Who needs ethics when there’s money to be made?

Really though, as long as the action doesn’t cause any harm to the user, all’s fair in love and business.

It would be unethical if the person selling the blog advertised it on the grounds it came with a mailing list related to the blog’s theme. You’d have every reason to be a little peeved. You should at least be informed the list gathered was from a campaign unrelated to the blog’s topic and be given the opportunity to make a decision on whether to still go ahead and purchase the blog.

I guess it comes down to how badly you want the particular site. Is the blog your prime motivation and a list would be a bonus or the reason you want the blog is because it comes with a list?

If it’s the first then it wouldn’t be a big deal but if it’s the second, then you’d have grounds to feel aggrieved. That’s unethical in my opinion.

Deans last blog post..Birthday Cake Decorating Instructions

A seller not disclosing this risks getting a reputation as a cheat/scammer.

A buyer should have done his/her due diligence and discovered this before paying for the blog/list.

Mark Mitfords last blog post..Sony Ericsson XPERIA X1 variants revealed

It would be pretty shady, but it’s up to you if you want to do it.

Just don’t say the mailing list is something it’s not.

Mitchell Blatt, JSBs last blog post..Juiced Links - 5/25

Seems a lot like fraud to me. I’d expect to see whoever tried that in court, maybe even prison.

2xKnights last blog post..The Big Bang Theory First Season Review

I don’t like it, no other way around it, that would put you in the same boat as so many other “marketers” and further feed the stereotype that internet marketers are nothing but crooks.

Operating on the up and up will prove better for you and the potential customer, your rep stays clean and the customer has all the info needed to make a choice.

Though some may be interested in the content of the site (who doesn’t want to get rid of debt) if the majority signed up based on a contest, then that should be disclosed in the details of the offer.

Just my opinion, but, I don’t think one would have anything to gain but trouble from doing this….and of course….a little money…

JK Swopess last blog post..secret marketing strategy 13 exposed

It would be unethical if the seller tries to hide how the list was created, of if the buyer asks the source of the RSS/Opt-Ins and the seller lies.

But if the seller does not represent anything materially inaccurate about the list/site/etc. then I don’t see this as an issue of ethics.

I would liken it to a person selling a car who never changed the oil, simply making sure the oil was consistently topped off. Such a seller would not be expected to disclose his lack of proper maintainence, but if asked about the car’s service record he would be expected to disclose he didn’t change the oil.

I would also liken it to someone who is selling a website with 1,000 visitors a day. If a seller never asks where the visitors come from, then he can’t complain when he finds they are all from Reddit.com or some equally worthless place.

Your and Conn’s contest sites are going to get lots of traffic from people who have no interest in games or debt consolidation. How many of the visitors will that be? Who knows. There will be no way for a future buyer to know how many visitors came for the show and how many came for the info.

So is selling your sites then unethical? I don’t think so. You make the stats available to the buyer and let them ask you what they will.

Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.coms last blog post..Why Freedom Matters

Aaron, I definitely see where you are coming from……I guess I’m looking at it from a buyers point of view. Being that both of these sites are pretty niche based, debt and gaming, then, having an already active readership would be a plus to the potential buyer.

I’m sure many of us watching this cowpetition are moderately interested in one or the other, or even both. At the same time, I don’t think both sites have a reader base made up entirely of contest entries, they no doubt have some who genuinely are interested in the site itself, how do you determine which is which?

Most looking to buy sites are going strictly on stats, and the potential, so I don’t think disclosing the source of some of your subscribers would be a bad thing. It’s more just like an overview of the type of marketing you’ve been doing with the site.

I just know if it was me, I’d be the car buyer in your story that asks about the maintenance history, but, not everyone will, so then the decision falls back on you. Though, I think the car theory would be a little more serious, as in, not changing the oil is improper maintenance, but having people sign up for a site during a competition isn’t really hazardous the the health of the site.

I don’t know man, I’m just rambling on a bit…..good post

JK Swopess last blog post..secret marketing strategy 13 exposed

Whether it’s unethical or not - I would not like to be the buyer in that purchase. And I think you should treat business partners the way you like to be treated yourself. So to me, that would be a big no-no.

What would I do? I’d contact the buyer and let him know I’m not happy with the purchase and would try to settle it mutually. If there would be no coorperation from the sellers side, I’d just publish the facts in the forum, and notify a forum moderator and move on. And ask more questions before buying another website next time.

I don’t think honesty should take away much from the sale: We have a great list started for you…. We jump-started your list with an innovative contest….

etc. Put a positive spin on full disclosure.

Buzzoodles last blog post..Art Book or Business Book

Same really goes for the gamer site…sorta…the prize is something of value, something that could be sold…someone may enter because it’s simple enough to enter to get the prize, ignore the emails (game reviews), sell the prize if they win, then unsubscribe.

I thought about the same thing as you are talking about. I think both sites have equal potential of having readers who aren’t interested. Debt relief is general enough that it may affect anyone though.

A positive in your favour, the prize is related to the niche (like you said)…

I guess you just have to see how many subscribers are left after the prize is given away to determine who truthfully wants that info.

With that said, Garry is far from unethical so I’m sure he wasn’t trying to artificially inflate his readership. He strongly feels that debt relief is a topic of interest to most people. But then again, I’m a naive dude from Canada who trusts everyone (at first)….

I think it’s extremely unethical. I could never live with myself if I did that. When someone buys a site that comes with a mailing list and RSS subscriber list, they have a reasonable expectation that the lists in question are related to the niche of the site. If the lists are advertised as being part of the site, then there is NO way an ethical person could do something like this.

I look at it this way. If something like this was considered ethical, where would it end? If this is ethical, then why not just buy mailing lists and include them with every site you sell. Who cares if they’re not opt-in? Why not just scrape a bunch of garbage addresses and include that?

It’s tricking the buyer, plain and simple. How is tricking the buyer EVER ethical?

This is something that took me about one second to make up my mind, Does the word sleaze come to mind ?

If you are talking in general terms, the seller should disclose information that is pertinent to the buyer. However, the buyer should also ask relavent questions. Unfortunately, there are many sellers who only want to make a quick buck.

I wouldn’t want to pay a premium price for a blog that only had subscribers that came from a free contest. I believe you would have case if something were mischaractarized in the sale. Of course, then you have to go through the time and effort of a court case.

If you are talking specifically about the contest, there is a lot of interent press surrounding this, and both of you have been upfront about your methods.

I’m guessing the eventual buyer(s) will be aware of what is going on and take the various components into account.

The answer to this question is a very simple one! I think it’s perfectly ethical to sell with the subscriptions/rss subscribers….as long as you’re clear about what the list was for.

Heck…if I had a blog catering to “dog training”…and also ran contests for some unrelated CPA offer/competition for a TV, and I made money by placing such types of “unrelated” ads…then it absolutely IS a good selling point and SHOULD be factored into the increased value of the blog when selling.

As long as the buyer knows that the subscribers are made up of poeple who came to your blog for dog training…but ended up opting into some TV offer/competition…that’s great.

In fact the buyer should potentially be delighted by a real world “test” you’ve already done to find an out of the box way of monetization!

Just need to tell the truth to the buyer…but in my strong opinion, it should increase the selling value. Listen, at the end of the day buyers want to make money from the site. As long as they’re made aware of how “you” have managed to do that…then there’s no gripe!

Sell away dude…just let em know

To expand on the “reasonable expectation” thing…

Let’s say a seller posted an auction on eBay for “Xbox 360 and 20 games.”

There’s no further description, the games aren’t listed. The buyer would have a reasonable expectation that the games would be Xbox 360 games, because they were being sold WITH an Xbox 360 and no other console.

But what if the 20 games were all for the Atari 2600?

I think eBay and PayPal would clearly side with the buyer that the auction was intentional fraud. And yes, “reasonable expectation” does often hold up in court.

If everything is fully disclosed, it’s up to the buyer to decide if the value of the list (and how it’s composed) is worth the price. The seller should tell, the buyer should ask. If deception or omission is present, shame on both, but mostly shame on the seller.

If you are actually referencing Garry’s site, he gave credit related stuff for signing up to help promote his site. It was interesting and good stuff and I intend to read it and use the advice myself and/or share it with friends. So, even though it was part of a contest, I am still a viable list member. I may be atypical, but probably not.

Many people have credit problems that aren’t willing to admit it or desire credit management education to improve their situation even more. If you look at the stats, even a general pop list would contain a huge percentage of individuals who are in the proper market or know someone who is.

Any potential danger lies is how the site is sold, how it’s represented. For instance, it would be smart to do a test. Responsiveness and conversion is king, even if you got the list with very specific targeting for that particular topic. But, considering that the site itself has content and value and that the list is credit niche consumers at best and business owners/internet marketers at worse (they buy everything!) you still have value.

Honesty and disclosure would be key. For you and Garry. For anyone. IMO!

Together, we are stronger.

Vicki Flaugher, the original SmartWoman

Vicki Flaughers last blog post..Hearing and Responding to Market Feedback

I think it would be unethical to leave out the details of how the list was created when selling it. I guess its a matter of opinion but from previous posts looks like most of us agree on it being Unethical to not let the buyer know how the list got its subscribers

EmmaBs last blog post..Correcting the “Http Error” when uploading pix

This fails my “New York Times” test. How would you feel if you were the seller and this story hit the front page of the NYT. Don’t do stuff you don’t want to read about in the newspaper. Clearly, you would (should) feel like a slimeball if you hoodwinked someone like this.

However, assuming that no false statements were made, it is clearly the buyer’s responsibility to understand what they are buying. Simple stats on open or click through rates would have told the tale.

Note that I never buy a used car without spending $200 to have my mechanic check it out.

Regards,

Mark

Mark Masons last blog post..Cloaking Links: Why Bother

We love it.. this is what we were hoping for. This is a huge lesson for everyone and it did not hit us until this morning and we thought that it was a good debatable topic.

Obviously the main points are to cover your bases from both sides… as a seller and a buyer. The seller needs to make crystal clear how the site was built, marketed and monetized but the buyer needs to ensure they ask those question as well.

What constitutes a “related” list? Yaro told me once he didn’t believe it was ethical to offer anything as an incentive to get people to sign up for a list.

In my opinion, it is ethical to buy a list, incentify subscribers, etc.

My lists get regular emails and are “trained” to respond to offers. In fact, I have several “subscriber traps” designed to get them to do just that. My lists are more responsive than most peoples’ (I get over $23 per year per subscriber.)

If I am buying another list how do I determine its relative value? What is it the seller should disclose? Should I expect (unless he tells me differently) that I will earn $23 per subscriber?

That’s silly. Of course not.

The only way the seller knows what you want to know is if you ask.

Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.coms last blog post..Daily Blog Summary for May 27th

No, it is not ethical.

Full disclosure is.

If someone was buying a home from you they would ask a lot of questions and do an inspection. If you know about a defect that you do not disclose, the law says you are fully liable for the cost to repair the problem plus damages. In some states selling a business such as website falls under real estate law.

Sticking just to ethics, if you think it might be a problem, you should pratice full disclosure. Otherwise you just become another internet sleaze merchant.

You would also be missing the bigger profit picture. Maybe someone buying a website needs someone to make it into an even bigger website and is willing to pay.

@Eric,

I don’t think it is problem so I wouldn’t disclose it. There are millions of ways to build a list. Which ones are produce “good” lists?

I am not advocating avoiding the question or deceiving the buyer, I am saying you can’t simply say one way of building a list makes it “valuable” while another makes it “a problem”?

Maybe you guys can make a list of all the types of lists you think must be disclosed so we can be clear what is ethical and what isn’t.

Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.coms last blog post..Daily Blog Summary for May 27th

It seems people like to have an ethical gray area so they can fudge their conscience. You cannot justify unethical behavior just because it is common practice (such as the lack of disclosure of low maintenance for a vehicle for sale). Of course this is common, and it is because it is so common that we even have a process called due diligence. If everyone that sold anything followed the principle of “give more than you what you agree to give”, then the world would be a much different place. I am not in business for the same reason’s as a psychopathic corporation - which is profit at an cost (all corporations are psychopathic because they have no emotion, no compassion or empathy). I also want to feel good about what I do. And I feel good about what I do if I do more for people than they expect, not less.

If I would feel ripped of by a deal, I will not make that deal with someone else.

And in the end you cannot escape KARMA! What you give you get (eventually). Its also called creating your own reality.

I think if you are asking the question, you already know the answer!

Bob Marconis last blog post..Blog And Ping - What’s That…

“If I would feel ripped off by a deal, I will not make that deal with someone else.”

I agree completely.

Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.coms last blog post..Daily Blog Summary for May 27th

I missed something.

I’m not sure why we are talking about Garry’s debt consolidation site. On Garry’s site he is asking for opt-ins in exchange for a (massive) free download. This is a standard and very reasonable practice. I suspect that will be a major selling feature of the site fully disclosed to the buyer.

As to Garry Conn being unethical: I know him personally, and find him to be both ethical and intelligent.

@Antonio — There is a difference between your perception of the quality of Garry’s contest reports and ethics.

@JohnCow — I am not quite sure what you were actually talking about in the OP, but if you think Garry is taking an unethical approach to the contest, you should say so. He is a big boy, and bet that he will happily debate the merits of any concerns you may have.

Mark Masons last blog post..Cloaking Links: Why Bother

Just because there’s a sucker born every minute doesn’t mean you have to be the one to exploit them. I would consider that persons credibility to be nil and think they were a con artist. If I couldn’t get my money back I’d be one vocal blogger….

MouthyGirls last blog post..Moving to a New Location

The contest might have been ethical, but when it comes to selling the site, full disclosure should include the motivations behind the subscriptions, otherwise it is deceptive.

Sams last blog post..Training the English Mastiff Breed

I like to consider myself an honest person and expect people to be honest with me. When they stop being honest with me I stop trusting them.

I believe the responsibility to provide information and ask questions resides with both the seller and buyer in this case. I think it’s inappropriate on the seller’s part to develop a mailing list using a subject not related to the overall goal of the website and to not disclose that fact to a potential buyer. At the same time, I believe it’s the buyers responsibility to ask as many questions as they can. The major problem I have with this entire argument is the seller building the list and not disclosing the details of that list to the buyer unless asked. That alone, in my book, makes the whole scenario shady and makes me question the ethical, and moral, values of the seller. There is nothing to protect the buyer but the buyer’s prior research, knowledge, and/or experience. Eric took my example about buying a house but I feel that should also apply here in this example. The problem is, there are no set standards or rules for the buying and selling of websites/blogs (that I know of).

Maybe there’s a niche in this somewhere.

I’ve seen several people talking about the buyer doing their due diligence. The problem is, how can you research this? You could ask the seller, but a seller like this would probably not tell the buyer if asked. This is not a question most buyers would even think of asking. You buy a site that comes with a mailing list or RSS subscribers, and why exactly would you even think to ask how the subscribers were obtained? That’s not due diligence. Due diligence is checking out all of the things every buyer should check.

1. You check to see that the domain isn’t banned in the search engines.

2. You verify all traffic, income, and subscriber numbers.

3. You verify the number of listings in the search engines.

4. You check backlinks.

5. You verify the domain’s PR.

6. You check the reputation of the seller.

Those are all some of the things that are expected during due diligence when buying a blog or website. It’s NOT reasonable to expect a buyer to ask, “How were the subscribers obtained, and are they targeted to the site?” Who asks that? I think it’s ridiculous to say the BUYER has part of the responsibility in this situation, because this is not a standard question one would ask when performing due diligence.

You might be able to find out how the subscribers were obtained by pouring through the Google cache or using the Wayback Machine, but who would think to do this? I know some people might, but the majority would NOT.

And I agree with one of the previous posters. If it’s something you would want to read about yourself on the front page of your local newspaper, it’s probably not ethical.

I’ve sold a number of websites over the years as well, and I’ve NEVER been asked this. Most of my websites were in the low to mid four figures each, but I’ve sold a couple of larger sites. I’ve sold 15 sites in the last three months alone, two of them in the four figures. A few of them did come with a list or RSS subscriber base.

I’ve been asked:

1. How many subscribers does the list have?

2. What is the average value of the subscribers?

3. Are they double opt-in?

4. What is the bounce rate?

But never once have I been asked if the list (or RSS feed subscribers) was actually related to the niche of the site. Never.

Plus, if someone was building a list of subscribers that weren’t even related to the niche JUST to inflate the selling price of the site (and let’s be honest, that’s is the ONLY reason someone would do this in this case), it’s painfully obvious that they are so unethical that they would not disclose the fact if asked. So asking would be pointless anyway.

It should be disclosed by the seller, then the ball is buyer’s court and I agree with JK Swopes “further feed the stereotype that internet marketers are nothing but crooks.”

Prasads last blog post..CSS Specificity