even as a marketer. They are strictly my opinions on the strategy he pointed out and apparently endorsed.

First, to put this in proper context, let me quote a few passages from Ed’s article…

It’s a bit simplistic to describe like this but it’s the online equivalent of “Do you want Fries with that”

Now here’s the thing. Some people get SUPER annoyed when (increasingly a baby boomer) McDonalds server asks this question.

Your like, “Dude, if I wanted the Fries with that, I would have ordered them!!!!”

If this is sooo annoying – why do they keep doing it?

IT WORKS.

It works really, really well.

Really, Really, Really, Really with sugar on top well.

“Upselling” and “Downselling” (as we say in the biz ) works (…).

First off, I totally agree with this statement.

If you’ve been around this blog for some time, you’ve probably seen my wife’s video on Upsells, Downsells, And One-Time Offers in which she describes the process.

Upselling is not only an important aspect of marketing and particularly Internet marketing, but it’s also one that so many marketers fail to capitalize on. Marketers are leaving an insane load of cash on the table by not asking their customers to buy more.

Some of our students have literally doubled and even tripled their income by simply adding an upsell offer to their sales funnel, which took only minutes to implement.

Jay Abraham, one of the world’s most prolific marketing experts, is often quoted as saying there are only three ways to increase your business.

1. Increasing the number,
2. Increasing the frequency,
3. Or increasing the size of purchases.

The first one involves getting new clients. That’s just good old marketing. You want to find new, hungry prospects who will buy your products for the first time.

The second is new purchases from the same client base. It’s making follow-up and additional offers to your current customers, and getting them to keep buying from you.

The last part is the one people often miss the boat on. It’s upselling, where you get people to buy more or increase the size of their orders as they are buying from you.

Simple enough, right?

The specific issue I have with Ed’s article is not the premise but the analogy he used. Upselling is indeed akin to a McDonald’s server asking, “Do you want fries with that?” And it’s certainly something we should incorporate in our offers.

I also agree with Ed that the market is definitely annoyed and jaded.

But the issue I have is that the market is not annoyed with upsells as Ed Dale seems to imply. It’s annoyed with the type of upsell offers, which has more to do with withholding your customer’s order than it is with just asking them to buy more.

Huge difference, here.

For example, my wife wrote Internet Marketing Sins a few months ago, in which she covers 15 of the most egregious sins perpetrated by online marketers. In it, she covers this particular sin in great detail in a chapter entitled “Upsell Hell.”

(I prefer to call it “Upsell Jail,” because that is precisely what it feels like when one stumbles onto an offer of this kind. You feel helplessly locked in, unable to break out.)

As my wife noted so well, the issue is about holding the customer — i.e., their credit card information, their money, and yes, even their order — hostage.

The process works this way.

A customer comes to a website, reads the copy, and decides to buy the product. She clicks on the order button, fills in the credit card details, and submits the order form.

But before accessing the product she just ordered, she’s presented with an upsell offer.

She’s a bit annoyed, but it’s shadowed by the fact that she’s quite excited about her original order. So she takes the time to read the additional offer, decides she’s not interested, and clicks on “no thanks” (hopefully, when such an option exists).

The process so far is not that bad. But here’s the rub…

If she stumbles onto an offer by some very aggressive marketer, things unfortunately don’t stop there. Before she can access or download her product, even before she receives a confirmation that her payment went through successfully, she’s hit with another upsell offer. And then another, and another, and another.

In some cases, we’re talking three, five, eight, even 10 upsell offers or more!

Annoying? You bet!

Again, the issue has nothing to do with making an upsell offer. If it were me, I would have made the offer before the customer entered their credit card details (it’s no different than adding a product to a shopping cart), or after they’ve reached the confirmation page.

But to force a customer to wade through a barrage of upsell offers while holding their order — and their money — hostage is, in my opinion, the real problem, here.

Think about it.

The customer purchased your product after they have built up enough trust and confidence in you to buy what you originally offered. They probably took a long time to read your copy, perhaps even watched your video, looked you up on the web, and, with excitement mixed with a bit of trepidation, decided to go ahead.

However, when you hit them over the head again and again with a flurry of upsell offers, there’s no question the consumer will doubt you, get annoyed, never buy from you again, even hate you, or worse yet, tell others about you.

As I said at the beginning of this post, I’m a fan of aggressive marketing. I believe that you must ask for the order, and ask for it as many times as possible. In fact, I don’t mind marketers who are even more aggressive than I am.

But the sentiment some of these marketers share is what scares me somewhat.

Most of these aggressive marketers don’t care. Why? Because during these huge, mega-launches, these “drive-by” marketers only intend to sell one-hit products (i.e., not evergreen, long-term products with sustainable growth).

Their sole aim is to milk as many prospects as possible for all they can during a finite period of time. Sadly, some of them don’t even care if their customers ever buy again.

As one marketer called it, it’s a “churn and burn” mentality.

Admittedly, one reason may be because many of these marketers offer continuity programs, which on the surface may appear as a long-term strategy. (However, some continuity offers are forced in the backend of the same, huge launches.)

Plus, many of their products are indeed of high quality and very good.

But another analogy that comes to mind is that of snake oil salesmen. The parallel is ostensibly there. Snake oil salesmen drive into town, sell their entire lot as fast as they can, and skip town as soon as they’re done.

In fact, this brings me to another issue Ed brought up in his post. Ed said this…

Yet in this so called “depressed” (more on this in a minute) economy – Internet Marketing stuff is being sold at RECORD numbers.

Record numbers?

Yes, if you want to count unit sales. And during mega-launches where everyone and their neighbor’s pet parrot is emailing you with the same offer, it’s no wonder that such sales incur huge, record-breaking numbers.

But in this case, as it is in many cases of late, the offer is cheap or even free — the purpose being to force people onto a continuity program. Let’s not forget affiliate commissions for the launch and on the recurring income afterwards.

So record-breaking sales doesn’t necessarily translate into record-breaking profits.

(That’s a whole different issue for another day, although I must add that some marketers are overt and clear about their backend continuity offers. They may be forced continuity, which is perfectly fine, but they’re not hidden or slipped under the radar.)

So the numbers are there, I agree.

However, what about long-term, residual income? What about Jay Abraham’s point #2, “frequency of purchases?” Well, that’s a non-issue for many marketers because their clients are forced onto a continuity program, anyway.

But will they buy more from the same marketer? Of their own volition?

Maybe. Maybe not.

But I daresay, retention of their initial order, if these marketers don’t go out of their way to coddle those customers sufficiently, or at least offer excellent — not average or above average, but truly excellent — content, will likely suffer.

So when some marketers purport to make millions with their sales on launch day, are they actually talking about gross revenue? Or are they talking about unit sales or their predicted revenue over the long term based on 100% retention of their new customers?

Something to think about.

As Frank Kern’s grandfather once said to him (from a presentation Frank gave at a seminar) when he used to work in his grandfather’s used-car business, after Frank was all excited about a sale he made that wasn’t quite finalized…

“It ain’t sold ’til you got the money!”

Finally, let me come back to the analogy Ed Dale made. To me, asking “Want fries with that?” is a wrong analogy. A better one is, after you asked for a burger the server says:

“A burger? Sure, that’s $3.00.” (You hand over a $20 bill.) The server, holding your burger in one hand and your $20 in the other, continues:

“Now that you’ve given me $20, how about fries with that? No? How about an apple pie? No? Then how about an extra burger for only half off, and you better decide now because this is the only time I’m making you this special offer!”

Remember, you’re hungry. You paid for the burger. You see the server holding both your change and your burger, almost taunting you. Naturally, you’re getting annoyed by now. Just when you think you’re finally getting your food, the server quips:

“OK then, I know you’re hungry, but before I give you your burger and your change back, may I interest you in our burger-of-the-month club?”

Can you see the frustration?

So when a marketer says, “It works!” I cringe. Why? Because they’re using results — specifically, they’re using superficial, short term, prediction-based, best-case-scenario results — to justify their marketing efforts.

Well, of course it works! It’s no different than saying “Want money? Go rob a bank! Why? Because it works!” Needless to say, when you hold someone hostage at gun point asking for their money, you bet that it works.

Now, I know what you’re going to say. You’re going to say:

“But Michel, isn’t your analogy extreme and just as far off as the fast-food one?”

Sure, my analogy may be a little extreme. What some of these marketers do may be entirely legal and, unlike a bank robbery, no one can get physically hurt.

But when it comes to the ethics of the thing, it’s not that much different. Because, while it may be legal, saying that “it works” when it has no choice but to work because you’re forcing it to, then it’s not so far off the mark.

In short, it may be legal but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right.

Plus, the bank analogy is dead-on in other ways, too. For example, unless that bank’s security has been reinforced, consumer confidence restored, and the bank robber apprehended, chances are those consumers will never go back to that bank.

They’ll likely close their accounts and take their money elsewhere.