Another Updated 'We All Need to Know This!"

[BethCooks4U]

Before we judge others we have to be aware that they might not be aware that they are even one of those that has a link to their site. Someone put a link to mine on their site without my knowledge (I don't even know the person) and never even gave me the optioin of opting out!

Hopefully he will honor my request to take me off!

 

[Admin Greg]

Before we judge others we have to be aware that they might not be aware that they are even one of those that has a link to their site. Someone put a link to mine on their site without my knowledge (I don't even know the person) and never even gave me the optioin of opting out!

Hopefully he will honor my request to take me off!

Beth, I hope he does take it off per your request. However this is just the nature and beauty of the internet. As I've said before if you don't want people linking to your site then either password protect it or simply don't have a site because linking is what makes the internet work. I get the feeling that pampered chef is scaring people into thinking that website linking is wrong and bad. No one ever needs permission to link two different sites together because there is no "web law" per say. Things are a little different for people in PC because you sign a contract with them restricting what you can do. The problem is when a person under contract conflicts with someone not under contract. Thus PC will always lose when it comes to demanding that a site owner not under contract take down a link. For example, I could too add every consultants site via links and PC could do nothing to me because I'm not under contract and there is no web law requiring me to obtain permission.

 

[Admin Greg]

I don't understand what the issue is. This is actually a great policy that protects each of us, especially directors. If you will go to google and enter pampered chef, you will find the first one or two results will be personal websites. You can place your order there or sign as a new recruit. These are things that should go through the home office and be given out as home office referrals, based upon location. Directors have begun to get fewer and fewer home office leads, and I would be that this is because people are going to the links to personal web sites of people they don't know. The personal web site was intended to be a tool ton increase your personal sales to people you know and have networked with. To allow a select few to profit from their websites at the expense of the other consultants was not fair, and I think that the company should be commended for looking out for all consultants.

I think you are a little confused. Being in the google search index is fine. PC doesn't have a problem with that. It's actually extremely easy to stop google from indexing a site, but PC doesn't seem to do it. PC just doesn't want people advertising their websites via direct linking on other sites or through advertising tools. There is nothing a consultant can do to get out of google. PC has to do it directly.

 

[ChefJillPC]

No guest specialsOn the topic of not having the guest specials for individual on-line orders...I see this as similar to the host-only items we had -- fortunately for only a brief time. I understand the concept of having certain things only available for certain people as an incentive. However, I think the host-only items crossed the line into coercion. If I ever have to do that to book shows, my 10-year PC career will be over! I figure if someone is willing to pay full price for something, they should be able to buy it. Some people just do not want to host a show, and they shouldn't be basically forced into it in order to get certain items. There are enough people that DO want to host -- I'd rather work with them. For those who just want to spend money -- that's fine, too!

I'm hoping this "no guest special" thing will go the way of the host-only items...

 

[MSmith]

..... I get the feeling that pampered chef is scaring people into thinking that website linking is wrong and bad. No one ever needs permission to link two different sites together because there is no "web law" per say. Things are a little different for people in PC because you sign a contract with them restricting what you can do. The problem is when a person under contract conflicts with someone not under contract. Thus PC will always lose when it comes to demanding that a site owner not under contract take down a link. For example, I could too add every consultants site via links and PC could do nothing to me because I'm not under contract and there is no web law requiring me to obtain permission.

This is what disturbs me...the policing of this particular part of the policy is aimed at making the consultant suffer and/or be afraid b/c PC (or Richard) knows that they can't make those not under contract do anything.

Like I said before though, this has got to be only the first step.

 

[chrissyk]

Not judging

Before we judge others we have to be aware that they might not be aware that they are even one of those that has a link to their site.

Beth,

I hope you weren't thinking I was judging people just by asking the questions I did earlier. I was simply pointing out a feature of this message board that I had discovered last night and wondered if anybody thought it was OK or not OK. I think it's great, but don't think that the home office will agree. I personally think the whole thing about not being able to include it in signatures on here or on your own or your friends own personal non-PC web sites is silly, but it's not my decision and I will abide by the rules as they are set. Being very new to PC I find it extremely useful to look at other consultants web sites and get ideas from them and would never judge anybody for having theirs listed here on their profile.

 

[Sethea]

Don't Worrry...All,
I understand that Richard Laiche recently sent this email to some folks:
<Start>
Hi,
It has come to our attention that a gentleman by the name of Seth Anderson has included a link to your Pampered Chef personal
Web site on his own personal Web site, which is listed below:
http://www.meettheandersons.com/Pampered_Chef.htm
We realize that Mr. Anderson may have done this without your knowledge, but we wanted to bring it to your attention because it is a violation of the Internet advertising policies. The new policies on linking to your personal Web site that were implemented on December 20, 2005 state that linking to personal Pampered Chef Web sites is now prohibited by Consultants of all levels. This includes both sponsored links and banner ads that you pay for, as well as non-sponsored links that you don�t pay for.
As you will read on his site, nor he or his wife are Consultants with the Pampered Chef. He completely disagrees with the Internet advertising polices and has taken it upon himself to locate as many Consultant Web sites as he can and put them on his site.
We have pleaded with Seth to please remove these links as they are a violation of the advertising policies but he refuses to comply. All Consultants that have links to their personal Web sites on his site are being notified because these links may cause your Web site to rank high in search engines, which is also a violation. The new personal Web site linking policies will actively be enforced beginning February 1, 2006. Random audits of links to personal Web sites will begin on this date as well and may cause your online ordering feature to be temporarily disabled if this particular link is not removed from his site.
We are asking that you please send an e-mail to Seth Anderson at [email protected] and ask that he remove your link no later than the deadline given above. Please copy me on your notice to him so that we have the correspondence on file that you did indeed contact him in case he decides not to comply.
Thank you,
Richard Laiche
Solution Center Representative
The Pampered Chef
1-888-OUR-CHEF (687-2433) Option 3
<end>

Ok... First, Richard did plead with me to remove the links and I did. I then re-listed the links AFTER Richard gave me permission to do so.

Second, He says that I am locating and listing as many sites as possible as if this is a big task. All one has to do is search Google for site:www.pamperedchef.biz to get a list of 13,000+ pampered chef websites.

Third, Richard has a monumental task ahead of him if he is really going to locate all of the links on the internet and ban the site owners of such links. If you do another google seach for "www.pamperedchef.biz" you'll get about 110,000 links. Assuming 13k of those pages are pamperedchef.biz sites, there are then 97,000 additional references to pc websites of which the majority are in the form of "illegal" links. It would take Richy years to contact, follow up with, and then ban every one of those consultants. (Imagine how many pots and pans you all are needing to sell to pay for Richard's salary, just so he can sit around and plan his QUEST AGAINST THE REPS.)

Fourth, the website listings in Google are not there because of me, I GOT the links from Google. The listings will stay in Google even if they were not listed on my site.

Fifth, Richard won't cancel your site because of my links. Think about it - I have well over 1,000 links on the site. Do you really think they would tick off all of those reps over something that isn't even in their control? Richard is just simply lying to and threating PC reps to try to scare them for whatever reason.

Sixth, remember folks, Richard works because you sell. YOU pay his salary. This company wouldn't have a pot to stir in if it weren't for each and every one of you working so hard. To think that Richard would cut off his nose to spite his face shows how little thought he has put into his communications.

If I were you...
I would write to Richard, and his boss and whoever else you may know at PC and tell them that you wish the company would spend it's time building up the company rather than trying to tear down the morale and effort of it's reps.

Good Luck!
Seth

 

[WendyAebi]

these links may cause your Web site to rank high in search engines, which is also a violation.

Huh?? We cannot *pay* to have our sites get listed prominently on a search engine. Could someone please explain how it's a violation for my site to simply rank high?? I mean, the way Google works is the more hits a website gets, the higher it's listed. What does that violate?

Honestly, I am so tired of this whole situation. It's a tempest in a teapot. If PC contacts me for being in violation, I'll address it at that time. I've done what is reasonable to comply with what I understand but it seems even once the new policy came out, it is still evolving, based on what Richard emailed Seth. Nothing turns up in a search engine unless you know my name in the first place. And my name, clearly, belongs to me.

 

[luvs2sellit]

Seth,
You really need to find something to occupy your time!! You are not associated with PC at all other than trying to stir a pot. Trouble maker. I could completely understand if you or your wife were consultants and want to stand your ground. But I really don't understand all the time you have devoted to this issue. So, move on already. I also think that there is nothing but the finest business people working at PC home office. I have always been treated with extreme proffessionalism by them and honored for my hard work. Go toot your horn somewhere else where people want to hear it.

 

[Admin Greg]

Huh?? We cannot *pay* to have our sites get listed prominently on a search engine. Could someone please explain how it's a violation for my site to simply rank high?? I mean, the way Google works is the more hits a website gets, the higher it's listed. What does that violate?

Google has a very complex search algorithm. The algorithm is a mathematical tool that calculates every websites "weight", the more it weighs the higher the site is ranked. The algorithm is tweaked and changed almost every week by tens of workers at google with multiple PhD. Google does not announce how their algorithm works or how you can weight your site, but there are rumors and theories, One of these theories is that the more websites that link to a site will add weight. Consultants who are web saavy and know this and have the resources to get linked on other sites will thus have an advantage on google, that is what PC is trying to discourage.

The problem is that you can theoretically rank well even without any or many sites linking to you. Google is a mysterious search engines that updates almost daily and you can't control or predict how it will rank things with accuracy. One of the major problems is that because your PC sites are basicly integrated into the PC corporate page it automaticly gets a nice ranking because the PC corporate page is ranked well.

 

[WoodenSpoon]

Before we judge others we have to be aware that they might not be aware that they are even one of those that has a link to their site. Someone put a link to mine on their site without my knowledge (I don't even know the person)

Beth, I didn't find your site on Seth Anderson's directory of http://www.meettheandersons.com/Pampered_Chef.htm, but I did see it on this page: http://t456.com/collectibles/comments.htm. Apparently, you ordered something from this store and sent them an email about it. You included your PC web site in your email (as the Home Office has encouraged us all to do) and this company included it when they quoted your positive feedback on their web site.

OK, so now you are in violation of the policy. You did nothing wrong. In fact, you did exactly what the HO told you to do. But that doesn't matter. You are in violation. Strike One. That one link is enough to get you listed in Google and other search engines. Strike Two. Being in Google might be enough for someone else (like Anderson) to list you on yet another web site. Strike Three... You're out!

This is a perfect illustration of why the policy is unworkable. You can do everything right, and still get in trouble.

I think the Home Office was trying to level the playing field (as I said in this discussion thread - click here) but I don't think they considered all the implications. I hope PCHO is reading this forum and comes to understand why people are so upset.

 

[BethCooks4U]

http://t456.com/collectibles/comments.htm. Apparently, you ordered something from this store and sent them an email about it. You included your PC web site in your email (as the Home Office has encouraged us all to do) and this company included it when they quoted your positive feedback on their web site.

This "bethcooks4u" reference is not me. I chose this for my "name" on Chef Success and did not know that someone had it as their website address with Pampered Chef.