Brands In Public's sole purpose as a moneymaking enterprise is to convince brandholders that paying for control of their brand's page is a good idea.
The only way to effectively do this is to make the alternative, leaving control of the page to Squidoo, a bad idea for the brandholder.
All legality issues aside (and I don't believe there are many), either Squidoo decides to showcase the less desirable side of a brand in hopes of getting money, or they don't make money because the brandholders are satisfied with the way their page looks.
It is totally different from Yelp, who collects business reviews independently of the business owner. It is different from XXXXXsucks.com sites, which do not offer to remove certain content for a fee. It is different from local search sites, whose purpose is to collect as many business addresses as possible in hope of SEO.
Just like GetSatisfaction, this is a protection racket. You pay, or you lose something valuable -- "maybe". Without the "maybe", the operation loses its teeth. With the "maybe", the operation loses its ethics.
> The only way to effectively do this is to make the alternative, leaving control of the page to Squidoo, a bad idea for the brandholder.
If you assume evil, don't be surprised if that turn out to be the conclusion.
> this is a protection racket. You pay, or you lose something valuable
Well, any sale can be spun that way, with the something valuable being the good on sale.
What isn't demonstrated is the intent that not controlling your brands -in-focus page is damaging, rather than the neutral option.
The premise of this product is that the discussion is already happening, and than such a page can be somehow used to control it. That indicates that not buying would be neutral.
Granted, I can't see what I'd use such a page for, but then again, I'm not a brand manager.
> Just like GetSatisfaction
As I recall the GetSatisfaction debacle, they were essentially passing themselves of as agents of the brand. This is not an issue here.
The only way to effectively do this is to make the alternative, leaving control of the page to Squidoo, a bad idea for the brandholder.
All legality issues aside (and I don't believe there are many), either Squidoo decides to showcase the less desirable side of a brand in hopes of getting money, or they don't make money because the brandholders are satisfied with the way their page looks.
It is totally different from Yelp, who collects business reviews independently of the business owner. It is different from XXXXXsucks.com sites, which do not offer to remove certain content for a fee. It is different from local search sites, whose purpose is to collect as many business addresses as possible in hope of SEO.
Just like GetSatisfaction, this is a protection racket. You pay, or you lose something valuable -- "maybe". Without the "maybe", the operation loses its teeth. With the "maybe", the operation loses its ethics.