Comments RSS 
Buying Your Way to the Top: An Ethical Debate (I hope)
July 16th, 2008 · Filed Under: Top Affiliate Challenge · tell powerful stories
Please comment and add your voice to this ethical debate. During Top Affiliate Challenge, contestants were allowed and even encouraged to use any and all resources they could bring to the game. These resources could include things like OPM (other people’s money), diverting their own income, contacts, and of course their own special talents and skills.
Paul of UberAffiliate.com was evidently prepared to throw down $10,000 USD for Collin LaHay to take on Jonathan Van Clute in a final showdown to win the competition. This final showdown never happened as they had planned, but nontheless, the offer was on the table.
Jonathan Van CLute, for his part, actually opened up to the team and to other contestants perhaps more than he had thought he might and share at least a few of his golden nuggets. yet he diverted a lot of his personal income for the win.
Is there any ethical difference between having someone buy you the win and buying it yourself by diverting successful campaigns and your own income to win the game?
What say you? Please post your comment and encourage your friends to do the same.
4 Responses to “Buying Your Way to the Top: An Ethical Debate (I hope)”
Leave a Reply
Insert Audio CommentRelated Posts from the Past:
- How Can The Story Lady Ronda Del Boccio Audition for the Internet Reality Show Top Affiliate Challenge As A Legally Blind Person?
- Black Hat Testimonials
- The Great Law of Attraction Debate Continues
- [Innerspace] Innerspace LIVE Author Interview: Meet Christian Teen Author Thomas Wade Bounds
- Hey Big Spender! Buying Your Way to the Top Affiliate Challenge
Ronda Del Boccio, The Story Lady of Storyation.com is an author, dynamic speaker, author coach, story coach.
She is the author of I'll Push, You Steer: The Definitive Guide to Stumbling Through Life with Blinders On
The Kama Sutra of Storytelling: Positioning, Power and Profit
and her upcoming book...
The Geometry of Success: 5 Simple Shapes that Shape Your Life
July 17th, 2008 at 12:18 am
They are completely the same in my opinion. It is a reality show, and had to be played as one. At the end of the day, the money came out of our own pockets rather than from a set budget, so ethically there is nothing wrong with either way of winning.
A little birdy told me Jonathan spent $26,000 of his own money, and Carl told me he spent over $10,000 out of pocket. If both of those two numbers are correct, Jonathan would have lost $7000 due to 50% of it going to Thor. I have no doubt if Jonathan did spend $26,000, that just by winning the show, losing that amount of money would be worth it for branding purposes.
At any rate, congrats goes to Jonathan, and whatever side of the ethical debate you are on yourself Ronda, I had a blast meeting and getting to know you and the rest of the other contestants.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I think the contestants should’ve used a set budget to pit skill against skill - not who had the bigger bank account. The show should of focused on ROI - the thing that really matters in the real world. Never the less - congrats to Van Clute!!!
July 18th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Thanks Collin & Ty - let’s hear from some others too.
I think it would be fun to see how people would do in the competition all starting from the same point.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I would have been way more inclined to kick butt from day 1 if every day it was an equal challenge on who was the best. That is how I thought the show would be before we got there, but oh well. It is all water under the bridge now.