Dennis Yu vs. Jeremy Shoemaker – the saga continues
Michael Webster, a commercial litigation attorney specializing in franchise and distributorship law has written a post about the recent lengthy post at ShoeMoney.com called "Dennis Yu – Rise and Fall Of a Con Man in the Affiliate Industry".
Michael's post, called What Is the Con Here, brings up a lot of interesting points that I missed that suggests the possibility of misdirection (my interpretation of Michael's post) going on in order to take focus off of the message and onto the messenger.
Perhaps I'm guilty of doing the same as well, but it's hard to not get upset when confronted with someone who has victimized the very type of people I try to help everyday – and who has profited handsomely from it.
But again – perhaps as Michael and Dennis Yu have suggested this only serves to take the focus off of the message. Yes, certainly the messenger needs to be penalized, make amends, etc., but for the sake of this post that's not the point.
Dennis Yu's follow up to all of this called "This is why you don't gossip on the internet" is also interesting and worth a read and I agree that when you come across attacks on a messenger that you need to "examine their motives and then check the facts to see if things add up".
I certainly don't feel like I have all the facts in this situation and I don't think it will be an easy matter to get them either.
Some might consider the rest of this post a distraction from the message and back onto the messenger. However, I think it's important as in this case as it may help people see the message as more pertinent and NOT allow it to get shoved under the table.
However, Dennis Yu does potentially clarify a couple things that I wondered about. I say "potentially" because at this point there's no way to check the facts.
1. Dennis Yu states, "We did some consulting for the FTC– a nice surprise, as they promised not to sue."
I had wondered why he was so willing to basically post a "signed confession to prove the prosecutor's case" as Lynndel Edginton observed in the original post called BlitzLocal CEO explains how to trick people.
Of course the dilemna for Dennis is if he testified or consulted for the FTC in a specific ongoing investigation then he can't say what the case was until charges have been filed. Once he can talk about those cases, things could get very interesting again.
2. He also states, "I’m owing up to all the spam (or call it by whatever name you want) that I’ve done in the past. The TechCrunch article was part of that– and there are more articles coming."
Why is this interesting? Because if it's true that there are more articles coming and they get published in major outlets with the same sort of prominence as TechCrunch then it puts Shoemaker's claim that "the jig is up" for Dennis Yu in serious doubt.
The bottom line is:
- We don't have all the facts and there will be serious facts that we possibly can't have for legitimate reasons for a while.
- We need to be on our guard for potential misdirection whether it comes from a hidden negative option offer or an attack on a messenger who is easy to hate.
Note: PLEASE keep in mind that I am only saying those two "bottom line" items are possible. I am NOT saying they are true. There simply isn't enough evidence to know one way or another.
Leave a Comment
Comments on Dennis Yu vs. Jeremy Shoemaker – the saga continues
6:37 am
Paul,
I respect your intelligence and thorough analysis here– and no, I'm not saying that to get on your good side. For your conclusion that we either don't have all the facts and that we need to be on guard for misdirection– couldn't agree more.
I'll shed some insight from my perspective and perhaps that will show you where my motives may lie:
1) My mentors and I had conversations to weigh the merits of responding. To respond would draw further retaliation from Mr. Schoemaker, especially given his past history of "calling out" individuals in ego battles. Our angel investor, Markus Frind, was the victim of such an attack a few years ago. Jeremy has a powerful blog– a real media weapon. I have a personal blog with only a few readers. Not a fair fight, but also not good to stay silent, as that implies guilt.
2) So we decided to respond– choices were to take the "high road" and speak about the issues, independent of the personalities– or to come out with a full "expose" of emails, instant messenger threads, and "evidence" to disprove his allegations. Wrestling in the mud pit and doing personal attacks would bring me down to his level and draw attention from the general Internet marketing space, as opposed to affiliates. Schoemaker will likely write another post, in addition to continue to trash my name publicly and privately. So I chose to provide a few facts on my blog and keep the tone down.
3) Major media attention is coming– so my blog is not the place to fight. I can't comment much on the FTC, except to say that they reached out to us and it was friendly—and that it's less about whistleblowing than about helping set privacy standards. I've also spoken with Time and NPR. I believe NPR Weekend Edition (this coming weekend) will have an interesting interview with me.
4) I am not a lawyer or investigative journalist– I am a professional Internet marketer and our company's focus is local, as our name implies. Not sure what the standards are for disparagement, libel, or defamation. I remember something in business law about the party not only needing to say something untrue, but for us to be able to quantify financial losses as a direct result of the behavior. The untruths are easy, but the damage to my credibility is hard to calculate. To show we covered Mr. Schoemaker's expenses to visit us, had our employees managing his Facbook whitelisted account, had the support of industry leaders such as Gillian Muessig, were operating an agency business with local and enterprise clients (as opposed to it being all free), and so forth are simple to prove.
Paul, if you have advice on how to proceed here– I'd certainly appreciate it.
And to answer a question you posed earlier– yes, I feel badly about the evil I caused in promoting deceptive mobile offers. I knew full well that teenagers were being misled about whether someone had a crush on them or had taken an IQ quiz. I was a middleman and ran most of that traffic via Tatto Media who was yet another middleman to Mobile Messenger. It's no secret that Tatto employs 2 full-time bodyguards because of the resentment caused from their offers.
Now people ask me how many bodyguards I have. Answer is none. I couldn't afford one. But what about all the riches you made spamming? I put all of it into building our local platform– a heck of a lot of engineering. At least Jeremy did say that he thought our local platform was impressive– that comment was sandwiched in his slander.
The issue I face now is whether I release the rest of the articles that I've written, as the TechCrunch piece was setting the stage for Facebook advertising abuses, but not going into detail about how particular offers work, who the players are, what can be done, and so forth.
I'm now literally concerned for my health and safety should I proceed. Perhaps the reason nobody has said anything for so long is because of the potential retribution. There is a LOT of money at stake here– perhaps more than you would know. And people who lose millions a month are not happy– many blame me as the direct cause of this.
A couple days ago, there was a shooting near our place– some guy cut off someone else in front of a Chilis. Then that guy shot him dead. People are crazy. Friends are telling me that I got my 5 minutes of fame and now it's time to shut up before something more than my reputation gets hurt. At least nobody is dead yet.
Paul– what is your advice? I honestly want to grow the local opportunity and also protect the good people at our company. If exposing the bad actors in the space isn't needed, then I will stay silent. But if I can take the high road and demonstrate where the industry is heading (the industry being online marketing), then I'd love to have that opportunity.
7:28 am
@Dennis Yu:
This is one I'll need to at least sleep on overnight.
As I'm sure you're well aware, publishing facts and evidence such as chat transcripts online is pretty much useless as they get lost in the clamoring of people calling them fake without sufficient proof.
Continuing to publish articles in places like TechCrunch, Zac Johnson's blog and having the support of people like Jeremy Palmer would seem to be the way to go here, in addition to the major media interviews (so you can get the message out to the actual potential victims of these types of crimes).
Of course it will be difficult for you to gain real trust from people, myself included, because of your past history, but as I stated in my original post I do believe that people can grow and change. Have you? Nobody can know that this quickly. It will take time.
The other course of action that your friend suggested is simpler and makes sense as well. Just ignore it and focus on building your business.
7:49 am
Paul,
Thanks for the advice. I can understand the "once a scammer, always a scammer" doubts. Perhaps more powerful than playing defense– whether to argue my case or to dismantle attacker arguments, is to become the dominant player in local online advertising– primarily via stay at home moms and individuals who work at home, but are otherwise underemployed and overeducated.
May I have the opportunity to give you a tour of our system in January? Then you can see what you think– and evaluate it from the perspective of the small business, analyst (the work at home agent), and our company? Look at how we make campaigns, the payment structure, and the transparent reporting. Even listen in on recorded calls via our call tracking system.
Though bad news is more interesting than good news, I'm counting on this positive type of publicity being more powerful for our company in the long term.
9:47 am
I believe that if Dennis has paddled the boat this far, then he should go ahead and out the major players – oh, we all know who they are – and explain how the offers work and how the game is played for the less informed, clueless and those who have been scammed.
It would do more for his credibility if he paints the complete picture with all the details.
3:21 pm
Your "angel investor, Markus Frind" claims to be taking in $750k to $1 million per month in advertising for PlentyofFish.
Many of the CPA networks are encouraging their affiliates to advertise on PlentyofFish as they are happy to accept ads for rebills (and just about any other CPA offer). Here is a direct quote from one cpa network "Did you know you can advertise rebills on Plenty of Fish still without problems? Capitalize NOW."
Some of the most deceptive 'offers' around (scams) are being advertised on PlentyofFish.com
So much for turning over a new leaf then?
And what about this from one of the posts on your blog
"Networks like OfferPal and SuperRewards don’t have long until they’re busted for what’s really going on. And if you’re a publisher doing more than $20k a month and want to do better, contact me privately– I have options for you."
Makes it seem like your main motivation for 'exposing' anything is to get publicity and clients/contacts for your own business?
3:24 pm
@John:
Interesting observations, John. Keep doing what you do.
3:26 pm
@Dennis Yu:
Dennis, I can't possibly accept an invitation like that at this point for a couple of reasons:
1) It's still unclear to me as to how trustworthy you are.
2) I'm on a steering committee for another company in that space and it would be a conflict of interest.
3:39 pm
Paul writes: "Perhaps I'm guilty of doing the same as well, but it's hard to not get upset when confronted with someone who has victimized the very type of people I try to help everyday – and who has profited handsomely from it."
I hear you on this point, and would generally agree.
On the other hand, I think you should consider what Sam Antar, a convicted con criminal, is bringing to the investment table:
http://whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com/
I have written a couple of pieces on Antar, the latest being here:
http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/the-con-and-the-professor.html
It is not possible to police confidence games without insider information.
Mr. Yu has confessed to running certain phishing scams and has explained how they have worked. It would be very unusual if Mr. Yu was the only person running such a scam. Those in the industry who wish to clean up their act will take notice, form a trade association, and blackball those merchants who continue to deceive.
Mr. Schoemaker continues to dodge the substantive accusations, which is odd for him. Usually, Mr. Schoemaker likes to be out in front making accusations of scammy behavior.
I look forward to Mr. Yu's continuing articles, as long as his attorney allows him to publish.
4:02 pm
@michael webster:
"It is not possible to police confidence games without insider information."
Good point. I've seen time and time again how many unclosed loopholes there are which make it difficult to track down essential information.
I saw your comment on the new post at ShoeMoney.com and found it strange that the person who responded seemed to overlook what you pointed out – that Jeremy stated that one of the FaceBook accounts Dennis talked about in which URLs were changed to redirect to spammy pages was his (Jeremy's) account, even though in the article Dennis never mentioned who's account it was.
1:55 am
Dennis Yu is an attention whore and a blatant liar. Evaluate the facts.
3:47 am
@Sgtryan;
Well what facts do you say Mr. Yu has lied about?
Why are they material facts?
And, what is your evidence that it is a lie?
I don't like to be pedantic, but Mr. Schomaker agreed with Mr. Yu that about whose Facebook account Mr. Yu claimed used deceptive marketing tactics.
So far, we only have Mr. Schoemaker saying that his Facebook account is being reviewed in light of Mr. Yu's allegations.
Look forward to the conclusion of this story.
5:39 pm
Just looking up to see if Weekend Edition records their shows for playback and they do here:
5:51 pm
@John:
Markus Frind has just made a post claiming that he never invested a dime into BlitzLocal here:
ShoeMoney's Post
I don't really understand this point that Markus is making:
"After reading shoemoneys post i went and looked at the operating agreement. Since I didn’t do anything required in the operating agreement I don’t see how I even could be an investor."
As a layperson it sounds strange, but there may be a perfectly logical explanation from a legal perspective.
6:02 pm
Just ran across another post that seems a bit more independent here:
http://blog.omsolutions.net/indeed-there-is-more-to-shoemoney-vs-dennis-yu/
which was a follow up to this post at the same blog:
Dennis Yu vs Shoemoney – there's more to it than you think
9:28 pm
Markus Frind (or at least someone with the username Markus Frind) has posted this at ShoeMoney's recent post:
"1. I never invested a dime into blitz local.
2. I invested in a company that was doing social media sites for charity of which dennis was a part owner. The company went under and somehow my shares somehow turned into blitzlocal shares.
3. I have never had a blitz local board meeting, I have no idea who any people in the company are other than dennis. I’ve never seen a business plan or anything else from the company.
4. My ROI was in ideas and introductions I haven’t seen a dime in return from this “investment”"
11:13 pm
Here is Markus Frind blog:
http://plentyoffish.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/shoemoneys-post/
1:36 am
@Paul, read those two stories, but I didn't think much more light was shone on this odd blow up. But, I do like Mr. Frind's observation that Affiliate West will be interesting given that he, Yu and Schoemaker are on the same panel!
2:22 am
@michael webster:
OK. I was hoping maybe this meant something to you from Markus Frind's blog:
"The company went under, and somehow my shares transfered to blizlocal, although no one elses did. I’ve never talked to anyone on the board of directors at blitzlocal or seen any business plan or spoken with any employees, although “supposidly” i’m on the board. After reading shoemoneys post i went and looked at the operating agreement. Since I didn’t do anything required in the operating agreement I don’t see how I even could be an investor."
Nitin's site was just interesting to me because he was willing to think for himself, although in his third disclaimer he stated: "I read at various posts, that Dennis screwed his employees as well. I do not condone this activity of Dennis" but didn't post any facts to back those allegations up.
3:55 am
@Paul;
Frind's blog made very no sense, from a corporate law point of view.
He invested in corporation A, run by Yu.
He claims that corporation A "folded", whatever that means, and his "investment" was transferred to Blitzlocal without his knowledge or consent.
If he was a shareholder of A, it is possible that Blitzlocal bought the shares of A, but he would have had notice.
If he lent money to A, it is possible that Blitzlocal assumed the debt, but would have had notice.
The nonsense about reading an operating agreement is even more peculiar: what operating agreement, between what parties, and why would you read that to determine if you had invested in Blitzlocal?
The only part I buy is that Frind saw no money out his investment, but Yu gave him great ideas and contacts. Oddly, according to Schoemaker, Frind referred to this as a "great ROI" which Schoemaker relied upon thinking Frind was talking about money.
4:40 am
@michael webster:
Thanks for explaining that, Michael. The wording sounded strange to me.
I had thought it was Frind who had provided Yu with contacts, but I'll doublecheck my facts on that.
8:08 am
@michael webster: Yep, you're right about "ROI was in ideas and introductions".
I just saw that in the post I did above yours.
2:21 pm
I would love to hear what Frind is going to say to Schoemaker at the Affiliate West Summit about the meaning of "ROI"!
11:39 pm
DatingCare.com has made an interesting post here.
Seems to be a lot of potentially contradictory statements being made, depending on what the actual facts are.
11:59 pm
Concerning Jeremy,
Just look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4LRFXkxlzM
10:53 pm
@Lookhere: What are you trying to say with that video. Explain please.
9:45 am
@Alex; The video is pointing out that there are ringtones advertised as free on Schoemaker's site which actually have a cost of $3/month.