Foskett Services

You are here: Home / Archives for Commentary

Commentary

by

4 Steps To Respond When Social Media Goes Negative

What should you do about negative reviews, blog posts, and comments? Don’t call out the riot squad!

The Internet is not as friendly as it often seems. Social media, including blogs, Twitter, online review sites, forums, and the rest, are truly democratic. The problem with a democratic medium is that everyone has both an opinion and a platform to express it. Companies love the positive attention they often get, but it’s much harder to deal with the negative. Here is a strategy to deal with not-so-nice comments.

1) Take a moment and a breath

Stop! The worst possible thing to do when faced with a negative online statement is to dash off a scorching response. Flame wars are bad enough for individuals, but nothing good will result if a company gets involved.

Online media spreads extremely rapidly, so companies must have a speedy process to decide what to do next. A quick internal discussion is a must, but don’t let it get hung up “in committee” for days or weeks. If this happens, you’ve skipped on to step 4 by default and lost the opportunity to do some good.

2) Get some perspective

Think! There is a wide spectrum of negative press. Put the issue at hand in context: How bad is it really?

Considerations Your Response
Flames All-out flames are more about the writer than the subject. Take the criticism and ignore the vitriol and do not respond directly or the situation will escalate.
Negative Reviews Negative reviews are inevitable and can be extremely helpful. The writer examined your product and cared enough to write about it; engage behind the scenes, address their concerns, and hope for a re-test.
Balanced Reviews Balanced writers will often mix the good with the bad to demonstrate their independence. These are your best allies, since they will help your customers to gain a true understanding of your company and its products! Nurture them!
Fanboys No one wants to read effusive and unending praise. Glowing reviews raise red flags about the impartiality of the writer, reducing the effectiveness of the piece; encourage fanboys to be more objective.

3) Look for a positive angle

Negative reviews can be extremely valuable, especially when they come from experts in the field. Companies can score “brownie points” with their audience by recognizing their concerns, and can turn the tables entirely by addressing them. A reviewer will often be extremely pleased when their issues are fixed and will be willing to write a second review once a new product is available.

Companies should proactively praise and share balanced reviews, even though it is natural to shy away from those containing negative statements. Demonstrate that your product is getting noticed and that you aren’t afraid of criticism and the market will reward you. Beware of overly-positive reviews: Readers take these with a grain of salt anyway, and many assume some nefarious behind-the-scenes quid pro quo.

4) Respond calmly or not at all

If you do choose to respond, you must do it quickly and with a calm, positive message. Leave a comment in the article to let the writer know you appreciate their interest, and ask for clarification or further engagement regarding criticism. Show the world that your company welcomes open and honest communication and that you are responsive to the needs of your customers.

Regardless of the message, consider if you want to respond at all. Although you will likely read reviews of your products very carefully, most readers will not. They will note the name of the company and product, consider whether it is applicable to their needs, and absorb the general tone of the review. They will not likely reject your offerings outright based on a few “cons” in an online writeup!

The old adage, “there’s no such thing as negative publicity,” is provably false for extreme cases, but it applies in general. Companies should roll with the punches and appreciate the thought and attention that goes into blog posts, reviews, and commentary!

Image credit: “North Dakota Guardsmen join four nations to train in riot control” by The National Guard

by

When To Embargo Blog News (And When Not To)

Can vendors control the flow of information? Should they?

Conventional PR mechanisms face many challenges in this new Internet-enabled world, but one of the thorniest for product vendors is the question of controlling information prior to announcements. Although there are many benefits to briefing writers and thought leaders ahead of time, there is a difference of opinion on how to handle this. And not all writers are the same, with reporters being focused on scoops and independent bloggers often more interested in considering their take on the news. Then there is the issue of embargo-breaking, and how to handle leaks. What should one do?

You might also want to read my (personal) stance on embargoes.

Embargo vs. NDA

Embargoes and NDAs are two very different things, although many people, including those actively involved in PR, confuse the terms.

  1. An embargo is a time-limited release of inside information. Reporters agree to keep the content of a briefing confidential until a specific date and time, then all bets are off. Embargoes normally rely on the honor system, so both sides must trust each other not to break the terms. Breaking an embargo normally gives one a bad reputation and can interfere with future briefings but lawsuits are unlikely.
  2. A Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is a legal contract between two parties that any confidential information discussed will not be shared until it is public. Breaking an NDA can land one in court, with stiff penalties being imposed. Being a legal contract, an NDA must include some sort of “consideration” or reward to the signer; though the information itself is often enough, NDAs are also often used for employees and contractors.

As you can see, an embargo is not an NDA and vice versa. Both have their benefits, but NDAs are really not effective for public relations, especially when dealing with bloggers. Because of the legal peril involved, many will treat information released under NDA with extreme care and may not write or speak about the topic at all for fear of breaking the agreement. Obviously, this is in opposition to the desires of PR representatives! Therefore, I always discourage the use of NDAs except for employees, contractors, or close advisors.

What Bloggers Want

Each blogger or reporter receiving embargoed information has their own goal in mind.

Many writers want a scoop to driver readership. This gives their publication greater revenue from advertisers. These writers are often more prolific, covering many announcements in hopes of being first or best on the day of the release. These traffic spikes help drive overall pageviews or circulation. The embargo date is important to them since it ensures that their competition will not publish the story first.

Others may want greater access to information, allowing them to fully digest and consider news to present to their audience. Many independent bloggers fall into this category, though some reporters behave in this way as well. The goal here is not the deadline but the extra time for deliberation and the ability to ask questions. They may feel pressure to be timely, but are less focused on the initial spike of traffic.

Companies reaching out to writers must consider their goals. Is this a scoop-driven or a thoughtful reporter? It pays allocate extra time for Q&A with the slower publisher, though they may not write about your announcement at all. Conversely, a company should consider which “scoopers” to reach in order to build a good relationship and encourage publicity.

Why Embargo?

Companies benefit in many ways from embargoed briefings:

  1. They thought leaders to learn about information ahead of time, giving them time to consider the ramifications of the announcement.
  2. Writers can take time to adequately research and compose a piece about an upcoming announcement under less deadline pressure.
  3. Embargoed releases give the writer an advantage over their non-briefed rivals, a valuable benefit to be sure.
  4. All involved in a briefing can discuss the implications of an announcement, ensuring more-thorough understanding.
  5. An embargo offer demonstrates trust and confidence in the writer, engendering goodwill.
  6. The release of the embargo gives a timed blip of publicity, as many sites cover the news simultaneously.

It is hard to find a downside to embargoed briefings, really. Companies benefit, writers benefit, and the wider audience benefits since they get better coverage.

When Embargoes Fail

The only real negative to an embargo is the prospect of someone breaking it. Although some reporters actively disregard embargoes, many respect them. They see the valuable role of the embargo and are willing to play the game and hold off publishing to ensure the flow of good and timely information.

However, the truth is that many embargoes are broken. One common cause is the company itself “going live” with the information on their web site, or that of an affiliate. Tech news hounds often discover new product releases from retailers, international affiliates, and suppliers. This is actually quite a bit more common than a trusted reporter intentionally breaking the news ahead of an embargo! Mistakes can always happen, but trust is usually enough for writers.

Once the embargo has failed, many questions arise. If the information is public, can a reporter “run with it” and publish their stories? It seems that this is considered acceptable among writers: Once news is “in the wild” then it is “fair game.” However, others see it as a badge of personal honor to uphold an embargo even if the news has broken elsewhere.

There is also the matter of the nature of the embargo: Companies sending embargoed releases willy-nilly via email should not expect the same respect as those that arrange personal briefings with executives. One cannot assume that a writer agrees to respect an embargo unless they specifically say they will!

Do Embargoes Right

Companies should absolutely brief writers and bloggers ahead of releases. But they should do it right, following these guidelines:

  1. Rely on in-person or interactive online or phone briefing with trusted writers. Never send embargoed press releases to unknown recipients.
  2. PR pros should request the briefing, giving a few time options including some after regular work hours.
  3. PR should consider the focus of the writer before asking for a briefing, and writers should turn down briefings they are not interested in rather than waste precious time.
  4. Schedule adequate time for the call, allowing for question and answer time.
  5. Send the presentation, press release, and photos ahead of the call.
  6. Give enough time for consideration, follow-up, and writing before the release date but not so much time that the information is forgotten.
  7. Keep the content tight, including just the information to be released rather than future strategic directions.
  8. Don’t ask for an NDA before sharing news, and don’t call your embargo an NDA if you don’t have a contract.
  9. Make sure you specify the time and time zone as well as the date for the embargo to be lifted.

Companies following these guidelines will likely see increased coverage and publicity. Failing to treat writers with respect will likely result in ill-will and breakage of your embargo!

Image Credit: The Real Checkpoint Charley by Will Palmer

by

How To Get People To Share Your Tweets, Blog Posts, and Updates

Want a lot of retweets? Be interesting, personable, and have something to say!

It’s funny how powerful the thoughts of individuals have become. A reasonably popular blog can post an item on a new product and outrank the company that made it in the all-important first page of Google results. Corporate blogs, Twitter accounts, social networking sites, and the rest have sprung up everywhere, all trying to fight it out with “just plain folks” for “social media” mindshare. But most corporate shills fail miserably and are forced to resort to extraordinary means to make their content “go viral.” This is ironic because the secret to getting people to share your tweets, blog posts, videos, updates, etc is really quite simple!

Why Are You Here?

Most real people get into “social networking” because they enjoy networking in a social environment. They want to chat, gossip, laugh, cry, and do all those normal social things. And sites like Twitter and Facebook enable this kind of socializing like nothing we’ve ever seen before. They’re like a mind-bogglingly massive coffee shop where everyone has a favorite table full of friends.

Corporate marketing folks see social networking entirely differently. They see it as a way to influence public perception and drive purchasing. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; it’s just what corporations do. And it’s not a new thing either; companies have been buying billboards and sponsoring events as long as there have been companies.

What Are You Doing?

Societies develop social norms to smooth all sorts of interactions. We are taught from youth to avoid interrupting the conversations of others, intruding on their space, or shouting inappropriate comments.

People are happy to discuss deeply personal topics with total strangers in the right setting. And they’re happy to share the thoughts and aspirations (and even product recommendations) of others if they find them compelling. But people are instantly turned off when these social actions are directed or demanded by outsiders.

Interacting As People Not Corporations

I always shudder when I hear a corporation saying they want to “join the online conversation.” My reaction is not because I want corporations to stay away but that they so often fumble these interactions.

A failure to be human is the main error made in online corporate communications efforts. Companies are full of passionate, committed individuals who are genuinely interested in tires, snack foods, or computers, but too often fail to let these folks be themselves online. Instead, they compose bland, self-interested marketing pablum and wonder why the world doesn’t care to read it.

The Secrets

My “secrets” to online communications aren’t really all that difficult. But it seems like many of us need constant reminding of what we already know when it comes to personal interaction:

  1. Say something interesting if you want to get your blog post shared, your video “liked”, or generate some retweets. It’s as simple as that. Have some personality, focus on the reader rather than corporate messaging, and watch what happens.
  2. Be genuine when writing, sharing, and tweeting. My rule for blogging is to write about things I care about. This helps me generate content ideas but also automatically filters out marketing nonsense.
  3. Don’t barge in where you’re not wanted. Don’t expect people to react kindly to obvious advertising. Would an auto garage owner interrupt a conversation about ski vacations to promote snow tires?
  4. Be transparent when talking about work-related topics. Don’t worry – disclosing your employer will make you seem more genuine and personable, and failure to do so will backfire in spectacular fashion.
  5. Have patience and humility and wait for things to “click.” You can’t force people to pay attention to you without seeming like a fool. Be real and give it time.

So write some corporate blog posts and tweet from the corporate account. But do it in a way that shows the human being behind the keyboard. Your efforts to be you will be well rewarded! And if you want me to retweet, reshare, or “like” your corporate posts, you had better keep the sales-speak in check!

Image credit: The Birds by edu_fon

by

Our New Thing Is Awesome (‘Cause Our Old Thing Sucked)

New product releases always expose dirty laundry

Isn’t it funny how marketers feel the need to promote their new products by degrading their old ones. It’s inevitable, really, that improvements highlight shortcomings, but it just becomes so glaring sometimes. Is there a right and wrong way to go about messaging an upgrade?

It Goes Without Saying

Product upgrades ought to improve on the shortcomings of the past, or you have a serious case of “the update treadmill” on your hands. In fact, if there’s no dirty laundry aired in the new version’s unveiling, you ought to consider whether an upgrade is really required!

Many bugs and shortcomings are widely publicized. Microsoft didn’t need to worry about devaluing Windows Vista when they talked about Windows 7 because the damage had already been done. It’s safe to air this laundry because everyone has already seen it!

Was It Really That Bad?

But what happens when you introduce a new product (or version) that addresses issues that weren’t widely known? Let’s consider a few tactics to introduce improved products.

Tactic: We have always been at war with Eurasia

This is the typical Apple/Steve Jobs tactic. Announce the new product and totally ignore the negatives of the old product. When the fifth-generation iPod Nano gained a camera, Steve Jobs lauded this as a major upgrade and tech sites heralded the demise of Cisco’s Flip video camera. But when the sixth-generation iPod Nano was introduced the very next year, Jobs glossed over the fact that the camera was AWOL. It’s like it never existed.

The “war with Eurasia” tactic requires extreme discipline and control, and getting users to believe it requires a reality-distortion field that few can pull off. If successful, it puts a shine on the brand, showing progress without exposing weakness.

Tactic: Even Better!

What do you do if you need to continue selling and maintaining the old product even while you’re introducing the new one? Head to “even better” land!

This is commonly seen in “durable goods” sales pitches, since it’s perilous to alienate users of your previous product. Jet airliner manufacturers have perfected this pitch, focusing on the positives of the old while building on them for the new. Examine Boeing’s press releases regarding the 787 Dreamliner and you’ll see lots of comparative adjectives like “higher, wider, and larger” and talk of “improvements“. You’ll also see careful comparisons with past products, building on them without tearing them down.

It takes care and work to massage a message like this, but it is critical if you want to continue sales and confidence in your old product.

Tactic: Parade of Progress

Many marketers try to focus on the positives while putting the old product in the rear-view mirror. Knock it down while at the same time pointing out the qualities you’re building on.

The General Motors “Parade of Progress” was typical of this approach, and automakers continue with this tactic even today. Since so much of their revenue depends on selling “all-new” products, car companies routinely exaggerate the newness of their wares. This hit a pinnacle in the planned obsolescence tactics that became widespread in the mid-20th century. Vendors are more careful today, but echoes can be seen in many durable but replaceable product sales.

Tactic: Out with the old, in with the new!

Disposable products benefit from a completely different sales approach. Examples are numerous, from household products to electronics, but obsolescence is one thing they all have in common: The “new and improved” sale requires ditching the “old and faulty” product post haste. Why would anyone want to buy it when the shiny new model is here? Who cares if a new soap formula makes the old one unsaleable?

But this approach is perilous for more-durable products. Pointing out the flaws in systems that will continue to be sold and used for years devalues more than the products themselves: It raises questions about the people and processes that selected them in the first place!

Startup companies often try to blow away the status quo, but this approach rarely succeeds. New products have to coexist, and swaying buyers by attacking their choices is a good way to be shown the door.

What’s Your Plan?

Selecting the appropriate marketing strategy requires consideration of many things. What kind of market are you entering? Are products durable or disposable? Do you have the attention of the world or are you trying to get noticed?

Enterprise technology companies should be especially careful about tearing down the status quo, and should caution their “public faces” against this. It’s all well and good to trumpet your new features, but listing the shortcomings of yesterday’s widely-used products just leads to ill-will.

Image credit: Laundry by tashalutek

by

Defining Best Practices: More Than Just a Consultant’s Opinion

A "best practice" should be more than just one person's opinion. Indeed, it should be reasonable and prudent, less risky than alternatives, and widespread in similar circumstances.

Whenever I write an article, speak at a conference, or present to a client, I hear a common refrain: “What is the best practice for people in my situation?” Many consultants rely on opinion or experience when answering this question, and some dive into groupthink, regurgitation or worse. But this does not mean there is no such thing as a best practice. On the contrary, I have spent years developing a test that I use when measuring the soundness of an idea. It’s concise, simple to apply, and cuts to the core of the question, “what is a best practice?”

More Than Just a Good Idea

Some people may joke that they can make a practice into a best practice just by adding one word. I understand the cynicism many have regarding consultants in general and “best practices” in particular, and agree that many are pulled from thin air or vendor sales training. But I also believe that there are certain special ideas that do indeed deserve to be called best practices.

Let’s set aside the sales tricks and foolish notions that some disguise as best practices and focus on more solid concepts. Hopefully, we can all agree that there are good ideas and bad ones, and that “best practices” should be a subset of the former category. Let’s go one step further and agree that it takes more than one individual’s good intentions and past experience. Best practices must draw from universal experience and judgement.

I use the following three questions to distinguish a true best practice from a mere good idea:

  1. Is it prudent? Borrowing the Prudent Man Rule from finance, we ask: Is this something that a prudent person of discretion and intelligence would do? This simple question eliminates all sorts of oddball solutions.
  2. Is it widespread? It’s hard to argue that something rarely accomplished could be called a best practice. Cast aside untested ideas, no matter how good they look. Wait for someone else to risk their job.
  3. Is it low risk? Ask yourself, what are the chances and consequences of failure? It doesn’t matter if a solution works perfectly most of the time because only the failures will be highlighted.

These three questions can inform both daily decisions and strategic direction. Although it wouldn’t be much fun to live life this way, this philosophy can help with the big questions. And none of us are being paid to tempt fate.

Are Best Practices Relative?

It is true that one person’s optimal solution is another’s optimum mess, but what impact does this have on best practices? I believe that there are universal best practices that rise above the situation at hand as well as those that are only applicable in certain broad categories. And best practices are often set aside due to external pressures. Although best practices are not relative in general terms, some flexibility must remain.

One of my favorite universal best practices is the maxim, “use the right tool for the job.” This has served me well from the garage to the kitchen to the data center, and I hold it as a cornerstone belief. But this does not stop me from turning a screw with a coin, and I don’t own a double boiler. Sometimes, everyone has to make do with what they have at hand, as illustrated in Chase Jarvis’ wonderful book, The Best Camera Is The One That’s With You.

Another cornerstone best practice is minimizing complexity. Given two alternatives, the less-complex and more-homogenous one is usually a better decision. This often overrides the “right tool” concept in practice, as smaller needs might not justify greater investment. Consider also Occam’s Razor, that “the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.”

The fact that best practices must sometimes be set aside does not diminish their value. Indeed, one could say that practicality itself is a best practice!

by

Who Really Cares What You Have To Say?

The Internet gives everyone a voice, but who is really listening?

Social media may be about personal connections, but not every connection is valuable. I am reminded of this every time I post a technical piece to my Facebook account and a half-dozen old schoolmates and other “real life” friends respond with something like “I have no idea what this means, but I bet it’s really interesting to someone!” Their response demonstrates two things:

  1. Every one of us exists in multiple social circles, and sometimes we ourselves are the only overlap
  2. People who care about us will read what we write, but not every view is relevant to the topic at hand

This is a serious peril of many of the metrics we use to measure online success: Visitors and views are nice, but not every one is valid. It’s easy to fool ourselves and think that thousands of followers or friends means vast influence. But how many of these people really care what you have to say about a given topic? Very few.

Basic Metrics

Online metrics are incredibly simplistic. Consider the following baker’s dozen of familiar web metrics:

  1. Google Analytics – Anyone viewing a web site (and executing Google’s JavaScript code and not opting out) counts
    1. Visits – “The number of individual sessions initiated by all visitors to your site” within a 30-minute window. Re-visits by the same person after 30 minutes count as a new visit!
    2. Visitors – Identifiably-unique users visiting your site “during any given date range” are visitors. There is no standard time or date range, so one site might count visitors daily, while another might consider all-time visitors. Google Analytics reports default to one month.
    3. Pageview – A view of a page (that is being tracked) is reported as a page view. If a user reloads 100 times that’s 100 pageviews.
    4. Unique Pageview – “The number of (visits) during which a page was viewed one or more times” counts as a unique pageview. In other words, How often a page is viewed but with reloads and repeats by the same user during a 30-minute visitor removed.
    5. Time on site – How long a visit lasts is often considered a measure of site quality but can be misleading since many people leave many browser tabs open at once.
  2. Twitter – Although not used by everyone, Twitter has become critical to an active subset of Internet users
    1. Followers – Any Twitter user can “follow” any other, opting to include their updates in a stream they may (or may not) be watching
    2. Retweets – Although not invented by Twitter, having an update retweeted is one of the more-powerful forms of validation that someone is paying attention
    3. Clickthrough – Many people post links to their Twitter stream, and services like Bit.ly track the clicks on these links
  3. Facebook – Although more social than business-oriented, Facebook is rapidly becoming “the Internet” to a large number of people, just like AOL way back in the 1990’s.
    1. Friends – Unlike Twitter, Facebook requires a mutual opt-in to become “Friends”. Some people are promiscuous with friend requests, others are more selective. See also LinkedIn Contacts.
    2. Likes – Akin to a retweet, a Facebook Like means someone noticed an item and opted to highlight it.
    3. Comments – More serious than a Like, a comment requires more engagement and thought. The same holds true of comments on other services, including Buzz and blogs.
  4. RSS subscribers – RSS is used by less than 15% of blog readers, but is essential to them. Subscriber stats (as tracked by FeedBurner and similar services) are often trumpeted, though re-shares in Google Reader or Buzz or on Twitter are probably better indicators of readership. See also podcast subscribers.
  5. Email subscribers – Email remains a prime means of interacting online for many users, and email subscriptions often produce better long-term engagement and repeat business.

This list could go on and on, but one critical element is missing with most common metrics: Meaning. Does it matter if a blog post is “Dugg” 1,000 times? That’s certainly better than it being ignored. Does it matter if a YouTube view is viewed 1,000,000 times? That’s probably an indication it was infectious. But what result comes of it?

Who really cares?

Merely attracting attention is not enough – one must also engage with one’s audience in a meaningful way. Answering this core question of engagement is problematic at best. Who really cares about your message? How will you know if you have reached them?

This question came up regarding EMC’s much-touted viral video campaign which included some questionable tactics to attract page and video views. A similar tempest is currently swirling around Silicon Angle’s claims that “200,000 viewers” watched their VMworld 2010 video stream. But these discussions too-often focus on the metrics instead of the core question: What metric should be used to demonstrate success?

Since both of these examples are in the enterprise IT space, let’s look at that niche in reverse. How many people influence IT buy-versus-don’t-buy decisions? Most companies include a large IT staff, but only certain people are able to influence product selection. Given the choice between EMC and NetApp, VMware and Citrix, Cisco and Juniper, or Dell and HP, the decision lies in the hands of tens of thousands of people worldwide, not millions. They may be influenced by a larger audience susceptible to branding and advertising, but buying power is concentrated in the hands of this small group.

Even the most interesting enterprise IT topics are truly relevant to just a few thousand individuals. A specialized blog or video could be considered a runaway success with just a few hundred views if every one was relevant and engaged, while millions of hits on another could result in little real impact. Let us consider Simon Long’s Gestalt IT post, Do I Upgrade to VMware Virtual Hardware Version 7? as an example. The fact that it has averaged 400 unique pageviews for months demonstrates that this topic is both relevant and vital to the VMware community. Each of these visits is worth thousands of casual clicks on a funny viral video! These visitors really care!

Better Metrics

It has always been frustratingly-difficult to measure marketing effectiveness. I was recently discussing the glossy-magazine age with a veteran IT marketer, and he was chuckling about their painful and imprecise metrics for advertising success. Circulation numbers were publicized and audited but who was to say how many readers were waiting on the other end? For every tattered and inspected issue of Byte there was another laying unread in a dumpster. Contests, special offers, and reader response cards were pretty much the best one could hope for in the printed age.

Web metrics could be so much better. Services like Crazy Egg can even build heat maps, demonstrating user interaction with a web page’s elements. We are drowning in data but most are unable to extract real value from it all. Google Analytics doesn’t help, offering up only marginally-useful statistics by default. But the real problem lies inside each of us.

Most marketers, pundits, and social media gadflies have only a passing understanding of web metrics and statistics, and only marginal interest in precision and disclosure. Many confuse ‘unique pageviews” for “visits” or use imprecise terms like “hits” and “views” when describing their success. We haven’t considered how we might measure effectiveness, let alone developed an ecosystem to measure and report it. And, unlike print publications, disclosure and auditing of circulation is rare.

Many Internet marketers are happy with the status quo since it lets them confuse the market and tout success that might prove dubious if examined more closely. Others don’t care either way: The shotgun approach is so cost-effective that missed targets have no real impact. But solid metrics do matter, especially when money is at stake. Advertisers and sponsors should not accept wild claims that stretch credibility, and publishers should not be enticed to stretch the truth. I would rather support a site with a few hundred quality, engaged visitors than millions of casual surfers. I imagine most would agree.

Image credit: Crate Expectations by Thristian