Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 108
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: May 15, 2008 - 3:04 pm
Posted By: tomcritchlow 49 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.cornwallseo.com)
Category: Bookmarking
142 Comments
Went Hot: May 15, 2008 - 3:04 pm
Posted By: tomcritchlow 49 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.cornwallseo.com)
Category: Bookmarking
142 Comments
Comments
Brilliant work from Mr Antcliff, the bar has been set.
Did it work though?
https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advsearch;_ylt=Amb3N2zul7NJBCykXv6aHbDbl8kF?p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.money.co.uk%2Farticle%2F1000390-13-year-old-steals-dads-credit-card-to-buy-hookers.htm&bwm=i&bwmo=d
1500+ links already. Success in my book.
The Radio one mp3 is utter genious... Good work Lyndon.
This is brilliant, watching those guys on Fox News was hilarious, Greg Proops quote "Nerds know how to party!" Awesome!
Yeah good point patrick, not only lots of visits and mentions but a good number of links.
It's a winner. I wonder if the Fox News guys got it from their colleagues at The Sun?
;)
Wait. The article is completely fabricated and you all think this is a good thing?
I'm confused.
So that's what link bait is now? Fake shit? Really?
Abolutely-completely-utterly a fabrication, a tissue of lies weaved in a fog of deceit. Or what most people would call satire.
Nowhere do I see the author claiming this is true or that it is attributed to a news report.
I am very surprised that people thought this was real, but then people believe all sorts of things just because they are told them. Some people think that Martin Sheen really was the President, waddya gonna do?
The linkbait is great - well targeted, and successful.
The failure of journalists to actually research a story, though - that's their flaw. No surprise with The Sun, though. :)
This is just crazy! Really crazy!
Lyndon, I saw you tweet it a few days ago and read it. I didn't understand what it was you were up to when I read it. I kept thinking, "why is submitting this news story to Digg such a big deal?"
Now I see what you were up to, and I can't say that I think it's a good idea.
Don't you think that we all have responsiblities as online journalists of a sort to not out and out make news up? It's hard enough to believe anything you read online already. If people start doing this more often (and apparently from the sounds of this thread they will) then the Internet is surely doomed. At least the news aspect of it.
To me, this is very sad. Sad that you would do this to begin with, sad that actual news outlets would pick it up, sad that it got links, and sad for what it all means in the larger scheme of things.
Okay, maybe I'm being dramatic, but I literally felt sick to my stomach when I read that this thing was completely made up on purpose to trick people. :(
Well, as I am not a journalist and as I did not claim it to be true I don't feel bad at all. I let people decide for themselves wether it is true. News organisations contstantly publish untruths dressed up and news and people don't seem to mind all that much. So when Fox news picks up a story with no corraberation or even an author and then dresses it up as true, that is where your ire should be pointed at.
My background is as a fiction writer, stories are written as if they actually happen, it's what Shakespeare did, it's what Hemmingway did. I wrote in the style of a news report but it was fiction, just like the Daily News makes a program in the style of a news show. OK, you could say it's obvious, but not to everyone.
If you investigate the media a little more closely you will find stories that make this little fiction seem like Newsline. WMD anyone?
I can see both sides of the argument here. It's a brilliant and creative concept from Lyndon. And it would have clearly achieved the goals he and his client set (and then some!).
But I tend to agree it does point us into dangerous territory. As online marketers, we already tend to have a shady reputation, particularly SEO's. If this type of tactic becomes mainstream it's certainly not going to help improve that situation. And more importantly, people may lose confidence in social media as a credible source of news... for which we will all suffer.
I've sphunn this because I've found the effects of this story to be very amusing, from the point of view of seeing how far it's spread throughout the media and the obvious fact that it highlights just how poorly researched even the biggest news organizations in the world can be. In terms of pure linkbait, gaining inbound links from a massive number of authoritative sites, it's clearly been a raging success.
But...
I also find myself agreeing with Jill's concerns about the ethics of using an outright lie as a way of trying to promote a site, especially one like money.co.uk, where consumers will want to be able to trust the advice and information that they find there.
I'm not really sure that the "I never said it was true" defense holds up. And as for citing WMD as an example of ficticious news, if this story ends up being half as damaging to money.co.uk's credibility as WMD was to the government's then there'll be a hell of a lot of rep management fallout to deal with.
Dammit, this fence really isn't a comfortable place to sit. ;-)
Yes, I guess it's true. This may mean the end of social media as we know it.
But somehow, we will struggle on and find a way through truth and righteousness.
I'm with Jill. Linkbait SOUNDS deceptive, and now it seems it IS deceptive.
Different if the site was INTENTIONALLY satirical, like The Onion, but to just spread lies? Man, no wonder people hate marketers! Different even if teh exercise was to prove people were idiots.
All that this proves is that some people will tell any lie imaginable for a link.
Personally, I'd rather be a real man, and only ever lie about the number of women i have slept with (48,194) and my general sexual prowess (I'm a god).
This is a terrible development and I am amazed it has as many supporters as it obviously does. I think there is still fallout from this to come as the media - and the readers - realise they've been 'had'.
I really don't believe how po faced and sanctimonious you are all being over what is basically a laugh.
Well, our local newspaper website is still running the story without any correction. Let's see how amused they are if you tell them they've been had - placing the trust of their website into question. You want to dupe the media, be prepared to ride out the reaction.
I'm with Kimota. SEO's catch flak for spamming, and now we're spamming trusted news sources with fake news? Arguing innocence by saying the onus is on the news-sites for not checking the source is like blaming a fraud victim for letting himself get ripped off. There might be SOME sense to that argument, but in the end it's still a rip-off, and everyone knows it.
What? I didn't dupe the media, the idiots duped themselves, they are responsible for what they print not me. If they are stupid enough to print a story that has no basis in fact and does not even have a writer listed then tough! I don't give a toss what they think, if they want to play fast and loose with their website it's their problem.
It's a pretty stupid thing to say I am responsible for what someone else puts on their website. If you are going to print a story, get it verified. I know that and I am not even a journalist, lol.
Then by your own argument, you aren't hoping they will link to you.
But wasn't the purpose of the piece to get people to link back? You know as much as anyone that it was Dugg because people thought it was true. For it to be effective linkbait, people needed to be duped. You are then blaming them for doing so.
One moment you're extolling how successful your peice was at achieving the goal of getting links, but in the next , protesting that the very same people who did link to you shouldn't have and saying why.
You can't have it both ways, you know. It was either designed to get exactly this response from people believing it to be fact or it wasn't. If it wasn't, the excercise is a major failur by giving you the wrong reaction.
I will say it again. People are responsible for what they put on THEIR OWN websites.
No news website was spammed in the making of this linkbait.
I am glad the praise I am getting from my fellow marketers is a lot noisier than the shrill whinning I am hearing here.
So the fraud victim is responsible for handing over the cash to the conman. Sent any good emails from Nigeria recently? Are people who follow the link responsible for their own transactions or should the email writers be strung up by the balls?
SEOs image just took a major knock.
This is no diffrent than the pranks of Alan Abel.
http://alanabel.com/index2.php
He convinced journos that there were people who wanted clothes for animals because of the obscenity of naked animals. 40 yearsa ago! Journalists should be held accountable for fact checking... thats there damn job. They know damn well that stuff like this is fake... they choose to ignore it for their own ends.
Of the more popular personalities on this thread, you could've almost guessed exactly who wouldn't like this sort of thing. I for one consider it a success. Of course, topping it will be next to impossible :-)
To compare me to Nigerian money scammers makes me feel you are not too concerned over your own image.
the truth is the journalists, bloggers, seo's , smm's and everyone else is just upset becuase this exposes their own naivety. sorry, but its true!! Dont hate the player, hate the game;)
What is the uproar about? probably just mad becuase they didnt think it up, its freaking genius. Period. Shame on the news outlets, they are the ones that should be getting heat.. but somehow that is being overlooked. if he would have hacked his way to news outlets displaying his article, or forced them in some way. But the reality is, that it was their appetite for sensationalism that got the best of them end of story!
Its easy for some to sit back and critisize tactics from the sidelines.
@kimota "SEO's image took a major hit" LOL are you serious from who? Jason Calcanis!! also regarding comment about "Then by your own argument, you aren't hoping they will link to you."
cmon , as marketer you should know that not every single thing you try works, so that it worked cannot be used as a rebutal or as a counter point ..
negligence is punishable criminally, as in the case of neglected children, elderly and even household pets for heaven sakes. much less purposefully lying as a means of gain.
legally speaking, if we neglect our children, we are responsible for what we do not do for them as if it is something we are doing TO them.
if we knowingly support and promote the services of a known conman, are we not responsible for stealing an old woman's nest egg? home? comforts she should have in her aged, ending and likely painful life?
promotion of lies may be a terrific marketing tool which gains many advances in your bank account. but it essentially robs you of dignity and others of what thy hold dear. there are other ways to put food on the table.
if you'll lie with one thing, you'll lie with another.
@spots, I never said it was true. I simply wrote a funny story is a spoof style of a news report. It's called satire. I think you are being too po faced about this and taking it way too seriously.
I don't feel robbed of dignity at all, I feel very good about myself.
what a bunch of nonsense... I don't even no where to start...
....as you enter the twighlight zone......
"To compare me to Nigerian money scammers makes me feel you are not too concerned over your own image."
I'm making a point that because they fell for your trick doesn't absolve you of responsibility, as you were suggesting.
My image is fine. My readers trust what I say. ;-)
Some thoughts:
1. If it is "satire", where is the evidence on the site?
2. If it is a joke, why is there no "haha gotya" comment on the page now?
3. Why brag about the fact it was intentionally linkbait?
4. Why is lying a good development?
5. Killing the golden goose doesn't seem terribly smart! I bet you havea harder time now with similar "satire".
"I am glad the praise I am getting from my fellow marketers"
I am prety sure that marketers have a code of ethics, and very few state that lying is acceptable, but I am happy to be corected on that.
**cough**
http://sphinn.com/story/46486
http://sphinn.com/story/46512
The $0.02 of Andy Beard and myself
In some of these posts I detect a sence of jealously maybe I am wrong ? Damaged reputations ? anyone remember the kids shouting from the well that werent actually in the well? We now dont hate all childeren.. Nigerian email scams .. what ? If your stupid enough to to get scammed then thats your luck out ... what a total over reaction by some ... I would much rather give a link to somthing made up that I found funny than the "best ten japanses vending machines ever".. Some of you just need to calm down.. it was just a great piece of marketing.. BTW do you know that Cadburys never actually got a gorilla to play the drums ?
Rather unnerving the number of marketers that don't see the difference between Cadbury's drumming Gorilla (taking one mentioned example) and a story that pretends to be news when it is fake without any attempt to clue the reader into the scam.
(Yes I know you were being sarcastic with the Cadbury mention, but then so was I was the Nigerian Scam reference to make a point - Jeez. Some people need to learn how to interpret analogies).
I guess the old cliche of ad men having no souls or scruples is truer than I thought. Or hoped.
Actually, there is one voice we haven't heard which is actually very valuable within this debate. I would love to know what money.co.uk's reaction is to this. I wonder whether they see it as a great success or a challenge to their site's credibility as a financial advisor for whom trust is a major selling point.
Just plain FANTASTIC man! Well done!
People are acting like I put a fart cushion on the Queens throne.
It was a joke story, whipped into a frenzy by bad journalism.
Come on people - has everyone become so used to sensationalist tabloid bullshit that they can't use their own judgement anymore?
The idea that it should include a line at the end the say it isn't true is absurd - How many clues that it's a joke could someone need? A minor being named for a crime? Hookers that take credit cards? People of restricted growth working with a travelling circus? The 'Ralph wants to be a politician' line?
People have to take responsibility for what features on their own websites. You can blame Lyndon as much as you like but Money.co.uk took the decision that they were happy with publishing the story for what it was - a piece of satire.
If a serious news site then republished this as fact without checking its authenticity it's them who have lost my respect, not Lyndon for writing it. Verifying a story is correct before you publish it should be standard journalistic practice, no?
Incidentally, I thought that this video commentary on the media uptake of the story made some great points http://youtube.com/watch?v=wMg8vqWB69s&feature=user
Here, Here @baiduyou.
The most important factor in all of this is that here we have established media sources failing to check up the facts of the story - plain and simple - if someone had done their job right it would never have snowballed to this scale.
Nice one Lyndon.
It obviously wasn't that clear it was a satire, despite what you might think - otherwise hundreds of people wouldn't have Dugg it or linked to it or included it on news pages as fact. It's on a site supposedly giving out salient FACTUAL financial advice, so yes, it does need a disclaimer if it is not going to conform to the strictures of the site.
Yes, journalists should be more careful, but that doesn't mean the writer doesn't shoulder some responsibility for deliberately playing to their achilles heel.
If this became common, expect stricter guidelines and regulations monitoring the actions of online marketers. People want to trust what they read online. The fact that Lyndon wasn't cleaer enough if he meant this as satire is proven by the reaction. If it was intended as satire - he failed. End of story. If it wasn't intended as satire, then there is a serious ethical issue. You can't have the argument both ways - claiming it as satire but blaming all the readers for not recognising it as such. Poor communication is the fault of the writer, not the reader.
Anyhoo, one final point. The thing I think urks some of us off is the idea being put forward by some that this isn't even a topic worth debating - that we're somehow 'moronic' (one term I saw today) for having the contra point of view.
That is just plain arrogant. There are a number of people here who are very annoyed at this turn of events - not all as vocal as me, but that's always been my failing... ;-) I've fielded responses from people all day agreeing with what I've argued and even thanking me for standing up.
So don't dismiss the alternative view as moronic or po faced or any of the other ridiculous claims that have gfone forward today just because we disagree with the methods used in this instance and feel it worth debating why that is.
Out of debate, learning comes. The debate is important and this one strikes at the heart of what we do as marketers, so embrace it and consider all sides.
@Kimota What makes you think that people had to believe it was true to Digg it or link to it? I think the average Digger is more concerned whether something is funny or not than its factual accuracy. The focus is on entertainment, not reference.
Also, and this is a minor point, as far as I'm aware the article was placed in money.co.uk's "And Finally.." section, which in the UK is associated with humorous pieces. It wasn't on the home page with the serious stuff, despite being the most popular article on the site. Will their target audience suddenly lose faith in the validity of their financial reporting because of this piece? I doubt it. Maybe it's a cultural thing, as there don't seem to be many Private Eye reading, Have I Got News For You watching Brits up in arms.
We're in agreement that stricter guidelines and regulations would be great - I can't believe The Sun can get away with printing this sort of shit - and I mean that in the nicest possible way Lyndon ;) - or that Fox should be allowed to call itself a reputable broadcaster.
I think its absoloutley brilliant. Hats of to Lyndon
90% of the British Tabloid press is made up bullshit anyway.
Umm, subscribed to Private Eye (been reading it for about twenty years) and get sent Have I Got News For You each week by Bittorent so wrong on both counts. I'm a Brit with a journalism, media llaw and marketing background so I fully understand the Brit humour, satire and areas that are - shall we say 'sketchy' under British media law. No one is more cynical about the media than me - I studied it for years - so I do understand the issues here - probably more so than many of you.
But I really don't think short stories - no matter how satirical - get 2500 diggs. People found it funny because they thought it was true. When you know it's fake, it's not even particularly satirical - I mean what is it supposed to be satirising? Satire makes a specific topical point by exageration or immitation. What is the point being made? It was only funny in the context of being true - take that away and it's pretty weak.
It was created to dupe people into believing it was true. The "And Finally" section contains only one piece - this one. So it's hardly developed a reputation for being a satirical section on the site or signposted as much.
And as I said before, the fact that so many people didn't realise it was 'supposedy' satire means it fails on that count. If it was initended as a satire and so many people obviously missed that nuance, why hasn't the page been updated to clue people in? Because it's better to keep them duped. That;s the deception and that is what is worrying.
Anyway, my position is clear. If people can't understand these points and prefer to instead call my views moronic, po-faced, an Albanian Marxist or lacking in a sense of humour, (gee, Twitter's been interesting today) then I know people don't actually have answers to my arguments and have to resort to attacking me instead.
Oh - and before anyone misinterprets my view - I am against this technique and what Lyndon did, but I have absolutely nothing against Lyndon or anyone else . Fine people. Don't mistake vigorous debate and an argued view as a personal attack. It is purely about debating the issue at hand.
I rest my case, m'lud. Pass the whiskey, let's all get drunk. ;-)
1. hired to bait
2. wrote article
3. Huge wopping sucess
4. clients happy
whats the problem ?
Oh sorry missed out some online marketers are jealous , sorry I meant unhappy that no one pointed out it was fake...
I will watch out for all the disclaimers telling the world "caution this is link bait " the next time you launch your bait ... that is if your skilled enough to do it..
now wheres that whiskey :)
Aha - thing is, my readers know they can trust what I write is correct. And like I said, no need to get personal.
I think you crossed the personal line when you said, "Sent any good emails from Nigeria recently?" Which I would class as moronic.
Anyone who knows me knows I use Ghana.
Not everyone has to get a joke for it to be funny. The best parody treads the fine line between absurdity and being almost believable. That's where the humour is. Putting notices everywhere saying "Warning! This item is intended for humorous purposes only and is not intended to be taken seriously" kind of defeats the point.
As for it not being satirical, that's subjective, but as a Brit I'm sure you remember a lot of people were upset with the Brass Eye Paedogeddon special. They didn't get the point that it wasn't making a joke of the issue of paedophilia - it was lampooning the frenzied media coverage of the topic at the time. A lot of people not understanding it didn't mean it had failed.
The argument seems to come down to whether you thought the article was a deceitful lie or a fun, harmless joke. Personally, I thought the "13 Year Old Steals Dad's Credit Card to Buy Hookers" piece was a great satirisation of low-grade tabloid journalism, others might disagree. I would ask though how ridiculous or exaggered a story has to be before people begin to question it?
And why does Money.co.uk's "And finally..." section need to develop its own reputation for humorous items - it's already an established idea across the media. Not to mention that it would be pretty hard to develop a reputation for funny or satirical items without putting any in there in the first place.
People read absurd, 100% fictional stories in the news every single day. I think the issue is that this one has been admitted to be a joke and those who believed it was true are outraged. Should money.co.uk now include a note to clarify the situation to anyone who still doesn't realise? That's their call, not Lyndon's. If because of this perfect example a few more people realise that a lot of what they read in the press is fictional bullshit, it can only be a good thing.
As always though, a bit of debate is healthy. I can see your point of view and I certainly don't think you're a moronic, po-faced Albanian Marxist ;) (of which there are not nearly enough around)
I thought this was rather good for a few laughs. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out, by how the story was written, that it was satire. The fact that other reliable news sources reported on it - most notably FoxNews, is a testament to some people's willingness (and desire), to run with a story with an "ignorance is bliss" attitude, simply because it makes for good radio or TV, etc. FoxNews could have easily asked one simple question to Money if they cared: "Is this a true story? Clearly they didn't do that - perhaps because they didn't want to lose their headline of the week.
For those that are getting in a huff about this, I think you're going a bit overboard. Do you have any idea how much of the World's News is either fake, massaged, etc.? This is a satire story about a 13 year old boy hiring hookers to play Halo. It's not like a President of some country falsely accusing and them bombing another country for having weapons of mass destruction only to find out if they had done their homework up front they could have avoided it. (God forbid that should ever happen).
This tactic may be a one horse pony for the money.co.uk site, but it appears to me that in one feel swoop - this one horse pony won the Kentucky Derby. That's a good pony to ride. I have no problem with it. No one got hurt, many got a good laugh and Lyndon delivered his April Fools joke a bit late. Timing is everything.
On a final note, for what it's worth, I live in Texas and I know that kid. He lives in my neighborhood. There are a thousand just like him. ;)
On one final note, have the commenters on this thread even seen the FoxNews video?
http://tinyurl.com/5qwkot (tiny url force of habit compliments of twitter)
These guys are obviously having fun with the story. Do you really believe they thought it was true? C'mon people. If it's okay for a news organization to run with something like this that they know is a fabrication, why are all of you getting so upset about it? Lighten up.
Where does Cutt's and search engines stand on something like this? Don't they feel the "system" is being gamed here?
Great work Lyndon, if media agencies are stupid enough to run with a story without checking the facts then more fool them. Since when has The Sun or Fox News been reliable anyway?!
If I'm writing a blog post and want to include a link or quote in it I do some research to double check the facts. That's just because I want my posts to be reliable and of quality to my readers. Something these journos could think about doing.
Re Digg there's so much rubbish on there I would certainly think twice about if a story was real not just because it's on there.
Great debate but lighten up people, Lyndon is only doing his job, shame I can't say the same for the journalists!
@incrediblehelp
Yep, I'm actually counting down the minutes until Google announces all linkbait must be labeled publicly and made machine-readable - with associated -950 penalties for "making stuff up".
Seriously though, it doesn't pay to be *too* successful or too public about that success. I don't blame Lyndon for deleting his post.
The removed original posting by CornwallSEO is available here:
http://www.widerfunnel.com/blog
More specifically:
http://www.widerfunnel.com/traffic-building/when-linkbait-goes-mental
cgoward, you don't happen to have all the comments somewhere too, do you?
If anyone's worried that Lyndon may be potentially damaging the credibility of media, all I can suggest is they pick up any general tabloid, and try and argue that "it's all true".
Tabloids have been publishing "heard down at the pub, honest, guv'nor" stories for decades, and there's a whole list of libel cases successfully brought against newspapers for implicitly publishing stories which were not simply untrue, but aimed at damaging the reputation of individuals or companies.
Honestly, put Lyndon's story in context with general tabloid journalism, and what you see is offline media strategies moving online. :)
if anything i think this is a an inevitable and GOOD development.
the state of modern journalism is shameful, and it will take manipulation such as this to expose the evident problems. people realizing that the journalists know little more than they do about anything will make them think more critically and do their own investigation instead of swallowing the nonsense they spew.