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.
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...
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, question for you. The Gamer list competition is for a gaming system... the Debt competition is for a Make Money Online prize... do you think that is the same?
Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.com
· 1 year ago
I don't think it is the same in terms of the value of the subscribers, though I would think a game system might appeal to everyone--even those who are just looking at the site for contest purposes--so it may not make a real difference.
Morally/ethically I see it as the same. No two lists are equal and how the list has been collected, maintained and trained makes all the difference. Of the three training is the most important IMHO.
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 :grin:
In my opinion--whether selling a car or a website--a buyer ought to ask questions or he's going to find something(s) he's not happy with. It's not the job of the seller to figure out all the problems with his product and make sure the buyer knows them.
I can't imagine a way that makes any sense.
I wonder if we should apply this to wives who we've divorced. When they go to get married again we make a list of all their shortcomings and send it to their prospective new mate.
I take it back: I CAN imagine a way that makes sense.
LMAO!!! The wife's list of wrongs to the future spouse, hilarious (that would of course go for ex husbands too :twisted: ).
With your points presented, I see the other side, I too was thinking on the buyers' end. But I'm a big believer in being an informed buyer and always ask questions or seek out reviews before I buy a product or service. I think the seller should be willing to give a full disclosure when questions are asked, this way no misrepresentations are made. I would certainly consider it common sense to observe a blog that you intend to purchase, read through the archives and get an idea of your market, long before making an offer on said blog. But for uninformed and unaware consumers, hindsight is 20/20...
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.
Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.com
· 1 year ago
I don't want to start an argument, but this seems a little naive to me.
If you buy a business and fail to perform due diligence--which includes asking the right questions--why do you feel it is right to libel someone else online in a forum?
You even acknowledge you should ask more questions next time, showing you recognize the fault lies with you, not the seller.
If someone is buying a website for the first time and have no idea what they are doing, yet go ahead and do so anyway without properly checking out the site, how is that the seller's fault?
Very good response... and as we had hoped a great discussion. Always do you due diligence and know all the questions to ask. Thanks Aaron for taking the time for this.
Richard
· 1 year ago
Aaron, thanks for the comment. I definitely would take responsibility for that. Please be aware that I would not "label" or "blame" the seller in the forum. But I would post the facts (including that I did not ask). And I would point a forum moderator to that post and leave it at that. For me that's totally fair game as long as I stick with the facts and don't spin anything (or not disclose the fact that I didn't ask...).
It's like selling fake PR5 domains or selling domains like M0NEY.com (number zero instead of letter o without pointing that out and doing it with a font were you can't tell by just looking). Should the buyer have done due diligence? Yes! Is he responsible for not having done that? Yes! But to me, just because you can trick people doesn't mean you should. And if someone doesn't mind doing that kind of thing, he/she also has to be able to take the heat that comes with it.
Buzzoodle
· 1 year ago
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....
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)....
Antonio
· 1 year ago
Garry is far from unethical? Now that is funny. The contest from his side has been a sham from the jump. Anyone who is just starting would find it very difficult to find people to write articles for them for FREE mind you.
Also he has been doing a crappy job of keeping his readers up to date on his tasks and progress. Garry is a decent writer but ethical is not something I would call him.
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?
lincolnb
· 1 year ago
This is something that took me about one second to make up my mind, Does the word sleaze come to mind ?
CD Rates
· 1 year ago
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.
Abhik
· 1 year ago
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 :)
Amy
· 1 year ago
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.
Vicki Flaugher
· 1 year ago
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
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 :)
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.
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.
Nicholas James
· 1 year ago
Agreed completely on these points.
As a buyer, i would like to know how the list was compiled and some information behind hit because, otherwise its pointless to use and you might not be able to use it too.
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.
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.
Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.com
· 1 year ago
@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.
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.
Bob Marconi
· 1 year ago
I think if you are asking the question, you already know the answer!
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, we are just asking the question... we never mentioned any reference to anyone. It was simply a point that came up this morning and we thought it would make a good discussion... which it has.
Nicholas James
· 1 year ago
There was no reference to anyone doing this...its just something to discuss on the blog with the community ;)
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....
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.
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.
Amy
· 1 year ago
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.
Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.com
· 1 year ago
"why exactly would you even think to ask how the subscribers were obtained?"
I think this may point to the reason so many disagree with me here.
I wonder if many here don't have any experience with buying or selling a website that has significant value tied up in email lists.
I have sold a total of 5 web businesses over the last few years for a total of over $200,000.00. Each of those businesses had a significant number of email addresses with it. Everyone who even thought about buying the site inquired about how the email addresses were collected, how they were used, etc. They asked for verifiable records (as in access to the control panel I used for mailing to the lists which showed when and where the individuals subscribed, how often they were sent an email, what emails were sent, etc.)
This would all be standard due diligence in any purchase of a website where significant value was tied up in the subscribers.
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.
Prasad
· 1 year ago
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."
this is kinda what I was getting at, a person looking to buy a site on a particular topic, and is under the impression that it comes with subscribers, would automatically assume the subscribers are interested in the sites content...why else would they subscribe?
That was my whole reason for saying it should be disclosed if you know a majority are coming from incentive-based optins and really don't have much to do with the site...
good reply
@Aaron
I still do agree that potential customers will want to know the methods and validity of the subscribers, but even they probably assume that the subscribers are related to the sites topic and not just incentive-based
In all actuality, no one is going to buy a knitting site, that comes with a ready built list of subscribers, and not thing the list has interest in knitting. That is almost a given, when dealing with niche type sites I think, so one that has a majority of subscribers that may not be all that interested in the topic, and got them through contest entries.......if honest, should feel the need to disclose such.
Most buyer may wonder about the methods but they most likely won't even consider that the actual subscribers may be "filler" and non related...
again, great conversation, and I see where you both are coming from on this one.
Mark Mason spoke about a "New York Times" test, and I like the analogy, if you can't live with a story being written about it, probably shouldn't be doing it.
I totally agree. If someone bought a blog about knitting, it would be very reasonable to assume the RSS subscribers joined because they were interested in knitting, not because they were offered a coupon for free cat food or 20% off a skateboard.
:lol: There is no such thing as Ethics in Business! :lol: :lol: :lol: If you are doing business, you are bound to be unethical in some facet of what you're doing.
Amy
· 1 year ago
I know you must be joking. There are plenty of extremely ethical people who would rather give up every dime they had than do something that might hurt someone else.
Morals are something that are personal - a judgment call. Different people have different ideas of what is moral and what is not. One person may think abortion is immoral because it's murder, and another may think it's immoral to keep an unwanted baby. Morals are basically opinions in most cases. I've even heard people with Robin Hood Syndrome (not a real syndrome, as far as I know!) who say it's immoral for rich people to be rich, and it's moral for poor people to steal, as long as they only steal from rich people!
Ethics is something that can be taught. In fact, Business Ethics was a course I took in college. Ethics has a hard, definable edge. And not disclosing something critical like this to a buyer is NOT ethical. In fact, in the situation we're talking about, it's especially immoral because the list in question was being built with the specific purpose of inflating the selling purpose of the site.
Amy
· 1 year ago
Oops, I meant to say, "And not disclosing something critical like this to a buyer is NOT ethical. In fact, in the situation we’re talking about, it’s especially UNETHICAL because the list in question was being built with the specific purpose of inflating the selling purpose of the site."
Todd Alan
· 1 year ago
@Amy I couldn't agree more Amy. In fact I dropped a $4000 a month campaign overnight because I learned the product was a little less ethical than I was led to believe.
When I learned the true nature of the product I felt kind of stupid for not having investigated it further in the beginning, but I was new to affiliate marketing and a little naive. And when the money is rolling it's easy to be a little blinded.
There are a lot of webmasters out there selling websites who are perhaps a little naive about the importance of certain issues of marketing and how they might effect the value of their site. So it's not inconceivable for something like the relevancy of subscriber base issue to be not mentioned by the seller because they didn't think it was important.
But I have to agree that in this case where it appears as though the list was pumped up for the purpose of sales value then the seller certainly can't claim ignorance and is clearly being unethical. It's a pump and dump.
Mark Mason
· 1 year ago
@klein Wow. I think you should identify the unethical things that you are doing (assuming you are in business yourself) and stop doing them.
Okay, so this kind of hit home for me. Years ago I bought a brick and mortar business. It was a print and copy shop. I had a dispute with the seller regarding the details of a 5 year contract on one of the large copiers. The seller disclosed that it was a 5 year contract but did not disclose that she didn't start paying on the lease until 6 months after she got the copier. What this meant was that I ended up paying 6 months more than what I had assumed I would have to. (At $1500. a month, this was quite a chunk of cash) I ended up suing her in small claims court (I tried to work it out with her but she thought she was right). I ended up winning. She then appealed and we went to superior court. I won there too.
Bottom Line: Yes, the buyer should do "due diligence" however, the seller (since they are making the money here) has a greater responsibility of "full disclosure" - especially if it is something that you are clearly aware of going into the deal.
I believe it is unethical - and possibly even illegal if it goes that far (but that decision is dependent on the judge) :wink:
If you sold the mailing add saying that "this add/s hope/s to win the xbox" that would be accurate, and perhaps i'll bite any other teaser/s the buyer puts out in that direction. It's related. The contest is related to the site's theme, so it's not unethical.
Hello Johm, yes, this is unethical. But then again, look at the field that we choose to be part of. The internet marketing field.
This field ranks right up their with politicians, used car salesmen, and the make money infommercials, as far as this field's reputation goes.
Most of the internet marketing gurus seem to think that there is no such thing as being unethical in internet marketing.
As far as how you promote and run you online business, "What it takes is what it takes" seems to be their moddo.
The are also real good at downplaying and sugar coating everything.
For example, lies and deception aren't lies and deception in internet marketing. Nope, we can't tell it like it is. We have to label it as 'hype', or risk upsetting the status quo and getting a bunch of flak from a bunch of other internet marketers, beginners and gurus alike.
This is one of those fields were we can't be honest about anything. We just have to be politically correct.
"Any way to make money is an acceptable way to make money
ABAN
· 1 year ago
It depends on if I'm clueless due to my own negligence in researching the blog I was buying or because the seller hid that information. If it was my own doing, shame on me. If it was them I would consider legal action depending on the situation.
"This is one of those fields were we can’t be honest about anything. We just have to be politically correct."
Only if you want to look just like everyone else. Maintaining your integrity and doing Internet Marketing the way *you* think it ought to be done is what will differentiate you from the rest of the pack. You might not make as much money as someone who scams others, but I at least, sleep much better a night.
"This field ranks right up their with politicians, used car salesmen, and the make money infommercials, as far as this field’s reputation goes."
That's because of people who go into it with the idea that it's okay to put your own ethics aside, because "that's what everyone else does".
Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.com
· 1 year ago
You guys and gals can tell by the tone of my responses here that I would not intentionally mislead a buyer--nor would I encourage anyone else to do so.
When I read the initial question my response was simple: There are many reasons why people join a list, and sometimes a website owner may do a promotion that has limited bearing on the value of that list to the niche.
I don't hear anyone complaining about the contest between Cow and Conn artificially creating all sorts of skewed statistics. Not just the obvious visits and subscribers, but less obvious things like incoming links. Truthfully there is no way a new owner can have any idea how much either site will be worth once the contest is over even with both site owners telling potential buyers of everything they are aware.
Does that make Cow and Conn evil?
I think the labels have to go. People are very rarely "good" or "evil" nor are their intentions completely one or the other. But in my experience most of the people I have done business with online tend toward the good. I cringe when they make a mistake and are suddenly branded as evil.
Black and white thinking is rarely correct and I think we need to be cautious when we employ it. The next person tarred and feathered might be us.
I would think that someone buying ANYTHING would study closely the business/site/blog and review all of these factors BEFORE buying. If concerned you could easily write up a contingency agreement that returns the money to the purchaser if there is proof of misleading information. this would have to be clearly written up in advance and agreed upon by both parties. the sale money held in escrow for X amount of time and until everything could be verified.
Off line long legal contracts are written to protect both buyer and seller of businesses. why would it be any different online, unless you are are "rolling the dice" and then it is on you to take the chance and live with the consequences.....
While some business people see ethics as something that keeps you from making your full potential in earnings I see it as what it truly is. Honesty and Integrity in Business. Without ethics it turns into a world of black hat scam artists conning each other for money. While the pyramid schemes of past come to mind they did not really hurt anyone per say but were ultimately very detrimental to many peoples making money at home persona or business. For me I will always disclose any conflicts of interest and walk the white hat line. I have always tried to be completely honest in the hopes that while it may not be adventagious at the time it would ultimately earn me respect for having the fortitude to be that way.
While I wish I could say that being honest is the most profitable, sometimes its not; However, I will remain on this course because it is who I am. To answer the question directly I think it would be unethical cut and dry to build a site hold a content of unbelievable magnitude with prizes or content completely unrelated to the site and then flip the site to someone without informing them of what type of readers they will be getting. I know this happens all the time as its part of the make money quick routine that many internet marketers use to earn cash. I guess this takes us back to business 101 "Buyer Beware" A smart shopper will know to ask directly and will know what the correct response is or if something fishy is going on.
I don't buy mailing lists, period. If I haven't gathered the names/addresses myself via optin ARs, I have no guarantee that the receivers WANT to get my information.
'course, even with optin subscribers, that's no guarantee either....but your chances of being labeled a spammer and getting ISP complaints are far less if they've double-opted into your own network.
I consider the risks of buying a list to be too much for 'lil 'ole me.
The danger in this kind of crap is not only to unwary buyers, but to other internet marketers. After being in this game for a few years, I see it getting worse and worse as far as buyer trust these greedy type marketers destroy. Some even gloat in it. I could write a book on the various scams run by some of the biggest marketers. It's getting OLD! Karma bites...eventually.
All Comments
Really though, as long as the action doesn't cause any harm to the user, all's fair in love and business.
- Martin Reed
Online Communitiess last blog post..Be more productive by recognising the blogging seesaw
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 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
Just don't say the mailing list is something it's not.
Mitchell Blatt, JSBs last blog post..Juiced Links - 5/25
2xKnights last blog post..The Big Bang Theory First Season Review
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
I agree with this!
Nicholas Jamess last blog post..The Contest Where Everyone Is A Winner! *
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
Morally/ethically I see it as the same. No two lists are equal and how the list has been collected, maintained and trained makes all the difference. Of the three training is the most important IMHO.
Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.coms last blog post..Why Freedom Matters
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 :grin:
JK Swopess last blog post..secret marketing strategy 13 exposed
I can't imagine a way that makes any sense.
I wonder if we should apply this to wives who we've divorced. When they go to get married again we make a list of all their shortcomings and send it to their prospective new mate.
I take it back: I CAN imagine a way that makes sense.
Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.coms last blog post..Why Freedom Matters
With your points presented, I see the other side, I too was thinking on the buyers' end. But I'm a big believer in being an informed buyer and always ask questions or seek out reviews before I buy a product or service. I think the seller should be willing to give a full disclosure when questions are asked, this way no misrepresentations are made. I would certainly consider it common sense to observe a blog that you intend to purchase, read through the archives and get an idea of your market, long before making an offer on said blog. But for uninformed and unaware consumers, hindsight is 20/20...
MouthyGirls last blog post..Moving to a New Location
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.
If you buy a business and fail to perform due diligence--which includes asking the right questions--why do you feel it is right to libel someone else online in a forum?
You even acknowledge you should ask more questions next time, showing you recognize the fault lies with you, not the seller.
If someone is buying a website for the first time and have no idea what they are doing, yet go ahead and do so anyway without properly checking out the site, how is that the seller's fault?
Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.coms last blog post..Why Freedom Matters
Please be aware that I would not "label" or "blame" the seller in the forum. But I would post the facts (including that I did not ask). And I would point a forum moderator to that post and leave it at that.
For me that's totally fair game as long as I stick with the facts and don't spin anything (or not disclose the fact that I didn't ask...).
It's like selling fake PR5 domains or selling domains like M0NEY.com (number zero instead of letter o without pointing that out and doing it with a font were you can't tell by just looking). Should the buyer have done due diligence? Yes! Is he responsible for not having done that? Yes! But to me, just because you can trick people doesn't mean you should. And if someone doesn't mind doing that kind of thing, he/she also has to be able to take the heat that comes with it.
etc. Put a positive spin on full disclosure.
Buzzoodles last blog post..Art Book or Business Book
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)....
Also he has been doing a crappy job of keeping his readers up to date on his tasks and progress. Garry is a decent writer but ethical is not something I would call him.
Antonios last blog post..What don’t you get about Barack Obama?
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?
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.
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 :)
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 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
EmmaBs last blog post..Correcting the “Http Error” when uploading pix
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
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.
As a buyer, i would like to know how the list was compiled and some information behind hit because, otherwise its pointless to use and you might not be able to use it too.
Nicholas Jamess last blog post..The Contest Where Everyone Is A Winner! *
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
Full disclosure is.
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.
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
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.
Bob Marconis last blog post..Blog And Ping - What’s That…
I agree completely.
Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.coms last blog post..Daily Blog Summary for May 27th
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
Nicholas Jamess last blog post..The Contest Where Everyone Is A Winner! *
MouthyGirls last blog post..Moving to a New Location
Sams last blog post..Training the English Mastiff Breed
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.
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 think this may point to the reason so many disagree with me here.
I wonder if many here don't have any experience with buying or selling a website that has significant value tied up in email lists.
I have sold a total of 5 web businesses over the last few years for a total of over $200,000.00. Each of those businesses had a significant number of email addresses with it. Everyone who even thought about buying the site inquired about how the email addresses were collected, how they were used, etc. They asked for verifiable records (as in access to the control panel I used for mailing to the lists which showed when and where the individuals subscribed, how often they were sent an email, what emails were sent, etc.)
This would all be standard due diligence in any purchase of a website where significant value was tied up in the subscribers.
Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.coms last blog post..Daily Blog Summary for May 27th
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.
Prasads last blog post..CSS Specificity
Nicholas Jamess last blog post..The Contest Where Everyone Is A Winner! *
this is kinda what I was getting at, a person looking to buy a site on a particular topic, and is under the impression that it comes with subscribers, would automatically assume the subscribers are interested in the sites content...why else would they subscribe?
That was my whole reason for saying it should be disclosed if you know a majority are coming from incentive-based optins and really don't have much to do with the site...
good reply
@Aaron
I still do agree that potential customers will want to know the methods and validity of the subscribers, but even they probably assume that the subscribers are related to the sites topic and not just incentive-based
In all actuality, no one is going to buy a knitting site, that comes with a ready built list of subscribers, and not thing the list has interest in knitting. That is almost a given, when dealing with niche type sites I think, so one that has a majority of subscribers that may not be all that interested in the topic, and got them through contest entries.......if honest, should feel the need to disclose such.
Most buyer may wonder about the methods but they most likely won't even consider that the actual subscribers may be "filler" and non related...
again, great conversation, and I see where you both are coming from on this one.
Mark Mason spoke about a "New York Times" test, and I like the analogy, if you can't live with a story being written about it, probably shouldn't be doing it.
JK Swopess last blog post..Affiliate Evolution has launched
I totally agree. If someone bought a blog about knitting, it would be very reasonable to assume the RSS subscribers joined because they were interested in knitting, not because they were offered a coupon for free cat food or 20% off a skateboard.
Nicholas Jamess last blog post..The Contest Where Everyone Is A Winner! *
If you are doing business, you are bound to be unethical in some facet of what you're doing.
Morals are something that are personal - a judgment call. Different people have different ideas of what is moral and what is not. One person may think abortion is immoral because it's murder, and another may think it's immoral to keep an unwanted baby. Morals are basically opinions in most cases. I've even heard people with Robin Hood Syndrome (not a real syndrome, as far as I know!) who say it's immoral for rich people to be rich, and it's moral for poor people to steal, as long as they only steal from rich people!
Ethics is something that can be taught. In fact, Business Ethics was a course I took in college. Ethics has a hard, definable edge. And not disclosing something critical like this to a buyer is NOT ethical. In fact, in the situation we're talking about, it's especially immoral because the list in question was being built with the specific purpose of inflating the selling purpose of the site.
I couldn't agree more Amy. In fact I dropped a $4000 a month campaign overnight because I learned the product was a little less ethical than I was led to believe.
When I learned the true nature of the product I felt kind of stupid for not having investigated it further in the beginning, but I was new to affiliate marketing and a little naive. And when the money is rolling it's easy to be a little blinded.
There are a lot of webmasters out there selling websites who are perhaps a little naive about the importance of certain issues of marketing and how they might effect the value of their site. So it's not inconceivable for something like the relevancy of subscriber base issue to be not mentioned by the seller because they didn't think it was important.
But I have to agree that in this case where it appears as though the list was pumped up for the purpose of sales value then the seller certainly can't claim ignorance and is clearly being unethical. It's a pump and dump.
Mark Masons last blog post..Cloaking Links: Why Bother
I think it's unethical - but 'norm' in the Net is somekinda blur, isn't it? :P
Please read what I think of things similar to your cow question - Buying Forum and Blog Posts to Increase Website Traffic - Ethical?
That's what I'm thinking about the artificial stuffs and the blogosphere.
Cheers!
Noobpreneurs last blog post..Moving Houses - An Opportunity to Start Fresh
Bottom Line: Yes, the buyer should do "due diligence" however, the seller (since they are making the money here) has a greater responsibility of "full disclosure" - especially if it is something that you are clearly aware of going into the deal.
I believe it is unethical - and possibly even illegal if it goes that far (but that decision is dependent on the judge) :wink:
Lori B.s last blog post..Space-Saving Exercise Equipment
evilwoobies last blog post..Online Dating How To
yes, this is unethical. But then again, look at the field that we choose to be part of. The internet marketing field.
This field ranks right up their with politicians, used car salesmen, and the make money infommercials, as far as this field's reputation goes.
Most of the internet marketing gurus seem to think that there is no such thing as being unethical in internet marketing.
As far as how you promote and run you online business, "What it takes is what it takes" seems to be their moddo.
The are also real good at downplaying and sugar coating everything.
For example, lies and deception aren't lies and deception in internet marketing. Nope, we can't tell it like it is. We have to label it as 'hype', or risk upsetting the status quo and getting a bunch of flak from a bunch of other internet marketers, beginners and gurus alike.
This is one of those fields were we can't be honest about anything. We just have to be politically correct.
"Any way to make money is an acceptable way to make money
ABANs last blog post..How to save on gas
Only if you want to look just like everyone else. Maintaining your integrity and doing Internet Marketing the way *you* think it ought to be done is what will differentiate you from the rest of the pack. You might not make as much money as someone who scams others, but I at least, sleep much better a night.
"This field ranks right up their with politicians, used car salesmen, and the make money infommercials, as far as this field’s reputation goes."
That's because of people who go into it with the idea that it's okay to put your own ethics aside, because "that's what everyone else does".
When I read the initial question my response was simple: There are many reasons why people join a list, and sometimes a website owner may do a promotion that has limited bearing on the value of that list to the niche.
I don't hear anyone complaining about the contest between Cow and Conn artificially creating all sorts of skewed statistics. Not just the obvious visits and subscribers, but less obvious things like incoming links. Truthfully there is no way a new owner can have any idea how much either site will be worth once the contest is over even with both site owners telling potential buyers of everything they are aware.
Does that make Cow and Conn evil?
I think the labels have to go. People are very rarely "good" or "evil" nor are their intentions completely one or the other. But in my experience most of the people I have done business with online tend toward the good. I cringe when they make a mistake and are suddenly branded as evil.
Black and white thinking is rarely correct and I think we need to be cautious when we employ it. The next person tarred and feathered might be us.
Aaron at FullTiltBlogging.coms last blog post..Internet Millionaire Confessions
Off line long legal contracts are written to protect both buyer and seller of businesses. why would it be any different online, unless you are are "rolling the dice" and then it is on you to take the chance and live with the consequences.....
---
Political Disgust
Politcial Disgusts last blog post..UN Peacekeepers Shame, Rape, & Abuse Of Power
While I wish I could say that being honest is the most profitable, sometimes its not; However, I will remain on this course because it is who I am. To answer the question directly I think it would be unethical cut and dry to build a site hold a content of unbelievable magnitude with prizes or content completely unrelated to the site and then flip the site to someone without informing them of what type of readers they will be getting. I know this happens all the time as its part of the make money quick routine that many internet marketers use to earn cash. I guess this takes us back to business 101 "Buyer Beware" A smart shopper will know to ask directly and will know what the correct response is or if something fishy is going on.
Big Ben Pattons last blog post..Is Windows 7 Already A Threat To Vista?
I don't buy mailing lists, period. If I haven't gathered the names/addresses myself via optin ARs, I have no guarantee that the receivers WANT to get my information.
'course, even with optin subscribers, that's no guarantee either....but your chances of being labeled a spammer and getting ISP complaints are far less if they've double-opted into your own network.
I consider the risks of buying a list to be too much for 'lil 'ole me.
Data points,
Barbara
Barbara Lings last blog post..When life bruises you, decorate it with a happy face and rebound