A few people have responded to my recent controversial post either on their blogs or via comments. Some have expressed their opinion that it’s never good to name names. And others have spoken out against name calling.
But I think the two issues are getting a little bit confused. There is a big difference between “calling somebody out” and being a “name caller.”
If you name names and draw attention to a particular person and his or her bad business behavior, that is a public service. This is why there are complaint boards, business rating services, etc. They exist to help document unethical business practices and protect consumers.
Should we have not called out Bernie Madoff — and let him continue his Ponzi scheme indefinitely? Should we have been silent as Robert Tilton exploited thousands of TV viewers every week?
To be silent on such issues is to encourage criminal behavior.
In my opinion, naming names is not optional. It must be done to preserve law and order in a society. Criminal behavior (like fraud) can’t be ignored.
Here’s a mental exercise that helps prove the point:
Imagine a known sexual predator living in your area. Would you merely warn your neighbors about the different kinds of sexual crimes being committed in neighborhoods across the nation?
Or would you tell your neighbors the full name of the sexual predator, exactly what he had done in the past, and exactly where he lived so you would know how to avoid him?
I think you know the answer to that. You’d warn your neighbors — and you’d give plenty of specifics.
Name-calling is a different issue entirely. It rarely serves any positive purpose and only redirects attention away from the real issues that need to be talked about.
Unfortunately, this is what often happens in political discussions. The ad hominem attacks start flying. The real issues get swept under the rug.
In fact, this is what happens in many, many arguments, not just political ones. Whether it’s between two friends, two spouses, or whomever, it’s far too easy to let our emotions get the best of us — and resort to name calling. (“Jerk!” “Pervert!” “Idiot!” Etc.)
So, in sum:
Naming names – Necessary, especially when criminal behavior is involved.
Calling names – Unproductive at best, damaging at worst.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. :-)
-Ryan M. Healy
About Ryan M. Healy
Ryan Healy is a direct response copywriter. Since 2002, he has worked with scores of clients, including BoostCTR, Alex Mandossian, Terry Dean, and Pulte Homes. He writes a popular blog about copywriting, advertising, and business growth, has been featured in publications like Feed Front magazine, and is a regular contributor to WordStream.com, BoostCTR.com, and MarketingForSuccess.com.
Even the best copywriters sometimes get stuck for words and struggle to write winning ads. But what if there was a surefire way to smash through writer's block and write winning copy almost every single time? Good news -- there is. Click Here to Read the Complete Article » |
{ 15 comments }
Thanks for the article Ryan… The only time I like to even think about using names is when I am giving someone props for something they did well or when I'm citing a source of information I'm passing along.. Calling names puts you in negative vibration and does much more harm than most pay attention to.
I was one of the person's who questioned if we should call out names… especially if we are using the names negatively.
After reading your lasts few articles I was compelled to call out at the name of a person who had wronged me and the internet marketing community…
It went against everything in my inner being. However it was necessary.
~~~~~~
I'm glad you wrote this post and clarified your position. I agree with you.
Names are used to distinguish different people and to identify who they are.
It's right to separate those people out whose names are identified with bad behavior. Bit even if they are a jerk we shouldn't stoop to their level by getting into a battle of name slinging with them or anyone else.
It's a good clarification: However, I seriously have to wonder about the motivation, when I read finger-pointing on blogs.
Before blowing any whistles, I think people need to check ego and the craving for attention at the door, and have a heart-to-heart talk with their own motivations.
And if someone has wronged you, do what Lynn Terry did: Call your lawyer.
Great post, Ryan! And great points. :)
It's important to note the distinction between one person vs another speaking out against specific individuals as well. One person naming names is going to have a very different reason for doing so over another.
Journalists must name names when reporting on issues that are connected to people who commit certain bad behaviors.
Competitors should not try to become “journalists” who are reporting on their peers.
And if you are a competitor to someone else, and you do speak out against them, you are taking on the risk of being perceived as having bad blood between two competitors, each trying to mud sling at each other so they win the business for themselves.
That's why political mud slinging happens. They are competitors, and if they speak ill about each other, it has the ring of discontent associated with it.
Journalists or reporters who have nothing to personally gain by speaking up against bad behavior is perfectly fine, and highly recommended, as Ryan pointed out.
But competitors can only be seen as “truth seekers” if they stick to the issue without pointing to specific people they are competing with.
See the difference?
Salty Droid is a Journalist, and has nothing to gain by speaking out and naming names.
Michel and I are “competitors” (or can easily be seen as such) and therefore could not, would not, should not, name any specific individual who “sinned”. Otherwise, we cannot maintain any semblance of objectivity. We're human, and it could easily be perceived that we're mud slinging, instead of speaking out about bad practices in the niche we are part of.
The difference is that a journalist has NO conflict of interest and can freely research, fact find, collect data, and protect their sources. They are merely reporting on what they discover.
A competitor would never be able to be truly objective or impartial. There's too much chance of infecting the story to be slanted in one's own favor.
Thus, the sins report focused solely on the bad marketing practices, not the people, because no matter how good my intention, it would have been too easy to degrade the purpose of the report into a mud slinging battle royale between us and our competition.
Hope that helps clear things up. :)
Bottom line? Journalists can and should name names. Competitors shouldn't without risking the fallout.
Don't forget that reporters in newspapers “name names” all the time. The entire enterprise of journalism is based on naming names, though it also includes citing sources and evidence to back up the story. I think your piece was a great piece of journalism Ryan.
“Should we have not called out Bernie Madoff — and let him continue his Ponzi scheme indefinitely? Should we have been silent as Robert Tilton exploited thousands of TV viewers every week?”
Good point there.
And good post. Big difference between name calling and naming names backed up with sources and evidence, like Ryan McGrath said above.
Keep up the good work, dude!
Dan
Here Here Ryan! Nice addition to this series of posts. I think we need to also (in addition to “naming names”) address the underlying behaviors causing the problem. I can see that happening in IM with the formation of industry associations that become a “must have” to gain credibility…much like NASE does for the automotive industry.
It's not a perfect system…but it does help to weed out “overnight mechanics”. ;)
Whilst I understand Sylvie's point and greatly respect her opinion, I still agree with your stance, Ryan. As a public service, some people need to be called out about specific, documented behaviour not generally 'dissed' because of a poor reputation. Calling people out over such specific behaviour will, even if the guilty ones ignore it or state that it's just a competitor badmouthing them, encourage others to avoid that behaviour and, perhaps even more importantly, may save the more gullible / innocent / niave / desperate from shelling out cash which they really can't afford / would be much better off investing elsewhere. Lastly, may I suggest a series of posts on where to find great free (low-priced) practical marketing info. that has helped you?
It is a public service, especially at the four figure dollar level that's in play here. Without one person relating the problems he had with a marketing guru, others may not have come forth.
It should give everyone pause at the value of a package, seminar, mentoring program where price doesn't necessarily equate to value. If I lost the amount of money that was mentioned, I'd paint my car “scammer inside” and park in front of his house and let all the neighbors know why.
ART
I like and agree with Both Ryan and Michel and Sylvie Fortin but have a few distinctions to add.
I dont think the situation is quite so cut and dry or black and white.
I agree that mudslinging and namecalling is pointless or even self destructive.
but I think those of us that ARE educated in the sophistocated techniques and products being sold in our profession, we do have a personal moral responsibility both to our readers and to our own dignity to be impactful, not just vocal.
As educators, we know that theory, concepts and generalities only go so far in really empowering true learning for our students.
we need to use specifics, examples, case studies that people can really relate to for them to truly get the picture.
When people rely on us for advice and analysis, its our duty to be straight, specific, and documented.
I see Sylvie and Michels point,
very dramatically, how an accusation can actually go to strengthen the following of the accused.
That seems an even better reason for Not publicly calling out some people even more than fear of quick threats to legal retaliation.
I even agree with the words that people who label others do so to define themselves ( or something to that effect). it makes sense.
When I see people conducting business in a way that seems shady to me, I take pride in defining myself as
Better than THAT, better than them, better than Her.
I see clearly because I had to examine a specific case, the line that I will not cross, not even for a buck.
I think we all do that. its how we learn , how we grow, how we define whats important to each of us.
I appreciate and admire people like Ryan, Michel and Sylvie, even Rick Butts with the integrity and the guts to raise issues like these, especially because i know that without examples, without debate, without honesty and without recrimination towards the scammers and the blackhats, all of us in this industry suffer.
Cleaning up the crap, outing the fraudsters should have been happening even MORE vocally, More specifically, and More effectively, before the FTC and merchant accounts had to step in to make sweeping changes that impacted us all for the wrongdoings of a few rotten apples.
The more I learn, the less I trust.
it sure is fascinating to watch the psychology.
sometimes it just seems like high school with more money though.
thanks and take care
Bryan Bliss
I find the Internet marketing sub-culture to be very intolerant of the slightest deviations. That's why it's mostly stale and built on hype. Crappy websites, substandard products, unethical business practices and more. But you can't speak of any of that. Fall in line. Spread the love of hype.
So, thank you for your refreshing voice!!
Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. (Just thought I'd quote that first so you think I'm 100% trustworthy!) LOL Has anyone got a refund on Brunson's SIN1 and SIN2 products? It's a funny coincidence that the page that contains the refund requirements as per FTC requirements is broken. What a shame Russell Brunson can't process refunds at the moment! “To request a refund please review our refund policy at http://www.dotcomsecrets.com/policy. Once you have reviewed our refund policy please submit a ticket at http://www.customerhelpdesk.org Great policy before it was locked so you caouldn't copy and paste it and now it's gone! Did any of Russell Brunson's customer get a copy of DotCOmSecrets.com refund policy before it went broke?
Exactly the stance that I would have taken Ryan, and the clarifications you made were “spot on” too. And if it doesn't make you popular for everybody, you are at least the hero of the voiceless mass of the “screwed by the gurus” growing crowd.
It's interesting though, if I was going to trash talk someone I would at least start it on my own blog before spilling into the comments on someone elses blog.
-Jim
It's interesting though, if I was going to trash talk someone I would at least start it on my own blog before spilling into the comments on someone elses blog.
-Jim
Comments on this entry are closed.