Selling Information

Lemonade Sales on the Vivid Image Front Lawn

It’s amazing how some people get all upset when someone puts something up for sale on the web. I released a Google+ for Business LIVE webinar (that goes on Wednesday, by the way), and a few people complained that I had the audacity to charge money to educate people for two hours at the cost of $47. This kind of thing used to bug me. I’d feel really insecure if someone complained that I was putting a product up for sale, or if I were promoting something. But it doesn’t bother me any more and here’s why.

People Buy Knowledge All the Time

We buy knowledge every day. I pay a mechanic to service my car, even though that information is freely available in tons of books at the library. I pay someone to manage my website technology, even though I can do most of it myself. I pay for books. I pay for audio programs. I buy webinars and seminars. I pay to attend conferences (Okay, I don’t often pay for conferences any more, but when I do, they’re worth it!).

But for some reason, sometimes people get tweaked about it. There are lots of people who get upset when one sells something. They call you a sell-out, a shill, a grubber, and all kinds of other words.

Selling Isn’t Evil

Selling isn’t evil. Selling crap might be evil. Selling something someone doesn’t need might be evil. Selling something someone didn’t ask to buy might be evil. But selling isn’t evil.

Selling is what one does when one has something of value that someone else might want or need. I don’t consider my grocery store evil. I don’t think Amazon is evil. We buy from people every day, even if it’s not money that’s exchanged. I buy information with my attention every day. I read great blogs and watch interesting videos every single day. Don’t you?

A New Place to Learn About Building Business

I’m introducing my new project (part of Human Business Works) that addresses this. It’s called The Owner’s Mind. The premise of this project is to create a private communication channel for aspiring web entrepreneurs to learn how to build their businesses and grow their future. I’m putting into this project all my learnings (plus interviews with all kinds of people who know tons more than me.

And we’ll talk about failure, too, because failure is an oft-overlooked part of learning how to build successful web businesses. You and I? We’ll cover that. Want to get involved? Just click below to read more, and then sign up for the free weekly email. I look forward to working more with you.

The Owner's Mind

Image hosted at Flickr

ChrisBrogan.com runs on the Genesis Framework

Genesis Theme Framework

The Genesis Framework empowers you to quickly and easily build incredible websites with WordPress. Whether you're a novice or advanced developer, Genesis provides you with the secure and search-engine-optimized foundation that takes WordPress to places you never thought it could go.

With automatic theme updates and world-class support included, Genesis is the smart choice for your WordPress website or blog.

Become a StudioPress Affiliate

  • http://www.burgoblog.com Matt Burgess

    Hey Chris,
    Please take this in the spirit with which it’s meant (because I am totally down with pretty much this whole post) BUT…
    It got me thinking to why people would have been up in arms about the cost of $47 for a Google+ “tutorial”. Looking from my point of view, it might not have actually been the cost (although that might have been the tipping point for a lot of people), but more probably the initial resistance was set by the speed with which you got this out there. I know that – as the landing page states – you’ve logged 250+ hours in G+, but really, it’s still so new… still so much in its infancy people may have resisted the “authority” implication of the sell.

    Get where I’m coming from?

  • http://www.burgoblog.com Matt Burgess

    Hey Chris,
    Please take this in the spirit with which it’s meant (because I am totally down with pretty much this whole post) BUT…
    It got me thinking to why people would have been up in arms about the cost of $47 for a Google+ “tutorial”. Looking from my point of view, it might not have actually been the cost (although that might have been the tipping point for a lot of people), but more probably the initial resistance was set by the speed with which you got this out there. I know that – as the landing page states – you’ve logged 250+ hours in G+, but really, it’s still so new… still so much in its infancy people may have resisted the “authority” implication of the sell.

    Get where I’m coming from?

  • http://SalvadorFigueros.com Salvador

    Chris, I don´t think you should pay attention to those comments. You do a great job. Everybody sells. Everybody buys. That makes the world go round.
    If you sell, you can make a living out of this blog and we have your posts for free. Isn´t it a good deal? It´s great.

    Thanks for your info.

    Salva

  • http://PhoenixRealEstateGuy.com Jay Thompson

    You should try selling real estate for a living. Talk about something people love to hate… :) While I don’t think G+ is ready to be used for business quite yet, you are certainly free to sell what you’ve learned so far.

    The solution for people that don’t like it seems stunningly obvious… don’t buy it.

  • http://homeremediesmd.com Home Remedies MD

    As the praise goes “you pay for what you don’t know.”

  • http://twitter.com/BobbyWarrenTDR Bobby Warren

    Sorry, but if it didn’t bug you, then you would not have used valuable time on this post. Wish you the best at selling information. It’s what I do; I am a journalist. Actually, I don’t do the selling part, I just gather it.

    • http://twitter.com/blogworld BlogWorld Expo

      actually you do sell it every time you cash your pay check or interview for a new gig.

  • http://www.online-business-virtual-assistant.com/ Virtual Business Assistant

    Its not like every body should know everything. There is nothing wrong if we pay for something we dont know know.

  • http://www.fridaytrafficreport.com JackHumphrey

    What kind of world do some people live in where they can honestly believe that selling information is wrong?  Since that world doesn’t exist, they aren’t being honest.  They are trolling.  On the other hand, they’ve done a great job helping you make more sales by some of us finding out about the controversy before we knew about your offer, lol.  

  • http://careless.fr hyyvon

    I don’t think you come anywhere near addressing the right question which is not ‘Is selling evil or not’. The right question to answer is whether your webinar valuable.

    Given the menu (Profile tips and tricks, Organizing people in circles, etc…), it won’t be valuable to me. As you said all this information is available for free, and I got it already. Yet it doesn’t stop people from signing up to your webinar apparently. So you might be right.

  • Pingback: I’m Not Selling to YOU

  • Pingback: I’m Not Selling to YOU

  • Anonymous

    I love the conceited tone of your post – “I’ve been watching…”, “I’ve seen you”, “I’ve watched you”, “some you’ve done well”, etc.  Re-read your own post and it is clear that you have been a spectator and a critic.  Get off the bench and do something already!

    Also, my guess is, if the game changes and the info is no longer good and people ask for a refund – Chris would give it to them.

    • http://dannybrown.me Danny Brown

      Really, Brad? Reading someone and watching them grow is now conceited? Sorry, but conceited to me is having a tunnel vision view on what’s black and white and woe betide anyone with an open viewpoint.

      • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

        No, watching someone grow isn’t conceited.

        Chest-thumping that you’ve been watching someone grow in a paternal, I-always-knew-this-kid-would-one-day-be-as-smart-as-me sort of way is a bit arrogant though.

        Brad wasn’t prohibiting you from having your own point of view (once again, you whip out the Straw Man position). He was commenting on how you sound a bit conceited as you “chide” Brogan for being early to market.

      • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

        No, watching someone grow isn’t conceited.

        Chest-thumping that you’ve been watching someone grow in a paternal, I-always-knew-this-kid-would-one-day-be-as-smart-as-me sort of way is a bit arrogant though.

        Brad wasn’t prohibiting you from having your own point of view (once again, you whip out the Straw Man position). He was commenting on how you sound a bit conceited as you “chide” Brogan for being early to market.

  • http://www.bradfarris.com/ Brad Farris

    Chris:

    Just as you don’t need to make folks out side your target market buy your stuff, you also don’t have need them to be happy with the career choices you’ve made. You have a vision of where you are going, and how you will make money and the only one who needs to be happy about that is you.

    Answering their concerns might feel better, but really, are you likely to change anyone’s mind? Let it go, keep doing good work, and enjoy life.

    Brad

  • http://www.wineywomen.com Kim Kolb

    I loved this post.  The people who complain are those people who aren’t using the system or think it is just that easy.. All the time in our design business, people say “That should be easy, right”?  Easy maybe, but it is the 10 years experience behind the task that makes it easy.  Doesn’t mean you don’t get to pay what it is actually worth.  I believe anyone who has spend the amount of time on this google + as you have is more knowledgeable and is looking to save someone else time and money by offering this.  If they want to spend 250 hours, you certainly aren’t stopping them.. Believe me, I seriously thought about joining on Wed and I still might if there is room left, but do I feel slighted by you charging, absolutely not because I would rather someone show me then me having to figure it out!  So, Thanks Chris for thinking of us and who would gladly pay.!

  • http://twitter.com/FloweMedia Flowe.co.uk

    I’m pretty upset. I posted about your webinar on a linkedin group, just trying to give some social media people a heads up and got lambasted by the moderator. His final paragraph, after two brilliant mathematical deductions of how much money you will make, basically said this just reinforced the bullshit factor of social media.

    Surely he’s missing the point, it doesn’t matter what you’re earning, it’s what he’s getting for an hour of your time and 250 hours research.

  • http://twitter.com/MarketingEcon Peter St. Onge

    I didn’t read his original post as even aimed at you; I read it as aimed at bs artists, not g+ per se.

    Like many fields, social media has a sort of immune system made up of certain people who act as de facto guardians. That’s good – they keep some of the bs out. You yourself have played that role, and you will in future.

    So while I happen to agree with you on this one, I don’t think this is a structural defect of SM’s social ecosystem. I’d say it’s more of a false positive that any healthy immune system will sometimes produce.

  • http://deaneogden.com Deane Ogden

    Okay… here’s the thing. All these comments about you jumping on early and all that… I get it. I see where they are coming from. BUT… unlike you Chris, I do not have time to spend 250 hours on G+, so I’m paying you to tell what you’ve learned during your travels. I know YOU don’t really have that kind of time either, but somehow, you’ve made the time, and that’s what I’m paying for.

    I’m a film composer and creative consultant to artists. I’m not an expert in social media. I’m not a web guru. 250 hours of my time is better spent talking with film composers in London, Ubeda, or Hollywood about how to raise the awareness of our craft. I believe that since so many Hollywood and London-based composers are already on G+, me being somewhat proficient on the platform can only help that cause. If I were to compare the cost of your two hours versus the cost of the man-hours it would have taken me to navigate G+ the way you have… it’s kind of a no-brainer as to where the money should go. I’ll let you show me the ropes and in two-hours, I’ll be on the ground running. 250 hours on ANY social network platform like G+ would have, for me, equated a loss of income of approximately 96k if calculated out at my normal average hourly rate for writing music for movies.

    In light of that, 47 bucks seems like money well spent.

    Looking forward to the webinar!

    Absolute best,
    Deane Ogden

  • http://twitter.com/cryswashington Crystal Washington

    Are you going to have the webinar available as a video product?  I have consulting meetings scheduled today, but I would be more than happy to pay for your expertise.

    • http://www.coffeewithjulie.ca Coffee with Julie

      I’d be interested too…

  • Pingback: Is a month of experience on an unfinished social network like Google+ worth $47?

  • Pingback: Out Of Perspective | MichaelSchechter.Me

  • http://twitter.com/3rhinomedia Don Stanley

    Completely agree with @Deane Ogden. Paying for your perspective and insights are well worth it. If others can’t see the value in it, they can go somewhere else or dedicate the same time to not only playing with the tools but expertly communicating their experiences (good luck on that). I’ll gladly pay for this. Thanks for making it so reasonably priced so it’s accessible to all of us. 

  • http://twitter.com/3rhinomedia Don Stanley

    Completely agree with @Deane Ogden. Paying for your perspective and insights are well worth it. If others can’t see the value in it, they can go somewhere else or dedicate the same time to not only playing with the tools but expertly communicating their experiences (good luck on that). I’ll gladly pay for this. Thanks for making it so reasonably priced so it’s accessible to all of us. 

  • Pingback: A Weekly Roundup of Small-Business News - NYTimes.com

  • Pingback: You’re the Boss: This Week in Small Business: Are Small Businesses The Answer?

  • Pingback: This Week in Small Business: Are Small Businesses The Answer? – New York Times (blog) | Business Plan

  • Pingback: This Week in Small Business: Are Small Businesses the Answer? | Leomoo.com

  • Pingback: You’re the Boss: This Week in Small Business: Are Small Businesses the Answer? - Financial news

  • Pingback: VN MADE » This Week in Small Business: Are Small Businesses the Answer?

  • http://dannybrown.me Danny Brown

    Mark,

    Chris’s webinar was pitched as “How to Use G+ For Business”. It had one solitary business tip in it. That’s a little bit disingenuous, no?

    As for spotting trends and utility, check my background. 

    And picking “a bad position and bad target”? Sorry, no-one is beyond questioning and the need for clarification. It’s what differentiates a business that sticks around as opposed to one that takes everything that’s said for granted, then finds themselves on the scrap heap because they didn’t carry out due diligence.

    PS – I believe her name is Gini…

    • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

      Danny: Did you take the course? If not, don’t tell me what was in it. You don’t know.

      As for spotting trends and utility, frankly, I outrank you. Sorry. I trust my own extensive experience and intellect over yours, and certainly Chris’s over yours. 

      Because you have a highly ranked AdAge blog or are a “certified Social Media informer” means nothing to me. The last thing I need is to take advice from someone who feels compelled to plaster third party verification of his Social Media Swami status all over his blog.

      And finally, if you knew anything about social media or believed what you preached, you’d realize two things:

      1) Chris is an open book. When someone is as transparent about his life, business philosophy and business practices, due diligence is a bit of a redundant measure. The man is essentially a historical figure, in the context of New Media and social media technique. When you’re scrutinized closely enough to have multiple Wikipedia entries about you, well, I think you can assume your due diligence is being done for you.

      2) Did I say that doing due diligence, in general, was a bad thing? Talk about a straw man response, captain. What I said is that Chris Brogan is, essentially, obviously and clearly beyond reproach. I didn’t say _everyone_ is beyond reproach. I didn’t say _most_ social media gurus are beyond reproach. I just said Chris is.

      I originally picked your comment to respond to because it looked as if it was the most well-thought out post on the thread that seemed to be negative towards Chris. At this point, you wait days and days to respond hoping to get the last word, use snide phrasing, and totally and ignorantly convinced of your own correctness while having done no research. In essence, you’re not helping your case with anyone, least of all me.

      I’m not real sure why you waited quite this long to respond. Not sure why you’re trying to “fight dirty.” I can say, though, that this won’t end well for you.

      PS – It’s not germane what her name is. 

      • http://dannybrown.me Danny Brown

        That’d be why I said “due to feedback and emails received” from people that had taken the webinar. 

        I won’t delve any further into your comment, as I don’t need to – your response says more than I would need to elaborate on. 

      • http://dannybrown.me Danny Brown

        That’d be why I said “due to feedback and emails received” from people that had taken the webinar. 

        I won’t delve any further into your comment, as I don’t need to – your response says more than I would need to elaborate on. 

        • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

          Don’t think I misunderstood what you said. I get it. You got some emails
          from some folks you know that confirmed your suspicions.

          Let’s put this another way, chief: my job is to be an independent arbiter of
          things social media and technology. That’s my job, I’m a journalist.

          You? You’re someone who does things similar to Chris to make a living. Your
          views are already suspect. You freely admit that you’ve done no original
          research and you’ve got an ax to grind.

          So I think you *do* owe me and anyone else who still happens to be reading
          the thread why your opinion should be taken over anyone else’s.

          Or you could let it lay and concede that I’m right.

          • http://twitter.com/MSGiro Marc Girolimetti

            Dude, can you put your dick away please? I really have no desire to see it. How can this possibly be a productive discussion when you condescendingly call somebody Chief or Captain? BTW, what is Danny? A Chief of a Captain? I would like to know, because the pay grade is different. If we’re talking the shipping industry you can’t outrank a Captain, so perhaps you’re equals. It also is disrespectful to call Gini, Gina. We’re talking a 4 letter name here. I’m sure you would take note if I referred to you as Jizzn or Brogan as Bragan. It’s just the polite thing to do. 

            Can we please just get back to a real discussion without the bravado and insults?

          • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

            1) Nope. 2) Don’t look. 3) That’s the point. 4) Your call. 5) Not the point. 6) No need to be crass, chief. 7) And finally, he started it by insulting my intelligence, so no.

          • http://twitter.com/MSGiro Marc Girolimetti

            He started it? What is this? + Kindergarten? I give up. The Infographics are winning.

          • http://doughaslam.com Anonymous

            No one is beyond reproach. Chris is a friend. Not him. Me? Nope. Everyone else here? Nope. It’s unanimous. 

          • http://www.willmarlow.com Will Marlow

            I agree with Doug.  The whole idea of someone being beyond reproach rubs me the wrong way.  I think the whole mindset where you put someone up on a pedestal is very old media. 

          • http://doughaslam.com Anonymous

            …and as to the point of the post, no one I respect (including Gini) was questioning selling information- just wondering, if forcefully so, if it was too soon to talk about Google + for business when Google has not only explicitly stated that business accounts aren’t ready yet (so what form will they take?), but they have been actively taking down business profiles. I also wonder if it’s too soon– withut making any judgment on the actual content of the webinar.

            Why do we question? Not to put Chris or anyone up against the wall, but to hold our own ideas, and those of our peers up to scrutiny. Aside from these occasionally dusting up into public slap-fights, it makes us all better. 

          • Guhmshoo

            Thanks everyone. I now have the perfect treatment for my new movie: The Social Nitwit.

          • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

            Beyond reproach is different from expert status. You’re conflating the business case with his ability to accurately divine social media trends and use-cases.

            Chris Brogan simultaneously has little need to defend his expertise and holds a daily open forum to defend his expertise in the form of his blog and social media channels. I think, in a manner of speaking, he’s above reproach in that respect (at least from those who’d categorically dismiss what he’d have to say, as Gini did initially with her post, but later walked back a bit in comments and discussions with folks like me).

            On the business side, legally no one is above reproach, but the typical American approach to such things is “innocent until proven guilty,” or a “preponderance of evidence,” depending on the severity of the case being discussed. 

            If you’re talking about Chris’s career as a whole as a paid information provider or expert, or if you’re talking about this specific case, I personally think he passes muster by both measures, but that’s only one man’s opinion.

          • http://michaelschechter.me MSchechter

            Congrats on being the first “journalist” in history to say, “he started it”.

          • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

            Thanks! Maybe you can steal my quip and put it on your “Smarter than I Am” tumblr.

          • http://michaelschechter.me MSchechter

            There are several other Tumblr blogs better suited for these kinds of
            comments…

          • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

            Now I *know* you’re being sarcastic, Mr. Autoplay, because almost everything I say is *perfect* for your Tumblr.

          • http://michaelschechter.me MSchechter

            Now Mr. Autoplay… that I actually kind of like!

          • http://michaelschechter.me MSchechter

            Now Mr. Autoplay… that I actually kind of like!

          • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

            Now I *know* you’re being sarcastic, Mr. Autoplay, because almost everything I say is *perfect* for your Tumblr.

          • http://michaelschechter.me MSchechter

            There are several other Tumblr blogs better suited for these kinds of
            comments…

          • http://twitter.com/Robert_Fields Robert Fields

            Wow Mark. Such vitriol? Is that really necessary? I usually don’t comment on BS like this, but this one made me want to because it was so out of line. It is a common belief that the first one to start calling names and pulling hair in the fight knows they are losing. You spend a majority of your post trying to discredit someone and make them look stupid when all you did is make yourself look childish. I have been following this chain since I do take interest in what Mr. Brogan has to say. I also have interest in what Mr. Brown has to say; as they are both proven professionals, with real clients, real followings and yes, third-party accreditation and validation. I must say, Mr. Brogan does not need your mob-like tactics to defend his good name. As even you stated his name is good enough and can take the slight dissent. And this is advice that I know you won’t take, but your credibility as a “journalist” will not be boosted by trying to climb up the backs of professions that have been out doing real work, for real clients, not just writing about others who do. I am sure this will get your dander up. That was not the intent. The intent was merely to say, bring it down a bit. Try to keep some journalistic professionalism in your positing, which the banter above is clearly lacking. Your intent was to come to the “defense” of an icon, but all you did was sully his name and yours by your approach.

          • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

            I may look childish, but I also look correct.

            I had interest in what Mr. Brown had to say until his belated response today. I don’t have time for someone who’s response to a well thought out comment is simply “look, I know what I’m talking about, check my resume, and oh, here’s this logical fallacy. Oh, and you also fat-fingered someone’s name, so neener neener.”

            That insults my intelligence and the time I took to tap out the original post.

            Yeah, my first instinct is to go negative on someone like that. Reputation in the business or not, he couldn’t hold his own. He’s a paper tiger, and once his position was challenged, he folded.

          • Devin Mathias

            I would bet Danny’s “delayed” response had something to do with… um… what’s the word for it?  Oh yeah – working.  One of the reasons Danny & Chris are well-respected by so many is because they actually garner a lot of work and do a lot of good professionally and personally.  

            I thank you for taking time out of your day – well, maybe your entire day – to fill up this blog and defend someone who wasn’t actually under attack.  It has been entirely entertaining for the insights some have provided and, even more so, your contributions.  

            There’s an incredible sense of irony that you strike out at Danny on multiple occasions about his desire to get the last word, but I’ve never seen anyone try to do so as hard as you are in this thread.  (Oh, btw – odds are pretty good I’m not gonna comment again, so if you want to reply to my comment, you can chalk it up as a WIN!)  

            Well… I guess that depends on what kinda comment comes from you… 

            My two cents would be that it may be worth your while to take a break, get outside – heck, maybe even go for a canoe ride or something like that – and calm down.  You seem way too into this conversation.

          • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

            To your first point, Danny’s delayed response isn’t explained by your scenario. Most would have done what most on this thread have done after two weeks – move on.

            You clearly haven’t read a lot of what I’ve written – or least of all what I do for a living. I’m sure it’s come up a couple times in the conversation.
            Creating content on the web is my gig. So, in essence, I’m doing my job right now.

            Also – multitasking. Look into it. I can do two things (or even more!) at once.

          • Anonymous

            Nice touch with the canoe ride.

          • http://twitter.com/Robert_Fields Robert Fields

            Yes, you do look childish. But worse for you is you lose all journalistic credibility, if you had any to start with. This is my first real exposure to you and I can honestly say I hope it is my last, as I am sure it is for many that have read your bullying retorts that don’t amount to much more than you being the loudest screamer in the room during heated discussion. You get vile, you attack, you even admit you aim vitriol and go negative. You think this is appropriate and gets you more entrenched with people who are “like-minded.” I can truly say that I hope I can stay as far away from people that are like minded to you. You are what is wrong with the Internet. You are what is wrong with the discourse in America today. It is the close-minded nature of your “win-at-all-cost” attacks that has sullied discourse from as simple as this one to the major ones in politics today. You have systematically attacked everyone on this blog that has posted a dissenting opinion to yours or anyone who would dare question the target of your man-crush. It is embarrassing and sad for you. But what is really sad is that you truly think you are correct and you truly think that your behavior is OK. I would love for anyone else, including Chris himself to openly respond to this posting with a positive affirmation of your behavior and the nasty, narcissistic, and downright vile way you have conducted yourself in your retorts. I would be really surprised if anyone responded, other than you, with how right you are and how well you conducted yourself. Go back and read your posts. Is this the kind of writer you really want to be? Is how you have behaved really be how you’d want you children to act? Or worse yet, is this how you’d want someone in your family to be treated? I am not really asking for a response. If you have even the slightest level of civility left in you, just step back and look at how you have behaved. And no, taking the “he started it” and “I was defending myself” posture does not cut it anymore. You are well beyond that.

          • http://twitter.com/Robert_Fields Robert Fields

            Yes, you do look childish. But worse for you is you lose all journalistic credibility, if you had any to start with. This is my first real exposure to you and I can honestly say I hope it is my last, as I am sure it is for many that have read your bullying retorts that don’t amount to much more than you being the loudest screamer in the room during heated discussion. You get vile, you attack, you even admit you aim vitriol and go negative. You think this is appropriate and gets you more entrenched with people who are “like-minded.” I can truly say that I hope I can stay as far away from people that are like minded to you. You are what is wrong with the Internet. You are what is wrong with the discourse in America today. It is the close-minded nature of your “win-at-all-cost” attacks that has sullied discourse from as simple as this one to the major ones in politics today. You have systematically attacked everyone on this blog that has posted a dissenting opinion to yours or anyone who would dare question the target of your man-crush. It is embarrassing and sad for you. But what is really sad is that you truly think you are correct and you truly think that your behavior is OK. I would love for anyone else, including Chris himself to openly respond to this posting with a positive affirmation of your behavior and the nasty, narcissistic, and downright vile way you have conducted yourself in your retorts. I would be really surprised if anyone responded, other than you, with how right you are and how well you conducted yourself. Go back and read your posts. Is this the kind of writer you really want to be? Is how you have behaved really be how you’d want you children to act? Or worse yet, is this how you’d want someone in your family to be treated? I am not really asking for a response. If you have even the slightest level of civility left in you, just step back and look at how you have behaved. And no, taking the “he started it” and “I was defending myself” posture does not cut it anymore. You are well beyond that.

          • http://twitter.com/Robert_Fields Robert Fields

            Yes, you do look childish. But worse for you is you lose all journalistic credibility, if you had any to start with. This is my first real exposure to you and I can honestly say I hope it is my last, as I am sure it is for many that have read your bullying retorts that don’t amount to much more than you being the loudest screamer in the room during heated discussion. You get vile, you attack, you even admit you aim vitriol and go negative. You think this is appropriate and gets you more entrenched with people who are “like-minded.” I can truly say that I hope I can stay as far away from people that are like minded to you. You are what is wrong with the Internet. You are what is wrong with the discourse in America today. It is the close-minded nature of your “win-at-all-cost” attacks that has sullied discourse from as simple as this one to the major ones in politics today. You have systematically attacked everyone on this blog that has posted a dissenting opinion to yours or anyone who would dare question the target of your man-crush. It is embarrassing and sad for you. But what is really sad is that you truly think you are correct and you truly think that your behavior is OK. I would love for anyone else, including Chris himself to openly respond to this posting with a positive affirmation of your behavior and the nasty, narcissistic, and downright vile way you have conducted yourself in your retorts. I would be really surprised if anyone responded, other than you, with how right you are and how well you conducted yourself. Go back and read your posts. Is this the kind of writer you really want to be? Is how you have behaved really be how you’d want you children to act? Or worse yet, is this how you’d want someone in your family to be treated? I am not really asking for a response. If you have even the slightest level of civility left in you, just step back and look at how you have behaved. And no, taking the “he started it” and “I was defending myself” posture does not cut it anymore. You are well beyond that.

          • http://twitter.com/Robert_Fields Robert Fields

            Yes, you do look childish. But worse for you is you lose all journalistic credibility, if you had any to start with. This is my first real exposure to you and I can honestly say I hope it is my last, as I am sure it is for many that have read your bullying retorts that don’t amount to much more than you being the loudest screamer in the room during heated discussion. You get vile, you attack, you even admit you aim vitriol and go negative. You think this is appropriate and gets you more entrenched with people who are “like-minded.” I can truly say that I hope I can stay as far away from people that are like minded to you. You are what is wrong with the Internet. You are what is wrong with the discourse in America today. It is the close-minded nature of your “win-at-all-cost” attacks that has sullied discourse from as simple as this one to the major ones in politics today. You have systematically attacked everyone on this blog that has posted a dissenting opinion to yours or anyone who would dare question the target of your man-crush. It is embarrassing and sad for you. But what is really sad is that you truly think you are correct and you truly think that your behavior is OK. I would love for anyone else, including Chris himself to openly respond to this posting with a positive affirmation of your behavior and the nasty, narcissistic, and downright vile way you have conducted yourself in your retorts. I would be really surprised if anyone responded, other than you, with how right you are and how well you conducted yourself. Go back and read your posts. Is this the kind of writer you really want to be? Is how you have behaved really be how you’d want you children to act? Or worse yet, is this how you’d want someone in your family to be treated? I am not really asking for a response. If you have even the slightest level of civility left in you, just step back and look at how you have behaved. And no, taking the “he started it” and “I was defending myself” posture does not cut it anymore. You are well beyond that.

          • http://twitter.com/Robert_Fields Robert Fields

            Yes, you do look childish. But worse for you is you lose all journalistic credibility, if you had any to start with. This is my first real exposure to you and I can honestly say I hope it is my last, as I am sure it is for many that have read your bullying retorts that don’t amount to much more than you being the loudest screamer in the room during heated discussion. You get vile, you attack, you even admit you aim vitriol and go negative. You think this is appropriate and gets you more entrenched with people who are “like-minded.” I can truly say that I hope I can stay as far away from people that are like minded to you. You are what is wrong with the Internet. You are what is wrong with the discourse in America today. It is the close-minded nature of your “win-at-all-cost” attacks that has sullied discourse from as simple as this one to the major ones in politics today. You have systematically attacked everyone on this blog that has posted a dissenting opinion to yours or anyone who would dare question the target of your man-crush. It is embarrassing and sad for you. But what is really sad is that you truly think you are correct and you truly think that your behavior is OK. I would love for anyone else, including Chris himself to openly respond to this posting with a positive affirmation of your behavior and the nasty, narcissistic, and downright vile way you have conducted yourself in your retorts. I would be really surprised if anyone responded, other than you, with how right you are and how well you conducted yourself. Go back and read your posts. Is this the kind of writer you really want to be? Is how you have behaved really be how you’d want you children to act? Or worse yet, is this how you’d want someone in your family to be treated? I am not really asking for a response. If you have even the slightest level of civility left in you, just step back and look at how you have behaved. And no, taking the “he started it” and “I was defending myself” posture does not cut it anymore. You are well beyond that.

          • http://twitter.com/Robert_Fields Robert Fields

            I posted this last night, but somehow it disappeared, so I’ll post it again and see if it sticks this time. —
            Yes, you do look childish. But worse for you is you lose all journalistic credibility, if you had any to start with. This is my first real exposure to you and I can honestly say I hope it is my last, as I am sure it is for many that have read your bullying retorts that don’t amount to much more than you being the loudest screamer in the room during heated discussion. You get vile, you attack, you even admit you aim vitriol and go negative. You think this is appropriate and gets you more entrenched with people who are “like-minded.” I can truly say that I hope I can stay as far away from people that are like minded to you. You are what is wrong with the Internet. You are what is wrong with the discourse in America today. It is the close-minded nature of your “win-at-all-cost” attacks that has sullied discourse from as simple as this one to the major ones in politics today. You have systematically attacked everyone on this blog that has posted a dissenting opinion to yours or anyone who would dare question the target of your man-crush. It is embarrassing and sad for you. But what is really sad is that you truly think you are correct and you truly think that your behavior is OK. I would love for anyone else, including Chris himself to openly respond to this posting with a positive affirmation of your behavior and the nasty, narcissistic, and downright vile way you have conducted yourself in your retorts. I would be really surprised if anyone responded, other than you, with how right you are and how well you conducted yourself. Go back and read your posts. Is this the kind of writer you really want to be? Is how you have behaved really be how you’d want you children to act? Or worse yet, is this how you’d want someone in your family to be treated? I am not really asking for a response. If you have even the slightest level of civility left in you, just step back and look at how you have behaved. And no, taking the “he started it” and “I was defending myself” posture does not cut it anymore. You are well beyond that.

          • http://twitter.com/Robert_Fields Robert Fields

            I posted this last night, but somehow it disappeared, so I’ll post it again and see if it sticks this time. —
            Yes, you do look childish. But worse for you is you lose all journalistic credibility, if you had any to start with. This is my first real exposure to you and I can honestly say I hope it is my last, as I am sure it is for many that have read your bullying retorts that don’t amount to much more than you being the loudest screamer in the room during heated discussion. You get vile, you attack, you even admit you aim vitriol and go negative. You think this is appropriate and gets you more entrenched with people who are “like-minded.” I can truly say that I hope I can stay as far away from people that are like minded to you. You are what is wrong with the Internet. You are what is wrong with the discourse in America today. It is the close-minded nature of your “win-at-all-cost” attacks that has sullied discourse from as simple as this one to the major ones in politics today. You have systematically attacked everyone on this blog that has posted a dissenting opinion to yours or anyone who would dare question the target of your man-crush. It is embarrassing and sad for you. But what is really sad is that you truly think you are correct and you truly think that your behavior is OK. I would love for anyone else, including Chris himself to openly respond to this posting with a positive affirmation of your behavior and the nasty, narcissistic, and downright vile way you have conducted yourself in your retorts. I would be really surprised if anyone responded, other than you, with how right you are and how well you conducted yourself. Go back and read your posts. Is this the kind of writer you really want to be? Is how you have behaved really be how you’d want you children to act? Or worse yet, is this how you’d want someone in your family to be treated? I am not really asking for a response. If you have even the slightest level of civility left in you, just step back and look at how you have behaved. And no, taking the “he started it” and “I was defending myself” posture does not cut it anymore. You are well beyond that.

          • http://twitter.com/mickeygomez Mickey Gomez

            I was sad to see what started as a useful discussion so quickly turn into defensive posturing. It seemed to me that Danny’s comments were fairly objective, questioning tactics and not getting personal. 

            Your response, Mark, was to question the length of time it took him to respond (Did you think you would automatically “win” if a certain amount of time lapsed with no reply? And how is that “fighting dirty” – are we fighting?) and then move to outright threats:  “I can say, though, that this won’t end well for you.”  You don’t appear to be interested in a discussion based on sharing and considering different viewpoints – you’re appear to be out to prove that you’re the smartest guy in the room with nothing more to learn.  Why is it necessary for someone to “concede” that you’re right?  Can’t we consider your comments, agree with certain aspects and respectfully disagree with others?

            And I do agree with others in this thread: no one, NO ONE is above reproach. In this case, whether or not I agree with Chris Brogan on the original point regarding the G+ webinar is moot. The fact that he is leaving up comments in which one commenter outright threatens another? I question that, and it disappoints me.

          • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

            To your last point first: Where did I threaten someone?

            To your first point: I wasn’t hoping to “win” the debate originally. I was hoping to have a discussion. If you see my other comments on this thread, my vitriol is generally aimed at those who deserve it. My OP was open-minded and well thought out. Danny came back and attempted to dismiss what I said with his resume and faulty logic, which doesn’t cut it with me, and I find insulting.

            Since he devalued my OP to a “dick measuring contest,” as one other commenter identified it, I responded in kind.

          • http://twitter.com/mickeygomez Mickey Gomez

            “I can say, though, that this won’t end well for you.” – this is a direct quote taken from your second response to Danny. Regardless of how you meant it, it comes across as intimidating and threatening.  Just as calling him “chief” comes across as condescending.

            Danny’s initial response to you asserted his ability (or eligibility) to offer an informed opinion on this matter.  I didn’t read it as a personal attack on you. Your response, however, got personal pretty fast.

            My point is this: why aim your vitriol at anyone?  It makes it difficult to have any kind of effective conversation.  Instead of opening doors to new ideas, it slams them shut.  I’d certainly hesitate to make any comments here if I knew that I’d have to defend them with my resume, and if that didn’t work, that things could get personal.

            If you don’t like what someone says, don’t attack them. Just move on. You seem like a good communicator – perhaps you might consider letting your ideas stand or fall on their own merit.

          • http://rizzn.com Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

            What sort of threat do you imagine I meant by that? I’m really curious, because I thought it was pretty clear that I was talking about this conversation, this debate, not ending well, particularly if he continued to be dismissive and condescending. As you well know from reading my posts here on this thread, no one is better at being condescending and a jerk than I am. I know that about myself, but as I’ve said here perhaps a half-dozen times, I don’t take well to being insulted.

            Make no mistake about it, Danny’s comment was worse than a personal attack against me. It was an attempt to come in to a thread that had long since died, surreptitiousness get the final word in (so that anyone who happens along the thread sees him once again with the authoritative voice and answer as to why Chris Brogan drools and Danny Brown rules). And worse than a personal attack, it was condescendingly dismissive. 

            It could have been summarized as “I have a resume that’s awesome. I have clients who told me things. Now here’s a logical fallacy that mis-characterizes everything you said. You’re wrong.”

            That’s why I aim my vitriol at someone. I’m not a brand manager. I’m not a marketer. I have no company image to protect, like most participants in this discussion. I’m a journalist and editorialist. I say what I think. What I think is that Danny is wrong. Wrong about Chris and probably wrong on many other things if this is how he handles online interactions.

            It’s a style. It works for me. If I let it go, there would be at least a dozen or so people (conservatively) who wouldn’t know my name after today’s back and forth. I can guarantee that I’ve gained at least one or two like-minded readers after today, as well.

            So instead, as is my style, if I want a bone, I grab on to it until it’s thoroughly wrenched from my jaws or the other guy lets go.

            There’s a social media lesson for you (which, incidentally, also works in life. Speak up for yourself. You don’t get ahead in life by walking away from every confrontation).

          • http://twitter.com/MSGiro Marc Girolimetti

            Wait a second!!! I never said anything about putting the rulers away, because I wasn’t implying they were out. My comment was less about pulling a Milton Berle and more in line with pulling a “Situation”. I’m sure you can figure out the difference.

  • Pingback: Polarization, Fanboys and the Non-Middle Ground

  • http://pioneeroutfitters.com/AlaskaChickBlog/ Amber-Lee Dibble

    Chris,
    I bow to you! Lordy, dude. Congrats and if I had the extra at the moment I’d be there, if only to be informed! (Just like I’d be at SpinSucks!)

    What this post showed me is that no matter how established, trusted and (hopefully) successful I become, there are going to be jerks coming around to pee in the post-toasties of everyone gathering for breakfast. Hmphf.

    I’m loving the incredible amount of information being shared, by you and others. I think I have learned more in the last 6 months than ever before! I also have no problem buying the time or information, if that is what I need or want…. well, until I run out this week!

    I’ve learned some valuable things from you, so thank you. And… can’t you spank that jerk?
    ~Amber-Lee

  • Anonymous

    Selling Information isn’t evil, but it’s a bad business model, at least it will be in the future. Why? Piracy. Piracy is destined to rapidly become more advanced, to the point that every single piece of information sold online will become freely available after the first hundred buyers.

  • Pingback: Why Social Media Fanboys Don’t Do Their Objects of Desire Any Favours | Punk Views on Social Media

  • Qix007

    Have you ever bought books guyboy? Thats information, by my book. Information that’s been studied and investigated from as many possible points and then thoughtfully put together is worth alot more than free information. Stay away from the news, news papers and negitive people. The subconscious mind can be easily tricked if not guarded well by the conscious mind.   All the best.

  • http://www.key-logger.ws/ Key logger

    This page is very informative and fun to read,Thank

  • Pingback: 37 Top Marketing,SEO And Social Media Blogs You Should Read As Serious Marketer - FounderTips

  • YOLOSWAGFAG

    I wish to sell Information for $189 000 000 Its very good Information

  • Pingback: 37 Top Marketing,SEO And Social Media Blogs You Should Read As Serious Marketer | BloggerJet