When going through the Google v. Pacific WebWorks lawsuit, the subject of our article, "When They Come for You," several lines stand out. One of them, we printed, a line that gave us reason to think Google’s awareness of their name being used in scale came from a bottom’s up approach. Reads the suit, "Many have asked Google for a refund or asked Google to cancel the recurring charges, even though Google is not connected to the solicitations." As we mentioned in the other piece, you can almost imagine the confusion on the part of the already disconnected Google customer service staff as they try to make sense of the complaints. Another line, one that contains a scholarly factoid I’m sure even the flogger in question didn’t know, speaks about the practice of fake news sites, "The scam artists pick names that are close to real publications to add a false air of legitimacy and to dupe unsuspecting consumers. For example, there is no readily identifiable news publication called ‘The New York Gazette News’ which is one of the fake news publications that purportedly reported on the work-from-home program…, but there once was a ‘New York Gazette’ that began operating in the 1700s." Another nice touch was Google’s calling out the check used in hundreds of the work from home flogs and farticles. Regarding the check, the suit continues, "The check is used repeatedly in many ads. While it purports to be payable to different people, it is the same check, in the same amount, with the same check number, drawn on the same account."
There’s the infamous check above. And below is an image I found on two separate, active sites, both fake articles.
The sites we see have numerous oversights, which until now probably didn’t seem important. Typos are incredibly common. Grammar and punctuation mistakes worse than ours, root domains that show the file structure of the site, image files that were so obviously copied from one site and uploaded without tweaking (e.g., an image of a guy’s account but on a site about a mom), and more. We get it though. Scrutiny in a world of haste doesn’t fit. It’s one thing, though, to leverage Google’s brand, and it’s another to be careless, but we really have to question the person who thought this banner ad made sense to run.
For those in the internet advertising space, the shot on the left should look familiar. It is a smaller version of one of the most widely viewed photos in affiliate marketing, Jeremy Schoemaker holding a check from Google for $132,994.97. This isn’t the first time that Shoemoney, as he is more commonly known, has had someone use his likeness for some campaign. If memory serves correctly, another person used the same image, or perhaps just the check, on a landing page. Why use that picture? Nothing motivates, inspires, or stirs insane jealousy like a check for more money than the majority of the population earns in a year. Unfortunately for the infringing parties, nothing motivates like the improper use of one’s carefully crafted brand. In this case, that the brand is an individual and much more personally connected to the infringement, it adds that much more fuel to the fire. In fact, at just about the same time that Google filed their lawsuit against Pacfic WebWorks, Shoemoney filed a lawsuit against the owner of the site using this banner.
At some level, the choice to use Shoemoney almost makes sense. Here is a man whose life epitomizes the Web Dream. He even runs a conference series where individuals pay hefty sums to spend time with him and a select group of others in order to learn how to make money online. So, if one were to craft a campaign about making money online, why not pay homage to the person who has done it as well as anyone? For the same reason Google ultimately sued. There are only so many times a person can tolerate a phone call asking for their money back, saying "I bought your program." Unfortunately, for the defendant, Shoemoney has the resources to act promptly. And, while somewhere inside he might be flattered, he is going to be laughing all the way to the courthouse in this particular case. Google and Shoemoney could have practically teamed up on this one, given what the banner’s text reads, i.e., "Google has blessed me with a $5000 a month at home job." Never mind the banners "Make $363 from home and be your own boss" claim, the number referenced being baseless.
The irony isn’t just a work from home success story having his likeness used to promote a work from home scheme. The real irony is that those on the marketing side are guilty of the exact same behavior they rely on from others – impulsiveness decisions and acting in any way but rationally. People sign up for the programs because they are looking for an easy way; it’s not just desperation but a treasure map that comes with a shortcut. We don’t know Shoemoney, but chances are he made some decisions that in hindsight he might not do again, took some risks that were clearly black instead of white hat. That isn’t the issue. Hardly anyone is perfect, especially in a world of self-made money / self-funded companies. The problem is continuing to choose that path, not improving, not trying to add value. Shoemoney for example, couldn’t have become the brand he is today had he simply done the equivalent of a flog continuously or only taken the path of least resistance. Just like a person can’t build muscle without some resistance, we can’t build our businesses without some training as well. There has to be a focus towards incremental improvement, and dare we say it, innovation. If you aren’t ultimately working towards solving something, even if it’s super slowly, you are not just wasting your time, but most likely someone else’s.
Network
