Concerned about the direction of marketing to women? Why has marketing become so harsh, and who supports it?
Recent events in the Internet Marketing world have brought the issue of marketing to women (or in this case, specifically excluding women from a marketing message) to the forefront. Join me here where we will examine news and issues about the Rich Jerk party and the methods used to promote it by some of the participants. Post your thoughts and read about new developments as we investigate the issue, and the players behind it.
NEWS ALERT: JULY 6, 2007
Even though I had originally chosen not to specifically name the marketers who were involved in this issue, I need to make an announcement and also provide some clarification on the charity aspect of the event.
John Reese has just sent out an email offering an apology for marketing the party. I would post it all here, but it is very long, but I will add some excerpts here on the site in the next few days after getting the following information straightened out: The Charity Question.
But first, I need to clarify something for John and the other marketers who are upset that the charity was brought into question. The charity mentioned in the apology email is NOT the one advertised as the benefactor of the party. That is a different, albeit similiarly named, charity.
In fact, the charity mentioned by John *was* legally allowed to accept charitable donations in 2004, but according to the Internal Revenue Service, that ability lapsed in December 2005. What you are reading on Guidestar is about a different charity, and it has not been updated or renewed according to the IRS.
The location on Crenshaw Blvd advertised as the benefactor of the party is NOT the one mentioned in John Reese's email and has NOT been listed by the IRS as being capable of accepting tax-deductible charitable donations. A request for the nine digit tax ID number to verify the information went unanswered.
As you can see below, I mentioned this several days ago and even provided the contact information for the IRS so that anyone could call and verify the information for themselves.
Again, and I've said this many times before, and have asked SPECIFICALLY for it....if anyone has information that contradicts what some of us have found and what the IRS has said, please send that specific information to me via the lens. I will HAPPILY publish information that is true and accurate!
But so far, the jury is still out on this one...there have also been some questions about the group's other charitable events, research which will be provided here once we have some more details.
But I give John credit for speaking up and will address that in a few days. I'll be busy all weekend with some prior engagements, but WILL address the specific letter on Monday morning.
One more thing: Here is a link to a search form on the State of California's Office of the Attorney General that lets you search for information about charitable organizations in the state. Urban Health Institute is not listed. http://www.ca.gov/HomeFamily/Consumers/CharitableGiving.html
Copied from the California Department of Justice site: "Charities operating in California must register and file financial reports with the Attorney General's Registry of Charitable Trusts. The Attorney General's Charities website offers resources to help charities with registration and reporting compliance. Compliance and enforcement are handled by the Attorney General's Charitable Trusts Section."
NEWS ALERT!
Research on the legitimacy of the "charitable" aspect of this event has turned up some new information. A call to the IRS has found that there is no registered tax-exempt organization named, "Urban Health Institute" in Los Angeles that is capable of accepting tax-deductible charitable contributions.
Also, apparently this isn't the first time this organization's legitimacy has been in question. A poker tournament that held an event to benefit this organization resulted in a controversy about the ethics of who won the tournament (a celebrity always seems to win, even with pro and semi-pro poker players playing). A representative for the charity also posted a profanity-laced diatribe online telling the person not to talk **** about her charity.
No other charitable organization links to their site and they have no method of collecting online donations at their site, nor do they solicit them explicitly. As someone who is on a Board of Directors for a non-profit, that is highly unusual.
Of course, I would love it if this charity was real, because at least something good would come of it, but this doesn't seem legitimate to me. If someone has proof otherwise, I welcome it and will post it here.
If anyone would like to check with the IRS themselves, here is a link to their online search tool. A toll free number is available on the site as well. http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96136,00.html
Look Who's Talking!
- TerryDean.org
- Terry Dean has a blog about marketing your business with integrity and has recently made a post about this issue. He believes that you don't need to compromise your values to be successful. Please drop by his site and show your support!
- Paul Galloway's BizToolsBrief.com
- Paul has had quite the traffic from his recent blog post titled, "Why I am NOT Attending RJ's Party at the Playboy Mansion". He has received more than 200 comments already and it has become a gathering place for people to post their views! Thanks Paul for the post and for keeping your comments open. Don't forget to Digg his post!
- Chris Bloor's Blog at SalesLeadSecrets.Com
- Chris has a post entitled, "Keep Your Marketing Out of the Gutter" in which he explains why he has distanced himself from the marketing. Be sure to check out the open comments as well. Thanks Chris! If you agree, give him a Digg!
- Kelly McCausey's Blog at WAHMTalkRadio.Com
- Kelly has recently written a post on her blog titled, "What a Jerk! And Are You a Jerk Because You Hang Out With One?" in which she talks about guilt by association and choosing people to work with who have similar values. She has some strong opinions that you really should read. Check out what she says about the Rich Jerk controversy in particular. Be sure to provide her with a Digg once you're done!
- James Yuille's Blog
- James Yuille has written a post on his blog titled, "Why I Don't Want to Be Known as an Internet Marketing Guru" where he calls this event and its marketing, "one of the most disgraceful marketing pieces I've ever seen". Be sure to drop by and comment and leave a Digg! Thanks James!
Is This a Sign of Progress on This Issue?
How one attendee has acknowledged mistakes were made
As I've mentioned before, I'm a big fan of catching people doing something right and acknowledging it publically.
This morning, I was surprised to find that one of the most ardent supporters of the party has posted an update to his blog post on the party and has acknowledged that he has reconsidered some aspects of the issue.
Tim Erway posted on his blog, "Humility...it's a virtue that's quite unnatural with most marketers. This is certainly true in my case, and I confess there was some resistance at the thought of publicly admitting a mistake. It's human nature to defend a position you take, even if logic and reason later proves it erroneous."
He goes on to say, "Yes, I'm still going to the Playboy party and I'm darned excited about it. Personally, I have no moral objections whatsoever, but perhaps I should have evaluated the possibilities of backlash and repercussions before promoting something as controversial as a party at the Playboy Mansion."
I see this as a step in the right direction. True, he's still going to the party, but it takes courage to say that you were wrong to promote it and at this point, early in the process, I am willing to take what we can get. Hopefully others will follow Tim's example and at least acknowledge an error in judgment.
For the rest of Tim's post, visit Tim Erway's Blog. I encourage people to post a comment and stay true to their convictions, but to acknowledge what he has said as well.
Are Women Marginalized as Marketers?
The coarse nature of some marketing messages directed at men to the exclusion and detriment of women.
The reason I wanted to start this lens and discuss this issue is because I've noticed coarse rhetoric directed at men in Internet Marketing that has a sole purpose of separating and marginalizing men and women in an industry that has traditionally been very welcoming to women. It's a disturbing turn of events that deserves attention.
I welcome comments on this lens about this issue! As I update it, I will likely give away a bit of information about the recent "dust up" and I'm sure I will unintentionally give this event attention. I feel though, that even though I may be playing right into the hands of the people who have been using these horrid techniques by giving them attention, it is much more important that the issue be given the attention needed to help make people aware of how these marketing techniques harm people and backfire for people who use them.
So drop by with your comments! I welcome them!
Jennifer
Submit Feedback on This Issue
|
mworthen
The plans for RJ's Playboy Party II are being made and attendance is expected to be even greater, what with all the naked women photos from Playboy Party I circulating on the 'Net. Posted October 14, 2007 |
Hi,WomanMarketer Great Lens ? . I have also created a lens in the same niche.Hope u like it ???
ClickHere!
Posted September 13, 2007
|
Recommends
Jennifer, Posted July 19, 2007 |
|
TracyRepchukMarketingMaestro
Are we talking about the "Internet Marketing Mens Club" email where they are going to the "Playboy Mansion" to do business? If not, this is yet another topic that needs to be added to the sheer barbarism and lack of foresight for whoever thought this up. Posted June 30, 2007 |
The Lynn Terry link is:
Lynn Terry
http://www.clicknewz.com/866/the-gentlemens-club-of-internet-marketing/
Posted June 29, 2007
Lynn Terry also wrote about this issue.
">Lynn Terry and the Internet Marketing Gentlemens Club
Posted June 29, 2007
I just posted on my blog at http://www.terrydean.org about this issue, linking here so people could get the full story. I think it's sick what lengths some will go to in the name of money. In my opinion, you SHOULD list the marketers who are participating to make this a complete resource.
Posted June 29, 2007
|
WomanMarketer
I'm debating whether to name the marketers whose pictures, names and testimonials were in the original sales letter. I decided to create a "Wall of Fame" for people who were specifically AGAINST it (scroll down to see it) but I'm not sure whether to post who SUPPORTED it. Opinions anyone? Posted June 28, 2007 |
|
|
WomanMarketer
Just wanted to point out that there is a fantastic blog post by Paul Galloway on his blog at BizToolsBrief.Com that sums up why one prominent marketer has chosen not to support this. Posted June 28, 2007 |
My last link didn't work.
http://www.searchmarketinggurus.com/WoIM/smg-women-of-internet-marketing.html
These are successful women that we can model ourselves after (who don't live in the sewer with the rats.)
http://www.searchmarketinggurus.com/WoIM/smg-women-of-internet-marketing.html
Posted June 28, 2007
I'm done giving my money to a bunch of clowns who use sexist and questionable hype-filled tactics to get their message out. I'm on the lookout for real and honest teachers without the macho hype bullshit following them around.
Instead here's some cool women examples:
http://tinylink.com/?iMXXQD6m
Posted June 28, 2007
|
Carrie
I was really disappointed to see this promotion, because I always thought of internet marketers as a progressive group. The internet has really leveled the playing field though. The women can easily outearn the women because we understand value and networking and good content. :) Posted June 28, 2007 |
|
PatrickPretty
Hi Jennifer: Posted June 28, 2007 |
|
|
WomanMarketer
What is disturbing is how far women have come recently in Internet Marketing, only to be lambasted back into the Dark Ages. I think it shows some latent hostility toward women on the bahelf of some of the big name male gurus. I was encouraged to see though that many men also denounced the tactics. Posted June 28, 2007 |
I was following the thread as well over at the warrior forum. And it seems if you dare criticize a guru you will be deleted. The Jerk and his flunkies get away with alot while the "nonames" newbies aren't given as much leeway.
There is so much sexism in this industry. So sad.
Posted June 27, 2007
What's the Big Deal Anyway?
Summing up why this has become such a controversy.
*Sigh* People are totally missing the point.
Hopefully this post well sum up the multitude of concerns that people have expressed in a way that makes sense.
1. The Concept of it Being Called a "Networking Event".
If all this event consisted of was a few buddies getting together and making fools of themselves at the Playboy Mansion, I would say "more power to them". The problem is that the party is being called a "networking event" but it is clear that even though the salesletter was sent to women, it was implied whether explicitly that this was a "guys event". If it was really for networking, it could be held anywhere, rather than in a place that women (most women, not all) and some men would be uncomfortable. Notice that the URL explicitly uses the word "party" not "seminar" or "conference".
2. The Salesletter...that Infamous Salesletter
I can't post the salesletter here, although I have a PDF of it on hand. Let me just say that I have never seen so much profanity in one piece of Internet Marketing material in my life. And I'm not a newbie...I've been doing this for ten years. I addition, the salesletter had some rather interesting "photos".
3. The People Who Have Endorsed This Party
If this was just the "Rich Jerk", half of the people would have no idea it was going on, so I guess if there is credit to give him it's for finding the most respected and mainstream "partners" he could find. But those "partners" who have used their marketing to push their family values, Christianity, and the like have lost many marketers' respect. It's distasteful to talk in one sales letter about what a great family guy you are, and then in another say, "But come to the party that was marketed using this salesletter". Pick a side and stick to it. Don't be a hypocrite.
4. The "Salesletter" Went to Everyone, Including Some Kids
Internet Marketing is great because anyone can do it, at any age, and with a very small amount of money to get started, As a result, many teens are on these lists to learn from their "mentors". Putting your name on a salesletter that is half profanity and the other half soft-core porn is dispicable, especially when you consider children are reading it.
In short, it's about association and endorsement more than anything.
What Happened? What Caused the Recent Stir in the Internet Marketing Community?
There is a marketer out there called "The Rich Jerk". I hate that I even have to name him publically because it provides him with more exposure, but I guess it's necessary to talk about the situation.
I normally would post some of what was written by him to give an example of the type of coarse and offensive language that he uses, but since I have rated this lens as "G" I guess I won't be able to!
Let me just put it to you this way: This isn't something you would want your kids or your Mom reading. It's beyond foul.
His basic schtick is that he tries to be as offensive as possible to go against the grain and generate publicity. His feeling is that any attention, even negative attention, is worthwhile.
As a result of his cult-like following, there are tons of "Internet Marketing Lemmings" as I like to call them who are following in his footsteps. Their emails address members of their opt-in lists as "losers" and "idiots". They use profanity whenever possible...they demean women, they make fun of people with disabilities, and they make comments about sexual orientation and other things that I could not repeat here.
So the Rich Jerk decided to put together this "Internet Marketing Networking Event" at the Playboy mansion. And that is where things get interesting....
Check back a little later for the rest of the story and what happened when mainstream marketers got ahold of some of these emails...
Key Points: A Summary of Filth and Stupidity
1. Top-name marketers were sending out emails saying, "I don't agree with his marketing methods, but I'm promoting it anyway". Come on...if you are for it, just say so. If you are against it, stand up for yourself.
2. The marketers sending out the emails never questioned which charity would be receiving the funds, the percentage of each purchase that would be donated or anything else that required due diligence. In essence, they would write, "But it's for CHARITY!" with no information to back it up.
3. The original sales letter, complete with half-naked pictures and more profanity than I have ever read in a single web page, mentions things I can't even repost. Trust me...beyond offensive!
4. The RJ has previously mentioned "No Gays Allowed" among other homphobic comments.
5. Here's an example of part of the sales page:
>>everyone in attendance will have to sign a non-disclosure document. Therefore, you can be sure your wife, girlfriend, or whoever will NOT find out what happens when you are hanging around a couple of super hot, slutty models in the grotto or a sex room.<<
6. As others have pointed out, the sales letter was written to be so blatantly offensive to women, that it effectively was designed to exclude women from the event.
Submit Feedback on: Key Points: A Summary of Filth and Stupidity
Place your comments specific to this post here.
This is where you can comment on the post, "Key Points: A Summary of Filth and Stupidity".
|
Great lens! I voted 5 stars - I invite you to check out mine too, and rate it for me! Live Streaming Video Posted July 31, 2007 |
The sexist sales letter is just the beginning for this type of sleaze internet marketing practice. If this letter goes through without a hitch more gurus and Rich Jerk wannabes will be imitating the sleaze and sexist copy in their sales pages.
Better nip it in the bud right away. Informative lense.
Posted June 30, 2007
|
kellymccausey
We have to stand up for what we stand for - or we're all be sitting around watching other people stand up for something else. Promoting what you disagree with is ridiculous. Posted June 29, 2007 |
|
|
WomanMarketer
Thanks Chris! Yes, I see that as a major problem. People are so enamoured for some reason with people that they are willing to look the other way when there is clearly an injustice happening. I ask people to think about whether they would deal with this type of treatment in a face to face situation! Posted June 29, 2007 |
I agree with you 100% I even recived a call from a well-known marketer after posting against the Rich Jerk warning me that it would not do my seminar speaking invitesany good. My response was that my integrity was not, is not and I pray, never will be for hire.
Posted June 29, 2007
The Issue of Using the Event for Charity
Surprisingly, the posts from a few people, myself included, questioning whether there was a specific charity were left unanswered. I was surprised that someone who was promoting the event didn't have the answer off the top of their head that they could share. One member had to actually track down someone from RJ to find out. When he posted the link, that was all that was revealed about the charity.
A Google search of the URL revealed some surprising information. First of all, according to Google, there is only one page that specifically refers to that link and it is from a poker site. Most charities and small non-profits link to one another in some way so that seemed odd. Other sites that simply referenced the site, seemed to number at about 70 or so, with the marjority coming from poker sites or sites discussing a poker game.
It was difficult to find out any information about the charity, particularly any anecodatal evidence that the charity had actually done anything charitable. What complicated the research was that there are two organizations with the words, "Urban Health Institute" in their name in Los Angeles. A check of many charity watchdog groups didn't reveal any information or listing for the location on Crenshaw Blvd that was referenced at the site given.
Basically, things started to look sort of shady. I posted on the forum, as did others, that if someone had specific and verifiable information about the charity to just post it. No one seemed to have any information about the charity, what they did with the money, or whether they were even a registered nonprofit entity.
Let me say something about the exchanges on the forum about the charity: I said several times that I had done some research but that *if* there was real info out there, that I welcomed someone posting it for the benefit of everyone reading. I wasn't implying that I was the end-all and be-all authority on whether this organization was legitimate or not. I honestly wanted to know if there WAS legitimate information, and if there was, GREAT! That would mean that if this event did continue despite the controversy, at least someone would see something good out of it.
In fact, I would LOVE to be wrong about this whole thing! I would love to find out that everything is on the up and up!
Submit Feedback on: The Issue of Using the Event for Charity
Place your comments specific to this post here.
This is where you can comment on the post, "The Issue of Using the Event for Charity".
|
|
WomanMarketer
Hi Ed, Posted July 02, 2007 |
Hi Jennifer!
Did you get a chance to call the IRS to confirm? I was out all day today.
Blessings,
Ed
Posted June 29, 2007
Rich Jerk Party Poll
What is your opinion of the type of marketing that is being used to promote this event? Has it finally gone too far?
About the poll, and what I mean about "accountability"
Here's what I mean: Clearly without partners to promote this party, it would never take off. So several big-name marketers were offered the opportunity to promote the party. In return, if 5 referrals were gathered by the partners, they would be able to get an additional free ticket worth $1997. Clearly, even though there is not an explicit exchange of funds, the partners ARE being compensated in some way. Interestingly, none of the marketing messages that I read indicated that, and most people said, "Seriously, I get nothing for promoting this...it's for CHARITY!"
So I feel a bit duped here. I'm clearly not in the target market for this event (because I happen to produce a bit more estrogen than allowed) but I *am* on the mailing lists of many of the marketers who are promoting this event. So whether I wanted to receive information about it or not, I received it.
When I signed up for these newsletters it was the result of reading something worthy, timely, educational or interesting. I graciously gave up my email address and trusted these marketers to provide the content and information that they promised. For many of these lists, I was a customer who had made a purchase and was added to a long-term marketing list, so some marketers had already made a little bit of money off me.
That's all well and good....it's quid pro quo....I give you permission to contact me, you provide what you say you will provide, and if I am convinced I will purchase from you, perhaps several times.
But this pledge or bond was somewhat fractured by the promotion of this party. Some marketers were rather obtuse about their promotion, saying they totally HATED the way RJ markets, but here's a link anyway. How disingenuous!
Others decided to take it a step further and act insulting and crass in the classic RJ style. That was perhaps most disturbing...that an otherwise intelligent and thoughtful marketer would change "personas" to get in nice with the RJ crowd.
So when I talk about accountability, I mean that people who have chosen to promote this need to step up and either denounce this and say that they made a mistake, or be prepared for massive unsubscribes. An entire group of marketers, women especially, were marginalized and kicked to the curb by this and it can't be ignored. We deserve better than this.
Submit Feedback on: About the Poll and Accountability
Place your comments specific to this post here.
This is where you can comment on the post, "About the Poll and Accountability"
Just in case anyone was wondering...this lens is for charity (no, seriously!)
So if anyone was going to come here and say, "Oh yeah, make some money off the controversy", well there you go!
The ASPCA is a cause near and dear to my heart. My husband and I are the proud Puppy Parents of a Collie/Shepherd mix and we frequently support charities that deal with animals and their health and safety.
Just thought you'd like to know....
Jennifer
Thursday Musings: Please Support This Lens by Letting People Know it Exists!
And...why speaking up is so important, even if you are afraid.
If you have a list that goes out to Internet Marketers, male or female, I encourage you to broach this subject with your readers. It's important that concerned marketers, regardless of their gender, make their opinions known on this issue. I was very encouraged to see so many men denounce the marketing tactics yesterday! Thank you very much!
I know some people wonder why this is so important to me and others who have expressed dismay about the marketing used to promote this party.
To put it in the easiest terms, it's like a slap in the face.
As a female marketer I am valued as long as my credit card is handy. I'm an email address....a commodity....when I am playing nice, providing my email, giving up a certain amount of my privacy and making purchases I am very well respected. Then, I get an email in support of something as filthy as this, and I'm sent off into the margins and told to just get over it and not worry about it.
It's the metaphorical equivalent of being told, "Run along little girl, the grownups are talking now".....
So please, if you have any opinions or concerns, participate here and ask your list and blog visitors to drop by as well. This issue will not just go away after the party is over. It's important that if you have something to say that it be said.
Now, a touchy subject: The so-called "Gurus". I know that some people are afraid to voice their opinions because they are afraid that one of the "gurus" will catch wind of it and they will be cast from the "cool group". Ask yourself if you would really want to work with someone who supported this. Would you be friendly with these people offline? Would you just smile and walk away, with a pit in your stomach because you supported something so offensive?
In short, would this be ok with you offline? Or would you have the conviction to stand up and say, "Hey, this isn't right!" Please think about it. Not saying anything when it bothers you is like endorsing it.
Just a reminder...I'm not placing a link to any of my sites, mentioning my businesses, adding affiliate links or taking any money from Squidoo on this lens. All money earned via the Squidoo system has been designated to go to the ASPCA automatically via the Squidoo system.
Submit Feedback On: Please Support This Lens by Letting People Know it Exists!
Place your comments specific to this post here.
This is where you can comment on the post, "Please Support This Lens by Letting People Know it Exists"
|
|
WomanMarketer
I added this lens to Digg and would appreciate it if you would use the "Digg this" link in the left hand column to add a Digg to it. I also added it to my own Del.icio.us bookmarks as well. Posted June 28, 2007 |
|
mindykoch
Chris Bloor http://australianinternetcoach.com sent an email a few days ago: Posted June 28, 2007 |
Let's Give Credit Where Credit is Due!
The Marketers Who Denounced This Type of Marketing
The other day, I received a very thoughtful email from Mark Hendricks. He explained in the email that he would not be promoting the "event" in any way. I was quite impressed with his candor, and emailed him back immediately thanking him for the email and to praise him for standing up for what he felt was right.
I'd like to create a list of marketers who, prior to today, have come out against the type of marketing used to promote this "event" and give them the credit they are due. If you have communicated with a marketer who was approached to be involved in this event and who declined, please post in the form below.
If you could include their name, their URL and a short description of what they said or did that impressed you enough to post about them, that would be great. Let's create a WALL OF FAME!
Internet Marketers' "Wall of Fame"! Marketers Who Took a Stand!
Let's give credit where credit is due!
Please post the name and URL of any marketer who impressed you by NOT participating in the marketing of this event or who publically denounced the marketing tactics used. Please include a short description of what impressed you the most about this person. Feel free to comment or expand on others' entries as well!
|
NicoleDean
Jennifer, I would LOVE to see a list of the marketers who endorsed this event so I can re-evaluate giving them any of my money or promoting them. Posted July 09, 2007 |
I believe you should also publish the names of marketers who endorsed and attended this shameless event so we can stay away from them.
Posted July 05, 2007
|
Jessica-Colon
Great lense Jen. I think its great that you addressed this issue. I am disgusted by what is going on with this event and the legitimacy of the non-profit. It is all very sad to say the least. Posted July 05, 2007 |
|
|
WomanMarketer
David Frey wrote in an email: "I think it's dispicable. 100% embarrassing. And the marketers who support such an event are right in there with them. (Some of these guys are my friends.)" Due to space constraints, that's all I can fit in this blurb, but thanks David for permission to quote you! Posted July 02, 2007 |
Lynn Terry takes a stand
Hers was one of the first blogs I read on this topic. She is a successful, internet marketing industry leader who is not pleased with this whole sexist mess.
Posted June 30, 2007
|
|
WomanMarketer
Terry Dean at TerryDean.org Posted June 29, 2007 |
Chris Bloor Of Sales Lead Secrets and http://chrisbloor.com/
ChrisBloor -SalesLeadsSecrets
Posted June 28, 2007
|
|
WomanMarketer
New member of our "Wall of Fame"! Posted June 28, 2007 |
|
|
WomanMarketer
Another person to add to the "Wall of Fame"! Posted June 28, 2007 |
|
|
WomanMarketer
I'll start! Posted June 28, 2007 |
Who Can You Trust? Try These Marketers!
Ethical people to give your time, attention and opt-in to!
- Perry Marshall
- Perry is THE Google Adwords expert and "go-to" guy. His emails are informative and content-rich. He has a free five-day e-course titled, "Five Days to Success with Google Adwords". Perry is the real deal and I highly recommend him!
- Michael Campbell
- Michael has been in the Internet Marketing industry since it began. His emails are full of great content, and you can actually reach him with a question or comment! I have been a subscriber of Michael's for several years, and have followed him since the late 1990's! Michael is highly regarded, so drop by his site!
- David Frey
- David Frey publishes the "Marketing Best Practices Blog". I had a personal email conversation with him where he denounced the marketing of this event. He's a straight shooter and isn't afraid to make his opinions known. If you check the "Wall of Fame" on this lens you'll see that he even gave me permission to quote him. Here is the rest of his quote,
"Some of these people have sent emails denouncing the way RJ markets and then turn around and supports his Playboy Mansion party. Huh? Where are their ethics? How much is their integrity worth to them?"
Check out David's blog and get on his list! He's one of the good guys!
