What Would Happen If I...?

[BlackHatCams]

If I published a youtube video review on a local small business website that had an extremely poor web site structure and showed how they totally suck balls on their seo strategy and packaged this in a cute little youtube video and sent the company an email with the video review of their website, would i be required to take down the youtube video I published if they were angry with me and demanded I take it down? The video would not smear them, it would just state the facts about how their site totally sucks using nice technical seo lingo.

What do you guys think?

 

[LakeForest]

Are you asking if you should take down a video of a client of yours that publicly shows how terrible their site was previously to your involvement?

Do you hate your client?? Of course you should remove the video. Or make it private and let only your client have a link.

 

[DamageX]

Are you asking if you should take down a video of a client of yours that publicly shows how terrible their site was previously to your involvement?

Do you hate your client?? Of course you should remove the video. Or make it private and let only your client have a link.

Or you could improve your reading comprehension.

OP, the only way for them to make you take it down is to take you to court, since you're obviously not infringing on any copyright or trademark of theirs.

 

[SEORocks]

If I published a youtube video review on a local small business website that had an extremely poor web site structure and showed how they totally suck balls on their seo strategy and packaged this in a cute little youtube video and sent the company an email with the video review of their website, would i be required to take down the youtube video I published if they were angry with me and demanded I take it down? The video would not smear them, it would just state the facts about how their site totally sucks using nice technical seo lingo.

What do you guys think?

I know some folks who have used this strategy and it made more owners mad than the business he got.

Personally do something very similar but I don't put it on YouTube, I make a DVD and send it to them "if" I cannot get a face to face.

Also don't bash the site, I have found in the past either they or a family member did the website and starting off with the negatives just hurt me.

Try to state all the good things they were doing, usually not to many and then I tell them the changes I would make without giving away the methods I use.

Hope this helps you with your decision.

I wish you a lot of success.

 

[aftershock2020]

If I published a youtube video review on a local small business website that had an extremely poor web site structure and showed how they totally suck balls on their seo strategy and packaged this in a cute little youtube video and sent the company an email with the video review of their website, would i be required to take down the youtube video I published if they were angry with me and demanded I take it down? The video would not smear them, it would just state the facts about how their site totally sucks using nice technical seo lingo.

What do you guys think?

Using them as a ' case study ' as you are suggesting here could/probably will result in legal action against you, as well as getting you banned from youtube, due to the fact that it would be in volation of their tos, due to bashing something, causing risk or harm to them and their business with damaging comments.

Google having moved into the social game with google+, aren't taking things as lightly as they used to.

Do what you want, however, I would suggest a different tactic and possibly call them up and send them a link from your own site with the video and make it into a cold client presentation about how you can take them on and correct their issues...get paid in cash for the work you do, don't pay for it...in damages of any type.

Food for thought.

 

[LakeForest]

Or you could improve your reading comprehension.

Or you could say something useful to help OP.

Let me walk you through my thoughts, since you clearly have nothing better to do and have the time to read this:

Since OP did not specify whether or not the video was private, I have to assume the video is public. I would absolutely hate if someone was making a video about how bad my site was optimized. I would especially hate if that video was free for anyone to search, to the point I'd demand the video be taken down regardless, and probably wouldn't hire whoever tried embarrassing me into improving my site.

Stating the facts is polite smearing, and unless done privately, I would assume it's a hostile campaign. One should not have to be demanded to take down that kind of video if it was public; if it was private, then there is no issue and can be looked at later as a reference. With permission from the owner of the business the video is analyzing, it can even be used as part of a portfolio.

If public, the video should be taken down regardless of whether or not its demanded. That's business etiquette. Why place on the public domain a video showcasing: "here is my client's piece of shit site. gaze in wonder at their amateurism."

DamageX, did you even understand what I was asking OP in my post? Are you cruel to your clients, or do you need to improve your reading comprehension?

 

[monk13]

you should NEVER use a google service to out someone's seo campaign's details
you could become liable for lost business when they get sandboxed for their linkbuilding practices

 

[WizGizmo]

To All:

Stop the insults NOW. If you want to discuss things,
please do it rationally. There is no need for flaming.

Thank You - "Wiz"

 

[dryheat360]

I think the OP is trying to use the video to get the clients, not smearing his existing clients as some of you think. I believe he intends to show the client how they could benefit from his services, and he is using a video to present all of this. If I understand correctly, and this is really what the OP is trying to do, I think its a good idea as long as the video is private, he mentions to them that the video is private, and he lists good things with "this should be improved on" and "this needs some work."

 

[BlackHatCams]

Thanks for all the feedback! Greatly appreciated!

Are you asking if you should take down a video of a client of yours that publicly shows how terrible their site was previously to your involvement?

Do you hate your client?? Of course you should remove the video. Or make it private and let only your client have a link.

This tactic was originally planed for prospecting new clients. Basically to show them in a technical way how their site sucks, not to bash in any way just to educate them and others in their industry.

Or you could improve your reading comprehension.

OP, the only way for them to make you take it down is to take you to court, since you're obviously not infringing on any copyright or trademark of theirs.

Good points! The main reason for the video is to make them aware of how much their site sucks and the impact that will cause over the long run. I feel that if you present their company publically, and then you email them, that will hit a nerve with them and they will be very aware and be more likely to take action about it! FYI, the company I was looking at had all 1 star reviews on google local. They totally suck and I would bring that to their attention also

I know some folks who have used this strategy and it made more owners mad than the business he got.

Personally do something very similar but I don't put it on YouTube, I make a DVD and send it to them "if" I cannot get a face to face.

Also don't bash the site, I have found in the past either they or a family member did the website and starting off with the negatives just hurt me.

Try to state all the good things they were doing, usually not to many and then I tell them the changes I would make without giving away the methods I use.

Hope this helps you with your decision.

I wish you a lot of success.

DVD cant do but making the video private i could do. I think i will need to consult with a lawyer on this. If I have the legal right to do it, I'm going full blast like my avatar flame thrower!

Using them as a ' case study ' as you are suggesting here could/probably will result in legal action against you, as well as getting you banned from youtube, due to the fact that it would be in volation of their tos, due to bashing something, causing risk or harm to them and their business with damaging comments.
So a case study that points out flaws would be considered bashing? That is a good key point to discuss with a lawyer. For example, if your car is fility and I record myself rubbing my finger across your door and show how dirty my finger is from the dirt on your car, is that bashing you? I think its just simply stating th facts. On a seo standpoint, if I do an seo analysis and show how their website has duplicant pages and content, and how they have 20 bad reviews, thats simplpy stating the facts, not bashing.

I would define basing as making false or opinionated statements? Oh well, that's just my definition, the only definition that matters is what the law says, good points!

Google having moved into the social game with google+, aren't taking things as lightly as they used to.

Do what you want, however, I would suggest a different tactic and possibly call them up and send them a link from your own site with the video and make it into a cold client presentation about how you can take them on and correct their issues...get paid in cash for the work you do, don't pay for it...in damages of any type.

Food for thought.

Good points!

Or you could say something useful to help OP.

Let me walk you through my thoughts, since you clearly have nothing better to do and have the time to read this:

Since OP did not specify whether or not the video was private, I have to assume the video is public. I would absolutely hate if someone was making a video about how bad my site was optimized. I would especially hate if that video was free for anyone to search, to the point I'd demand the video be taken down regardless, and probably wouldn't hire whoever tried embarrassing me into improving my site.
That is one of my intentions actually, for the video to get under their skin to the point where they want to take action. Say for example you own a dinner and i go to your store and night with my camera and take pictures of the rodents having a party in the kitchen and post that on youtube, would i have to take that video down? Isn't that what the media does anyway???LOL, i guess i will just start a media company then

Good points!

Stating the facts is polite smearing, and unless done privately, I would assume it's a hostile campaign. One should not have to be demanded to take down that kind of video if it was public; if it was private, then there is no issue and can be looked at later as a reference. With permission from the owner of the business the video is analyzing, it can even be used as part of a portfolio.

If public, the video should be taken down regardless of whether or not its demanded. That's business etiquette. Why place on the public domain a video showcasing: "here is my client's piece of shit site. gaze in wonder at their amateurism."
LOL, well if they are a client then i wouldn't do that. Here is something to think about, there are websites that display mug shots of people that went to jail, if you want to get the mug shot pic off their site, you gotta pay! Just a side thought.

DamageX, did you even understand what I was asking OP in my post? Are you cruel to your clients, or do you need to improve your reading comprehension?

you should NEVER use a google service to out someone's seo campaign's details
you could become liable for lost business when they get sandboxed for their linkbuilding practices

yeah that would suck....... good point! something worth mentioning to a lawyer

To All:

Stop the insults NOW. If you want to discuss things,
please do it rationally. There is no need for flaming.

Thank You - "Wiz"

Thanks WizGizmo!

I think the OP is trying to use the video to get the clients, not smearing his existing clients as some of you think. I believe he intends to show the client how they could benefit from his services, and he is using a video to present all of this. If I understand correctly, and this is really what the OP is trying to do, I think its a good idea as long as the video is private, he mentions to them that the video is private, and he lists good things with "this should be improved on" and "this needs some work."

This is probably the most practical method of doing it.

perhaps there will be nothing happen finally...just a joke...sorry..

I appreciate all feedback and have a lot to think about now.

I was just about to hit "submit reply" then i googled defamation, i think this applies to my situation.

I am in now way a lawyer so do not take what I say or find as the truth, consult your lawyer.

I found this to be very interesting!

I believe the topic we are focusing upon is called defamation.

defamation - Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.


http://www.internetdefamationlawblog.com/
In a 1964 decision, the Supreme Court established that truth is an absolute defense against defamation. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). However, for parties involved in defamation suits, it is similarly important to know about the affirmative defense of substantial truth.
In a recent case, a Texas Court of Appeals found in favor of defendants who had posted a critical review (or maybe a "critical youtube video! ) of the plaintiff's product online. David Rafes, Inc. v. Huml, 2009 Tex. App. (1st Dist. Oct. 29, 2009). In the suit, David Rafes alleged that Michael Huml and Slowboy Racing, Inc. published defamatory statements about Rafes' business, Turbochargers.com ( I wonder what his page rank is ) . The allegedly defamatory statements included Huml claiming that Rafe's turbocharger was a "poorly manufactured turbo from China" that would "inevitably fail in a short amount of time" and that it was a "Chinese version us[ing] an inferior stainless in its composition." Id. at 2. Among several defenses asserted by the defendants was that their statements were substantially true (booya).

The statements in green above would be same spirit contained in a youtube website review of a company. A nice black and white "critical review". No slandering no defamatory statements, just the nice hard Gangster facts!

In order to bring a cause of action for defamation, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant:

1. published a statement about the plaintiff
2. that was defamatory
3. while acting with either actual intent or reckless disregard, i.e. malice (if the plaintiff was a public official or public figure) or negligence (if the plaintiff was a private individual) regarding the truth of the statement

Id.at 13.
Generally, a defendant can defeat a libel claim by establishing that the published statement on which the action for libel is based is a true statement. Additionally, a defendant can defeat a libel claim by establishing that the statement at issue is substantiallytrue. The Court explained that in order "[t]o determine if a publication is substantially true, we consider

1. whether the alleged defamatory statement was more damaging to plaintiff's reputation, in the mind of the average person,
2. than a truthful statement would have been, and
3. [w]e look at the ‘gist' of the publication to determine whether it is substantially true."

Id. at 14.
The substantial truth standard has also been referred to as the "gist" test because, under this approach, only the "gist" of the statement in question must be true in order for the statement to be protected. As the Court explained, "[t]he defense of truth does not require proof that the alleged defamatory statement is literally true in every detail; substantial truth is sufficient." Id.This doctrine protects certain false statements so long as any inaccuracies do not materially alter the dissemination of otherwise truthful speech.
The Huml Court decided in favor of the defendants, finding that the trial court had heard sufficient evidence to conclude that the plaintiff's turbocharger was, as it concluded, a "bad product" and that the evidence "substantiat[ed] the ‘gist' of the statements contained in the internet article regarding the production and manufacturing of the turbocharger." Id.
The substantial truth defense is significant in that it provides defendants with a less stringent - and potentially less expensive - way to combat a libel suit. If a defendant can show that the statement at issue is substantially true, it will hopefully be possible under the right circumstances for the defendant to have a motion for summary judgment granted (which will allow the case to be disposed of without going to trial). The doctrine is also important for libel plaintiffs because it notifies them that statements that criticize them need not be entirely true in order to be protected.

Thanks and Rep appreciated!

 

[BlackHatCams]

For those that don't want to read a library, I found this video that relates. FYI, I'm still gonna talk with a lawyer just to make sure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjgn767zLnY

 

[Marcink99]

Yes you should remove video. Your giving company negative reputation now. If you want to close this client put video on your site not youtube for public​

 

[BlackHatCams]

Yes you should remove video. Your giving company negative reputation now. If you want to close this client put video on your site not youtube for public​

Please read my entire post above! It does a good job at explaining the law on this matter. I interpret the law as saying the following:

If your negative statements are true and factual and you can prove this, then you are within the law and the prospect/company/individual cannot do $hit!

I will still talk with a lawyer however.

 

[Ricky Roma]

Just send them a report like most people do.
If you are going to make video, don't name the company. Instead, call it ACME or w/e and make it in manner that your potential clients associate/recognize themselves with/in that company (e.g. If you are pitching restaurant owner, make video about small restaurant; you can also add some other characteristics of their business, so those companies look alike) . Then show how ACME managed to increase sales/conversion using seo or w/e you sell.

 

[BlackHatCams]

Just send them a report like most people do.
If you are going to make video, don't name the company. Instead, call it ACME or w/e and make it in manner that your potential clients associate/recognize themselves with/in that company (e.g. If you are pitching restaurant owner, make video about small restaurant; you can also add some other characteristics of their business, so those companies look alike) . Then show how ACME managed to increase sales/conversion using seo or w/e you sell.

Good Suggestion, however I strongly feel a prospect will take a video more personal and seriously over a report that they can simply delete. They can't simply delete a youtube video

And this will give them more reason to take action which is what we all want as Seo's right guys?

 

[aftershock2020]

Good Suggestion, however I strongly feel a prospect will take a video more personal and seriously over a report that they can simply delete. They can't simply delete a youtube video

And this will give them more reason to take action which is what we all want as Seo's right guys?

Action, absolutely...legal action, not so much.

 

[BlackHatCams]

@ aftershock, they can't take legal action if the statements in the video are actual factual, they are wasting their time.

Maybe i am missunderstanding what you are saying.

 

[monk13]

it's not defamation you should be worried about,
it's outing the fact that someone's been using linkbuilding services
if you do make a video, host it on your server with a password to view.
if you out someone for using linkbuilding services, they can get sandboxed
if you do it on a service owned by google they most assuredly will get sandboxed
if you are responsible for sandboxing them, you definitely wont get the account
if you do it that way, you shoot yourself in the foot
if you think that your word (in the court's eyes a spammer) will hold against that of a corp
you are dead wrong