<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google. Foot. Gun. Shoot.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.merjis.com/2010/02/04/google-foot-gun-shoot/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2010/02/04/google-foot-gun-shoot/</link>
	<description>Effective Internet Marketing Strategy and Tactics Through Test</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:44:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Chatfield</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2010/02/04/google-foot-gun-shoot/comment-page-1/#comment-144607</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Chatfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=318#comment-144607</guid>
		<description>Ah. I see your problem now. Or my problem, through another pair of spectacles. Because of my experience of the AdWords Help Forum over the last year, *my* perception of Google is that it has a lot of unhappy small clients, who have not received any perceptible customer service, other than being sent to a forum, nominally for other users to help. IOW, Google ducks the responsibility of dealing with these suspended accounts.

Well, if Google doesn&#039;t want them as clients, why does it expend so much effort in helping affiliate recruitment scammers to sign up users it doesn&#039;t want? It&#039;s just a recipe for pain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah. I see your problem now. Or my problem, through another pair of spectacles. Because of my experience of the AdWords Help Forum over the last year, *my* perception of Google is that it has a lot of unhappy small clients, who have not received any perceptible customer service, other than being sent to a forum, nominally for other users to help. IOW, Google ducks the responsibility of dealing with these suspended accounts.</p>
<p>Well, if Google doesn&#8217;t want them as clients, why does it expend so much effort in helping affiliate recruitment scammers to sign up users it doesn&#8217;t want? It&#8217;s just a recipe for pain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Chatfield</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2010/02/04/google-foot-gun-shoot/comment-page-1/#comment-144605</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Chatfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=318#comment-144605</guid>
		<description>Hi Theresa, nice to see you here! 

I&#039;m not blaming Google for the schemes. I&#039;m saying that the situation in the AdWords Help Forum is that it can no longer be an effective &lt;b&gt;user to user&lt;/b&gt; help forum. And &lt;i&gt;amongst the reasons&lt;/i&gt; is that Google is itself working hard to recruit advertisers that it would rather not service. You don&#039;t think that&#039;s a bit, well, counterproductive?

It&#039;s *Google* that is supposed to be turning off the Google Money/Cash/Treasure accounts that it doesn&#039;t want. But drop in a cutout or two and, hey, there&#039;s Google subsidised advertising and Google co-marketing vouchers. Join the dots. You want to deliver better customer service, and have a better reputation? Then stop recruiting people you&#039;ll disappoint. Seems pretty easy. If you&#039;re recruiting too many of the wrong prospects, stop recruiting them. 

In this article, I&#039;m not defending the people who fall for these scams. I am suggesting that when Google lends its name and reputation implicitly to these scams, it causes brand damage and a poor customer experience. And that&#039;s probably not a good idea, except in the very short term. (And by short term, I mean &quot;as long as it takes to discover that you are subsidising people you will inevitably later ban&quot;).

Clearer? :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Theresa, nice to see you here! </p>
<p>I&#8217;m not blaming Google for the schemes. I&#8217;m saying that the situation in the AdWords Help Forum is that it can no longer be an effective <b>user to user</b> help forum. And <i>amongst the reasons</i> is that Google is itself working hard to recruit advertisers that it would rather not service. You don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s a bit, well, counterproductive?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s *Google* that is supposed to be turning off the Google Money/Cash/Treasure accounts that it doesn&#8217;t want. But drop in a cutout or two and, hey, there&#8217;s Google subsidised advertising and Google co-marketing vouchers. Join the dots. You want to deliver better customer service, and have a better reputation? Then stop recruiting people you&#8217;ll disappoint. Seems pretty easy. If you&#8217;re recruiting too many of the wrong prospects, stop recruiting them. </p>
<p>In this article, I&#8217;m not defending the people who fall for these scams. I am suggesting that when Google lends its name and reputation implicitly to these scams, it causes brand damage and a poor customer experience. And that&#8217;s probably not a good idea, except in the very short term. (And by short term, I mean &#8220;as long as it takes to discover that you are subsidising people you will inevitably later ban&#8221;).</p>
<p>Clearer? :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TAZook</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2010/02/04/google-foot-gun-shoot/comment-page-1/#comment-144603</link>
		<dc:creator>TAZook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:16:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=318#comment-144603</guid>
		<description>I sympathize with your position. I haven&#039;t been frequenting the forum for long but I&#039;ve certainly noticed the increase in complaints around people who are involved in Get Rich Quick schemes. 

However, to my mind, blaming Google for these dishonest schemes is like blaming the phone company because a dishonest telemarketer called you and led you to fall for a scam.

I&#039;m a big believer in personal responsibility. The people falling for these scams without doing any research to figure out how legit the offers are can&#039;t blame anyone but themselves. 

If they have complaints, they need to take them to the companies that sold them the scheme, not to Google. I wish they didn&#039;t wind up at the forum, but I can&#039;t honestly say I think it&#039;s Google&#039;s responsibility to offer them customer support.

As far as the other issues--credit card failures and promo voucher problems, I suspect that the percentage of people having problems is small in comparison to the number of people submitting credit cards or receiving vouchers each day. 

Theresa</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I sympathize with your position. I haven&#8217;t been frequenting the forum for long but I&#8217;ve certainly noticed the increase in complaints around people who are involved in Get Rich Quick schemes. </p>
<p>However, to my mind, blaming Google for these dishonest schemes is like blaming the phone company because a dishonest telemarketer called you and led you to fall for a scam.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m a big believer in personal responsibility. The people falling for these scams without doing any research to figure out how legit the offers are can&#8217;t blame anyone but themselves. </p>
<p>If they have complaints, they need to take them to the companies that sold them the scheme, not to Google. I wish they didn&#8217;t wind up at the forum, but I can&#8217;t honestly say I think it&#8217;s Google&#8217;s responsibility to offer them customer support.</p>
<p>As far as the other issues&#8211;credit card failures and promo voucher problems, I suspect that the percentage of people having problems is small in comparison to the number of people submitting credit cards or receiving vouchers each day. </p>
<p>Theresa</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
