How to Manage Identities for Multiple Sites?

[BoK]

Hi Mark,

>> My take on it though is that while your intentions are admirable,
>> I think you may be overthinking this.

My take on managing a new business is to be as prepared as one can be. I realize that my question may be seen as "overkill" or "irrelevant" or "a waste of time" by some, but my question is sincere, and at least *I* think it is important.

The issue here is not only one of identity-on-the-net (in terms of risking being accused of being a fraud). The issue is also about one's own ability to (and one's comfortability with) shifting one's online identity. As if that weren't enough, we also have the important issue of PROFITABILITY: can we afford NOT to use a photo on our site? (see post below to Lynn).

>> I'm a firm believer in the use of pen names. It just makes sense to keep
>> from having all your eggs in one basket. At the very least, if one pen
>> name's reputation tanks, then you can use another.

OK, it's a good argument.

>> But regarding the photo, I would avoid doing any 3D representation
>> or trying to modify a photo of yourself. That would look too shady to me.

Certainly!

>> If you have totally different affiliate markets, what are the chances
>> that someone is going to say, "Hey, I recognize that guy from that other site."
>> If you're keeping your subscriber lists separate, then the risk
>> of that happening is greatly reduced.

Yes. All subscriber lists MUST be separate, so the risk certainly would be reduced.

Thanks again, Mark!
Bo

[BoK]

Hi Jeanette,

>> I registered on dba and use it for all my affiliate relationships. This required
>> one $10 fee to the state, on $20 fee to my home city and a business checking
>> account, which was free. Any checks or direct deposits would go into that
>> checking account.

Thanks for this info. However, I am not sure that I would like to register. Also, I am not located in North America anyway, so I would have to check my local rules and regulations here in Europe.

Thanks again, Jeanette!
Bo

[marksierra]

My take on managing a new business is to be as prepared as one can be. I realize that my question may be seen as "overkill" or "irrelevant" or "a waste of time" by some, but my question is sincere, and at least *I* think it is important.

Nothing wrong with being prepared. Nothing wrong at all. I sense that some offense may have been taken with my earlier comment, in which case I apologize. That was indeed not my intent.

Speaking as someone who tends to over analyze things, I appreciate the value in someone pointing out that I may be doing so and then pull back a bit to re-evaluate what I'm doing.

The validity of your inquiry was never put into question in my mind. It's one all serious internet marketers eventually have to consider.

[BoK]

Hi Jen,

>> Oh this is a great topic.

Glad you like it!!

>> This was in the same niche. So I guess discovery was inevitable.
>> But I was shaken by the "phony" claims. I know that may seem
>> like I am being overly sensitive, and I need to toughen up. Perhaps
>> that is true. But it doesn't feel nice having your name and reputation
>> tarnished in person or online.

Yes, I can TOTALLY relate to your experience, although I haven't yet experienced it myself.

Thanks, Jen!
Bo

[BoK]

Hi Mark,

>> Nothing wrong with being prepared. Nothing wrong at all. I sense
>> that some offense may have been taken with my earlier comment,
>> in which case I apologize. That was indeed not my intent.

Oh, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing to apologize for. I wasn't "offended" or "upset" or anything. Honestly. I just tried to make a stronger argument for the validity of posting my question on this forum, (which you helped me with!). You should know that I TRULY appreciate your answer and your willingness to participate!!

Have a GREAT day, Mark!
Bo

[marksierra]

All is good, Bo. You have a great day, too, buddy.

[BoK]

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for the info about how you have used photos in your marketing. It is interesting to see how common it is that marketers use different photos, even stock photos, in their businesses. Here are some specific comments.

>> Using pen names is not illegal, and it's very common.

Not illegal: OK.
Very common: OK.

>> Not all affiliate sites require a photo, so I don't use one on every site.... But
>> more often than not a photo isn't really necessary.

Your assertion that "Not all affiliate sites require a photo" is a good one. This is, however, not because I agree with it (i.e., I don't believe it! -- see below), but because that assertion FOCUSES this discussion.

In other words, as I see it, the whole "pen-name" idea becomes more PROBLEMATIC if one CANNOT (or WILL NOT) dismiss the idea of a *photo* of the blogging person. So if one were *not* concerned with any photographs, then it is easier to swallow the idea of a pen name.

>>There's a difference between blogging as a personality, and selling strawberry
>> shortcake dolls - where the goal is to get the clickthrough and the visitor is
>> more interested in the product and the price than they are the person running
>> the site. In that case, a contact page with basic info will suffice.

Lynn, I am not convinced of this. Everyone who blogs is trying to sell SOMETHING (whether it is a "product" or their own "self-image"), and everyone who reads the blogs are trying to figure out whether the person selling something should be believed or mistrusted. And showing one's (friendly-looking) face on the blog is one component in that scenario, a component that ADDS to the credibility and trust. And with trust comes sales.

The conclusion that I have made, then, after years of studying traditional research in customer behavior in terms of *tested* advertising and leads (Caples, Ogilvy, etc.), and having worked as a professional copywriter at an international advertising agency myself, is that readers respond SIGNIFICANTLY better to ads (blogs) if they can see the writer's/bloggers face (and also read about his previous background and experience, of course).

So for me, at least, I have no intention of producing websites WITHOUT a photo. The only exception I can think of would be if I posted a VIDEO instead, with me talking about myself and/or the product I am reviewing/advertising.

Anyway, I thought your answer was excellent overall, since it triggered me into discovering more about how I shall plan for the future. Discovery is the name of the game!

Hoping that everything is well in Tennessee!
Bo

[brad]

Hi Bo,

Sounds like you are thinking through things pretty thoroughly, which is great.

I think it all comes down to what YOU want to be associated with. I use pen names (maybe a photo, maybe not) for the majority of my affiliate sites, those that my only real objective is to make money from. But for sites that I want to be personally associated with, my personal blog, another hobby site, etc., I will use my real name and photo.

Now, a personality with a photo CAN enhance consumer trust, but it doesn't have to be present for the consumer to trust YOUR SITE enough to make a purchase. I think what most people are looking for is a professional looking site that appears to be active. Remember, there's a lot of psychological factors that go into purchasing something.

I have a website in the personal finance niche in this niche there are several successful websites that DONT have photos or people using their real names.

Here's 2:

www.consumerismcommentary.com
www.fivecentnickel.com

The author of consumerismcommentary.com calls himself Flexo. Thats it. It's probably a nickname or something or maybe something he made up. Look at his facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/flexo) His picture almost looks like something out of the Simpsons. It kinda makes me laugh looking at it. The same goofy pic is on his twitter account. http://twitter.com/flexo His twitter bio even states: "Blogger in cognito" But he makes a good living of that one website alone.

The author of fivecentnickel.com is also anonymous. He goes by Nickel. Look at his about page: http://www.fivecentnickel.com/about/ No real name, no photo. Look at his twitter page: http://twitter.com/fcn Again, no picture. I know Nickel makes a killing off his blog.

So my point is a photo and real name is not necessary to make a highly profitable, trustworthy site, as Lynn has already proven. I'd be careful putting my real name on 15 completely different niches sites.

[BoK]

Hi Brad!

>> I think it all comes down to what YOU want to be associated
>> with. I use pen names (maybe a photo, maybe not) for the
>> majority of my affiliate sites, those that my only real objective
>> is to make money from. But for sites that I want to be personally
>> associated with, my personal blog, another hobby site, etc.,
>> I will use my real name and photo.

OK.

>> I think what most people are looking for is a professional looking
>> site that appears to be active. Remember, there's a lot of psychological
>> factors that go into purchasing something.

You're right on the money, there!

>> The author of consumerismcommentary.com calls himself Flexo.
>> Thats it. It's probably a nickname or something or maybe
>> something he made up. Look at his facebook page
>> (http://www.facebook.com/flexo) His picture almost looks like
>> something out of the Simpsons. It kinda makes me laugh looking
>> at it. The same goofy pic is on his twitter account.
>> http://twitter.com/flexo His twitter bio even states: "Blogger in
>> cognito" But he makes a good living of that one website alone.
>> The author of fivecentnickel.com is also anonymous. He goes by
>> Nickel. Look at his about page: http://www.fivecentnickel.com/about/
>> No real name, no photo. Look at his twitter page:
>> http://twitter.com/fcn Again, no picture.
>> I know Nickel makes a killing off his blog.

VERY interesting examples!

>> I'd be careful putting my real name on 15 completely
>> different niches sites.

DEFINITELY!

>> So my point is a photo and real name is not necessary to make
>> a highly profitable, trustworthy site, as Lynn has already proven.

I understand your point, as I have understood Lynn's point before. But perhaps I have not been clear enough. I want both of you to know that I am not in doubt that good money can be made with a website WITHOUT a picture. I do believe both Lynn and you when you explain these things. But MY point is a point about MAXIMIZATION of ROI. I am talking about (very significant) TWEEKING. As a research-oriented person, I am very much into the idea of A/B tests, just like the old advertising school once advocated: Let's try out a test with a real picture and let it run separately; and then try out another removing that picture. How much better was A than B?

This is important since there are so many parameters involved in advertising and marketing, whether on the internet or not. If we can tweek ONE of the parameters upwards by planning carefully, then we may get a significantly better result.

In any case, this was a very nice message! Lots to think about!

Thanks Brad!
Bo

[jkgourmet]

I like your idea of testing. But I think the results obtained in one niche may not be the same as for another. For example, do I care who I'm buying a television from? In fact, it might make me think, small time seller, I wanna run over to the Costco or Amazon or Best Buy site in case I have a problem with this very expensive purchase.

But if I'm buying chocolate chip cookies, I think seeing Famous Amos or David or Mrs. Fields makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

In other words, the product dictates some of the value of having a photo or not having one.

Just my 2 cents.