I paid for a reviewme review on JohnChow.com and I got a trmendous amount of traffic.
If you look at this post you will see that he confirmed that he did get a lot of traffic.
He seems to be annoyed that he hasn't turned that $400 fee into a profit. John Chow's job was to do a fair review of the site and send traffic. Whether the review was fair or not is not for me to say however he did send traffic, infact, I believe he sends a lot of traffic to all the sites he reviews.
Why do I think he didn't make money through it? I think it's because of his sales page. I don't know too much about the product but I know that the atomic website is a clickbank clone and I would close any page which resembled that. It just looks like a scam (not saying it is!).
Nothing against Alvin Phang but he needs to appreciate that when you order a review you can and will get critized. I got criticism in my review but the points were valid and fair. You should take criticism like that positively and look to improve what you can. Again, all you are assured with a paid review on a high traffic blog is traffic and he did get that so I don't think he has any reason to complain.
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
I paid for a reviewme review on JohnChow.com and I got a trmendous amount of traffic.
If you look at this post you will see that he confirmed that he did get a lot of traffic.
He seems to be annoyed that he hasn't turned that $400 fee into a profit. John Chow's job was to do a fair review of the site and send traffic. Whether the review was fair or not is not for me to say however he did send traffic, infact, I believe he sends a lot of traffic to all the sites he reviews.
Why do I think he didn't make money through it? I think it's because of his sales page. I don't know too much about the product but I know that the atomic website is a clickbank clone and I would close any page which resembled that. It just looks like a scam (not saying it is!).
Nothing against Alvin Phang but he needs to appreciate that when you order a review you can and will get critized. I got criticism in my review but the points were valid and fair. You should take criticism like that positively and look to improve what you can. Again, all you are assured with a paid review on a high traffic blog is traffic and he did get that so I don't think he has any reason to complain.
Martin
· 2 years ago
Are you kidding me, Andy. Hardly an informative report - more like sour grapes to me.
What did he expect. He sent what reads like a very basic ebook on blogging to a blogger with a more advanced mindset (as well as more advanced readers) on blogging and expected a glowing review. John would have lost credibility if he had off written a positive review only to be found out that he was pushing inferior stuff onto his readers.
I think he fell for the trap that with his $400 he thought he was buying John's favor and influence, and not an unbiased review.
That's why I like ReviewMe - you can't buy a glowing review. If that ever changes, then ReviewMe will loose all credibility.
Martin
· 2 years ago
Are you kidding me, Andy. Hardly an informative report - more like sour grapes to me.
What did he expect. He sent what reads like a very basic ebook on blogging to a blogger with a more advanced mindset (as well as more advanced readers) on blogging and expected a glowing review. John would have lost credibility if he had off written a positive review only to be found out that he was pushing inferior stuff onto his readers.
I think he fell for the trap that with his $400 he thought he was buying John's favor and influence, and not an unbiased review.
That's why I like ReviewMe - you can't buy a glowing review. If that ever changes, then ReviewMe will loose all credibility.
maurizio
· 2 years ago
He just forget to look what kind of audience he's addressing to. You can't sell a newbie ebook to JC's readers.
Alvin Phang
· 2 years ago
Totally agree =)
Jez
· 2 years ago
Alvin, how have you calculated you cost per click???
You have listed TWO sites, and for each site calculated PPC against a single review price of $400.
Should you not have done $400 / traffic site 1 + traffic site 2 together?
You have two different figures for two sites both calclated against the full price of $400.... but you got traffic to both sites from one review.... or did you order two reviews???
Jez
· 2 years ago
Youve gotta be joking... JC makes his money herding a flock of ignorant mini bloggers from one scam to the next...
maurizio
· 2 years ago
He just forget to look what kind of audience he's addressing to. You can't sell a newbie ebook to JC's readers.
Alvin Phang
· 2 years ago
Totally agree =)
Jez
· 2 years ago
Alvin, how have you calculated you cost per click???
You have listed TWO sites, and for each site calculated PPC against a single review price of $400.
Should you not have done $400 / traffic site 1 + traffic site 2 together?
You have two different figures for two sites both calclated against the full price of $400.... but you got traffic to both sites from one review.... or did you order two reviews???
Jez
· 2 years ago
Youve gotta be joking... JC makes his money herding a flock of ignorant mini bloggers from one scam to the next...
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
maurizio - I would have to disagree with you. John Chow has a wide range of readers. If you read the comments on his site you will see that there are a lot of newbie bloggers and I'm sure a lot of them wouldn't know better with a lot of things (nothing against these people, theres a learning curve in web development etc).
Martin - Exactly. I think the lad has shot himself in the foot by responding in this nature. JC did what he was paid to do, infact, some may argue that he was a bit too nice about it.
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
maurizio - I would have to disagree with you. John Chow has a wide range of readers. If you read the comments on his site you will see that there are a lot of newbie bloggers and I'm sure a lot of them wouldn't know better with a lot of things (nothing against these people, theres a learning curve in web development etc).
Martin - Exactly. I think the lad has shot himself in the foot by responding in this nature. JC did what he was paid to do, infact, some may argue that he was a bit too nice about it.
Martin
· 2 years ago
Kevin - well, reading JC's review in the report I came away from it as an eBook that was very thin in all areas.
In fact, in a nice sort of way (that's more to do with the $400 review payment), John really tore it to shreds, imho ... I mean, you had half the ebook about buying a domain and setting up a basic WP install, a few free plugins and a freely available theme and a Yaro interview thrown in. No wonder so many are cynical with these info products!
Add add to that the very gimmicky sales page and what do you expect ... :-)
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
You mean you wouldn't be upset with someone using affiliate links in a review you paid for without prior arrangement?
Alvin did state that the review was fair and honest
I have seen a number of very respectable bloggers give positive reviews to what I would deem to be a competitor of Alvin's book, and I refused to review the products.
This free report gives some good advice about targeting, though there is a character to John's reviews that for some reason discourages people clicking through unless he really likes something and would use it himself.
John wasn't highly critical of the ebook, but it is something he wouldn't use or learn from.
I think it is, for want of a better word a "John Chow Groupie" effect.
Even though many in his audience might benefit from the product, because it is not something he found useful, they won't take a look.
That is an important message to advertisers. You don't just need a positive review, you have to have something John would use, or even does use to gain a real benefit.
In Alvin's case, he might have been much better off with a much shorter but still honest review of what is included.
The review isn't negative of the product, but is so full of "I don't need this" type comments, it might as well have said "This is some dodgy crappy ebook" which I don't think is what John was trying to say.
Yesterday I actually spent some time answering queries over on John Reese's blog as lots of people were having problems adding a widget to their blog. John is going to pay some guys to create special tutorial videos on how to add a widget to each blogging platform.
There are beginners who need to know this stuff and are still using blogspot because the idea of running a blog on their own domain seems too complicated.
James
· 2 years ago
I think Alvin is still improving his readership through the John Crow review... I wouldn't have gone to Alvin's blog or read his review document if it wasn't for your post on the John Crow review and Alvin's response.
So I think Alvin is a little critical of the ROI, as you can see from his graphs, page impressions are slightly up. So I'd say that Alvin is still getting exposure out of it. And perhaps no body who is reading John Crow's blog regularly will purchase from Alvin's website, but I'd say it is just a matter of time... and perhaps some reading your blog will purchase.
$400 is probably better spent on a blogger who does see more immediate benefit - the ROI will probably be quicker and more tangible! So I think Alvin's free article is useful.
Martin
· 2 years ago
Kevin - well, reading JC's review in the report I came away from it as an eBook that was very thin in all areas.
In fact, in a nice sort of way (that's more to do with the $400 review payment), John really tore it to shreds, imho ... I mean, you had half the ebook about buying a domain and setting up a basic WP install, a few free plugins and a freely available theme and a Yaro interview thrown in. No wonder so many are cynical with these info products!
Add add to that the very gimmicky sales page and what do you expect ... :-)
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
You mean you wouldn't be upset with someone using affiliate links in a review you paid for without prior arrangement?
Alvin did state that the review was fair and honest
I have seen a number of very respectable bloggers give positive reviews to what I would deem to be a competitor of Alvin's book, and I refused to review the products.
This free report gives some good advice about targeting, though there is a character to John's reviews that for some reason discourages people clicking through unless he really likes something and would use it himself.
John wasn't highly critical of the ebook, but it is something he wouldn't use or learn from.
I think it is, for want of a better word a "John Chow Groupie" effect.
Even though many in his audience might benefit from the product, because it is not something he found useful, they won't take a look.
That is an important message to advertisers. You don't just need a positive review, you have to have something John would use, or even does use to gain a real benefit.
In Alvin's case, he might have been much better off with a much shorter but still honest review of what is included.
The review isn't negative of the product, but is so full of "I don't need this" type comments, it might as well have said "This is some dodgy crappy ebook" which I don't think is what John was trying to say.
Yesterday I actually spent some time answering queries over on John Reese's blog as lots of people were having problems adding a widget to their blog. John is going to pay some guys to create special tutorial videos on how to add a widget to each blogging platform.
There are beginners who need to know this stuff and are still using blogspot because the idea of running a blog on their own domain seems too complicated.
James
· 2 years ago
I think Alvin is still improving his readership through the John Crow review... I wouldn't have gone to Alvin's blog or read his review document if it wasn't for your post on the John Crow review and Alvin's response.
So I think Alvin is a little critical of the ROI, as you can see from his graphs, page impressions are slightly up. So I'd say that Alvin is still getting exposure out of it. And perhaps no body who is reading John Crow's blog regularly will purchase from Alvin's website, but I'd say it is just a matter of time... and perhaps some reading your blog will purchase.
$400 is probably better spent on a blogger who does see more immediate benefit - the ROI will probably be quicker and more tangible! So I think Alvin's free article is useful.
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
You mean you wouldn't be upset with someone using affiliate links in a review you paid for without prior arrangement?
Andy, yes I would be annoyed about that however I did not see any reference to that in either of his posts.
I think you moving away from the main argument here. Yes, there is a market for this kind of thing as there are a lot of complete newbies out there.
Check out the last paragraph of the review
Those of us who already know the basics won’t find much new information in the Atomic Blogging eBook. However, the audio interview with Yaro was very good and I say that’s worth the $47 price in itself. Atomic Blogging comes with a risk-free 8 week money back guaranteed. Download the system and try it for the next 8 weeks. If it don’t like it for any reasons, Alvin will give you your money back and remove you from his database.
I think that's a pretty good summary of the product in question and it's fairly positive.
You are correct though, advertisers need to do a bit of research on the blog they are going to advertise on. Infact, I'd go as far as saying it's their responsiblity to do it. JC's job was to do a fair review. Personally, if I had did a review of that site I don't think I would have been as positive. I'm sure the product is worth $47 to a lot of people but the website is very very misleading in my opinion (for example, on the home page the from date is just using a script to display todays script to give the image it was written that day).
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Kevin lots of marketers use javascript for dates, you are not the intended audience ;) Nor for that matter is John It is much better to use PHP for that stuff though.
The sales letter might be slightly old style internet marketing, but a lot of the elements most likely work though they have to be tested.
Yaro also had the same situation for http://www.Blogmastermind.com , and created a separate sales letter for Darren Rouse readers, but that doesn't mean that the original sale letter didn't convert extremely well from some traffic sources.
If I was writing a sales letter and had to choose a format to suit Ewen Chia's email list or John Chow readers, I would go for Ewen Chia because he can send more traffic and drive more sales.
However I am not sure if Ewen sent a promotion, I just know he gave a testimonial.
I am not questioning whether the review was accurate or not.
There are nuances in reviews in much the same way there are nuances in copywriting.
I am sure there are ways that John could have written the review such that it drove twice as much traffic, resulted in some sales to customers who were happy, and still remained faithful to his readership.
I certainly don't feel I am moving away from the argument, as nothing I wrote stated that John was in some way dishonest. He didn't slam the product, he was positive in many ways.
JCs job wasn't to do a fair review.
JCs job was to write an honest review about the product, that would still make it appealing to the audience who would most benefit from it.
Do you really think only 5% of John Chow's readers are newbies who could benefit from it, let alone the ones who are so new they don't subscribe to feeds?
I know subscribers don't read every article, but the numbers really did seem very low to me
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
JCs job was to write an honest review about the product, that would still make it appealing to the audience who would most benefit from it.
I have to disagree with this. He is under no obligation to make it appealing, he just has to give a fair review. He could have made the whole review negative if he really wanted.
I'm sure the numbers are low because it's a product. I got a paid review on JC and I saw a great return on it but all I was looking to do was expose my blog to a new audience. It's a different kettle of fish when the reader has to actually get his credit card out.
You make a good point about those sales letters though. I'm a bit biased against them if I'm honest. Theyve been on the web for more than 10 years and they still look amateurish. As you correctly stated though, they do work. I cant hide away from that.
Kevin lots of marketers use javascript for dates, you are not the intended audience ;)
I understand I'm not the target audience but I don't believe it changes the fact that using a script for the date is correct here. Years ago I used a javascript date on a site but all I was doing was letting people know the date, this website is using the date to give the impression the letter was wrote that day. A minor gripe but valid nonetheless.
Also, he links to a google image showing 28,000 related pages. All he did was type in his name to google and he missed out the quotation marks. So the results would provide pages with his first name or second name on it. If I search for my own name I get 340,000 results via google, if you search for Andy Beard you get 1,870,000. It's things like that which I have a problem with and this kind of thing would be reviewed negatively if I had to do it (not that he ever would want me to do one after reading this haha)
:)
Pramath Malik
· 2 years ago
I have to agree with Kevin here. Review merely means to analyse something and then present "your" opinions about it. While writers are expected to write them in a manner easily comprehensible by their reader. It is not their duty to write them in an unctuous manner to the product/service being reviewed. Some of the most reviewed products are books, movies and restaurants. Whilst books, movies and restaurants rarely exibhit negatively written reviews ( we all are familiar with the ellipses ... but that is rather out of context here) they quite boisterously accent the ones that might benefit them. But if you pick up any newspaper/magazine you can quite easily tell wether the reviews are fair or just plain humbug. Thus the critical review is more of a defense mechanism on jc's part so that his readers don't feel he is inept. As far as the javascripts question is there. That is mere impoliteness on the author's part. Some of us are "cool" with it while some of us disdain it. It's just internet manners I guess.
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
You mean you wouldn't be upset with someone using affiliate links in a review you paid for without prior arrangement?
Andy, yes I would be annoyed about that however I did not see any reference to that in either of his posts.
I think you moving away from the main argument here. Yes, there is a market for this kind of thing as there are a lot of complete newbies out there.
Check out the last paragraph of the review
Those of us who already know the basics won’t find much new information in the Atomic Blogging eBook. However, the audio interview with Yaro was very good and I say that’s worth the $47 price in itself. Atomic Blogging comes with a risk-free 8 week money back guaranteed. Download the system and try it for the next 8 weeks. If it don’t like it for any reasons, Alvin will give you your money back and remove you from his database.
I think that's a pretty good summary of the product in question and it's fairly positive.
You are correct though, advertisers need to do a bit of research on the blog they are going to advertise on. Infact, I'd go as far as saying it's their responsiblity to do it. JC's job was to do a fair review. Personally, if I had did a review of that site I don't think I would have been as positive. I'm sure the product is worth $47 to a lot of people but the website is very very misleading in my opinion (for example, on the home page the from date is just using a script to display todays script to give the image it was written that day).
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Kevin lots of marketers use javascript for dates, you are not the intended audience ;) Nor for that matter is John It is much better to use PHP for that stuff though.
The sales letter might be slightly old style internet marketing, but a lot of the elements most likely work though they have to be tested.
Yaro also had the same situation for http://www.Blogmastermind.com , and created a separate sales letter for Darren Rouse readers, but that doesn't mean that the original sale letter didn't convert extremely well from some traffic sources.
If I was writing a sales letter and had to choose a format to suit Ewen Chia's email list or John Chow readers, I would go for Ewen Chia because he can send more traffic and drive more sales.
However I am not sure if Ewen sent a promotion, I just know he gave a testimonial.
I am not questioning whether the review was accurate or not.
There are nuances in reviews in much the same way there are nuances in copywriting.
I am sure there are ways that John could have written the review such that it drove twice as much traffic, resulted in some sales to customers who were happy, and still remained faithful to his readership.
I certainly don't feel I am moving away from the argument, as nothing I wrote stated that John was in some way dishonest. He didn't slam the product, he was positive in many ways.
JCs job wasn't to do a fair review.
JCs job was to write an honest review about the product, that would still make it appealing to the audience who would most benefit from it.
Do you really think only 5% of John Chow's readers are newbies who could benefit from it, let alone the ones who are so new they don't subscribe to feeds?
I know subscribers don't read every article, but the numbers really did seem very low to me
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
JCs job was to write an honest review about the product, that would still make it appealing to the audience who would most benefit from it.
I have to disagree with this. He is under no obligation to make it appealing, he just has to give a fair review. He could have made the whole review negative if he really wanted.
I'm sure the numbers are low because it's a product. I got a paid review on JC and I saw a great return on it but all I was looking to do was expose my blog to a new audience. It's a different kettle of fish when the reader has to actually get his credit card out.
You make a good point about those sales letters though. I'm a bit biased against them if I'm honest. Theyve been on the web for more than 10 years and they still look amateurish. As you correctly stated though, they do work. I cant hide away from that.
Kevin lots of marketers use javascript for dates, you are not the intended audience ;)
I understand I'm not the target audience but I don't believe it changes the fact that using a script for the date is correct here. Years ago I used a javascript date on a site but all I was doing was letting people know the date, this website is using the date to give the impression the letter was wrote that day. A minor gripe but valid nonetheless.
Also, he links to a google image showing 28,000 related pages. All he did was type in his name to google and he missed out the quotation marks. So the results would provide pages with his first name or second name on it. If I search for my own name I get 340,000 results via google, if you search for Andy Beard you get 1,870,000. It's things like that which I have a problem with and this kind of thing would be reviewed negatively if I had to do it (not that he ever would want me to do one after reading this haha)
:)
Pramath Malik
· 2 years ago
I have to agree with Kevin here. Review merely means to analyse something and then present "your" opinions about it. While writers are expected to write them in a manner easily comprehensible by their reader. It is not their duty to write them in an unctuous manner to the product/service being reviewed. Some of the most reviewed products are books, movies and restaurants. Whilst books, movies and restaurants rarely exibhit negatively written reviews ( we all are familiar with the ellipses ... but that is rather out of context here) they quite boisterously accent the ones that might benefit them. But if you pick up any newspaper/magazine you can quite easily tell wether the reviews are fair or just plain humbug. Thus the critical review is more of a defense mechanism on jc's part so that his readers don't feel he is inept. As far as the javascripts question is there. That is mere impoliteness on the author's part. Some of us are "cool" with it while some of us disdain it. It's just internet manners I guess.
Simon
· 2 years ago
I have to agree with those who put the responsibility of where you purchase reviews on the advertiser. The subject matter was an e-book about blogging - I think that covers the extent of Chow's responsibility, other than providing an honest review, obviously.
I purchased a review from him about a month ago, and had a good initial response. It produced a good surge of traffic, and a couple of hundred signups to my service. By itself, it wasn't going to help things truely take off, but it was useful to guage the response of potential users to what I had to offer at an early stage. The biggest benefit was the amount of feedback I got from his readers who started trying out the service. It helped me no end, and so my goals for the review were achieved I'd say.
I would say that it wasn't a very technical review, he focused mainly on the concept (as opposed to Andy who critiqued the mechanics a lot more!). I therefore felt that Chow's review was more useful for gaining users / gauging reader responses, whereas Andy's article was more helpful to me personally, as the developer.
I think that in itself shows that it is up to the advertiser to research the type of review you will most likely get, and decide whether it would be right for you.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Simon I suppose in some ways that is the luck of the draw, I seem to remember it was quite a positive review, more so than for other similar plugins that compete with Mediawiz services.
The review was very targeted, but more to his possibly more experienced readers. It is useful to them and free, so they jumped on it.
I don't believe in the idea that a reviewer's only duty is to give an honest review. I believe in some ways it is a reviewer's duty to try to give good value to an advertiser as well.
Sometimes that might mean using a different angle. Maybe not just what features it contains but concentrate on what could be improved.
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
I think you should look after advertisers. Personally, I dont put paid reviews in the same bracket as those who advertise on a monthly basis.
Also, you need to make sure your blogs integrity is not lost. Theres a fine line between looking after your advertisers and selling out your readers.
Simon
· 2 years ago
I have to agree with those who put the responsibility of where you purchase reviews on the advertiser. The subject matter was an e-book about blogging - I think that covers the extent of Chow's responsibility, other than providing an honest review, obviously.
I purchased a review from him about a month ago, and had a good initial response. It produced a good surge of traffic, and a couple of hundred signups to my service. By itself, it wasn't going to help things truely take off, but it was useful to guage the response of potential users to what I had to offer at an early stage. The biggest benefit was the amount of feedback I got from his readers who started trying out the service. It helped me no end, and so my goals for the review were achieved I'd say.
I would say that it wasn't a very technical review, he focused mainly on the concept (as opposed to Andy who critiqued the mechanics a lot more!). I therefore felt that Chow's review was more useful for gaining users / gauging reader responses, whereas Andy's article was more helpful to me personally, as the developer.
I think that in itself shows that it is up to the advertiser to research the type of review you will most likely get, and decide whether it would be right for you.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Simon I suppose in some ways that is the luck of the draw, I seem to remember it was quite a positive review, more so than for other similar plugins that compete with Mediawiz services.
The review was very targeted, but more to his possibly more experienced readers. It is useful to them and free, so they jumped on it.
I don't believe in the idea that a reviewer's only duty is to give an honest review. I believe in some ways it is a reviewer's duty to try to give good value to an advertiser as well.
Sometimes that might mean using a different angle. Maybe not just what features it contains but concentrate on what could be improved.
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
I think you should look after advertisers. Personally, I dont put paid reviews in the same bracket as those who advertise on a monthly basis.
Also, you need to make sure your blogs integrity is not lost. Theres a fine line between looking after your advertisers and selling out your readers.
Shawn
· 2 years ago
I, for one, am glad JC did the review. I had been debating on buying Alvin's ebook. I'm at the point where I have the "basics" down and am looking for critical remarks or more advanced help wtih my blog. I believe that exposure is what I need, and extra tips on increasing traffic appears to be what I need at this time. If I had bought that ebook, and if it was indeed mainly basics in setting up wordpress, themes, plugins, etc, I would have been very disappointed and would have requested a refund.
As revenue increases, I'll start requesting compensated reviews. I'd much rather have everything be where it needs to be than buy traffic related reviews and have nothing stick because I'm not ready.
Shawn
· 2 years ago
I, for one, am glad JC did the review. I had been debating on buying Alvin's ebook. I'm at the point where I have the "basics" down and am looking for critical remarks or more advanced help wtih my blog. I believe that exposure is what I need, and extra tips on increasing traffic appears to be what I need at this time. If I had bought that ebook, and if it was indeed mainly basics in setting up wordpress, themes, plugins, etc, I would have been very disappointed and would have requested a refund.
As revenue increases, I'll start requesting compensated reviews. I'd much rather have everything be where it needs to be than buy traffic related reviews and have nothing stick because I'm not ready.
Yaro
· 2 years ago
I think the biggest reason for low conversion is selling a product that teaches how to effectively blog for money on a site that teaches people how to blog for money.
You won't convert a lot of people simply because they receive *so much* free content from the blog already.
My experience with Darren's promotion of Blog Mastermind was similar. Darren brought in quite a few people into my program, but as a percentage of his readership it was a terrible conversion rate.
Darren's site provides so much training already on the topic Blog Mastermind is about, lots of people simply don't see the need to spend money on more information.
When I do similar promotions with Internet marketers email lists, the conversion is a lot higher and I believe this is because-
A) There are proven buyers on the list
B) They are not coming from a source that already provides them with ample info about blogging
I'd like to do some form of promotion with John one day soon too, but I don't think a paid review is the best angle for either of us. I think with a more value-add style post John could make more ongoing commissions as an affiliate than the $400 from a paid review. He just needs to bring in about 10 people into the program and he will have a new recursive income source rather than a once off hit.
Hats off to Alvin though for writing the report - I think he's doing all the right things by testing and reporting back his results. This will help build his following and enhance his credibility.
Alvin Phang
· 2 years ago
I totally agree with you on the point about bloggers not willing to pay.. I think from the review I paid I learn a big lesson not to go for blogs that gives too much FREE advice =P
Yaro
· 2 years ago
I think the biggest reason for low conversion is selling a product that teaches how to effectively blog for money on a site that teaches people how to blog for money.
You won't convert a lot of people simply because they receive *so much* free content from the blog already.
My experience with Darren's promotion of Blog Mastermind was similar. Darren brought in quite a few people into my program, but as a percentage of his readership it was a terrible conversion rate.
Darren's site provides so much training already on the topic Blog Mastermind is about, lots of people simply don't see the need to spend money on more information.
When I do similar promotions with Internet marketers email lists, the conversion is a lot higher and I believe this is because-
A) There are proven buyers on the list
B) They are not coming from a source that already provides them with ample info about blogging
I'd like to do some form of promotion with John one day soon too, but I don't think a paid review is the best angle for either of us. I think with a more value-add style post John could make more ongoing commissions as an affiliate than the $400 from a paid review. He just needs to bring in about 10 people into the program and he will have a new recursive income source rather than a once off hit.
Hats off to Alvin though for writing the report - I think he's doing all the right things by testing and reporting back his results. This will help build his following and enhance his credibility.
Alvin Phang
· 2 years ago
I totally agree with you on the point about bloggers not willing to pay.. I think from the review I paid I learn a big lesson not to go for blogs that gives too much FREE advice =P
swollenpickles
· 2 years ago
$400 seems quite steep to me. No doubt it provides a nice short term spike in traffic, but I'm not sure of its long term benefit. I'd be interested to see a review of the reviews effect 1 or 2 months after.
swollenpickles
· 2 years ago
$400 seems quite steep to me. No doubt it provides a nice short term spike in traffic, but I'm not sure of its long term benefit. I'd be interested to see a review of the reviews effect 1 or 2 months after.
Martin
· 2 years ago
I believe in some ways it is a reviewer's duty to try to give good value to an advertiser as well.
That seems to be the problem here. I don't believe it is so. A traditional review is (or should be) totally unbiased and the reviewer has full editorial control over what he thinks and says about the products.
The problem lies in that it's a "paid for" review.
The blurring of the lines between what is a review and what is an advertisement is a fine line.
If a paid-for-review is nothing more than a puff piece article (aka: an advertisement) hiding as a review then the concept of a review will quickly lose its effectiveness.
In this instance, it also depends on what the buyer wants from the review: some branding and exposure or click-throughs and actual sales.
For me, unless the reviewer falls in love with the product and says "you must buy this" to his readership then you shouldn't really be counting on actual sales coming from the review but see it more as exposing your product to a wider audience and build from that.
And as Yaro says, Alvin would have done better if he had gone into a j/v with John Chow, such as an affiliate deal, even if it means giving JC a higher commission to push the product.
On the subject of those sales letter, don't get me started... :-)
But at the end of the day, they do work if the intended target is hungry enough. For those in this business, we're jaded because we've seen and know all the tricks - but we're not the intended audience with this sales pages.
I can go through dozens upon dozens of these sales pages and pick out so many cheap tricks being used. I dig around in the source code and it's even worser. But that's an ethics things and each one of us has our own values.
Though I do think more and more of the general internet public are getting savvier to the techniques being used.
Sheesh, long comment :-) - I might have to write about it at my own blog.
Martin
· 2 years ago
I believe in some ways it is a reviewer's duty to try to give good value to an advertiser as well.
That seems to be the problem here. I don't believe it is so. A traditional review is (or should be) totally unbiased and the reviewer has full editorial control over what he thinks and says about the products.
The problem lies in that it's a "paid for" review.
The blurring of the lines between what is a review and what is an advertisement is a fine line.
If a paid-for-review is nothing more than a puff piece article (aka: an advertisement) hiding as a review then the concept of a review will quickly lose its effectiveness.
In this instance, it also depends on what the buyer wants from the review: some branding and exposure or click-throughs and actual sales.
For me, unless the reviewer falls in love with the product and says "you must buy this" to his readership then you shouldn't really be counting on actual sales coming from the review but see it more as exposing your product to a wider audience and build from that.
And as Yaro says, Alvin would have done better if he had gone into a j/v with John Chow, such as an affiliate deal, even if it means giving JC a higher commission to push the product.
On the subject of those sales letter, don't get me started... :-)
But at the end of the day, they do work if the intended target is hungry enough. For those in this business, we're jaded because we've seen and know all the tricks - but we're not the intended audience with this sales pages.
I can go through dozens upon dozens of these sales pages and pick out so many cheap tricks being used. I dig around in the source code and it's even worser. But that's an ethics things and each one of us has our own values.
Though I do think more and more of the general internet public are getting savvier to the techniques being used.
Sheesh, long comment :-) - I might have to write about it at my own blog.
Shawn
· 2 years ago
I think some people get confused and equate review to advertising. Advertising is something where you control the message because you're paying for it. A review is where you pay for a public critique, good or bad. It's up to you, the person shelling out the cash, to know the differences and to have realistic expectations about what you get from each.
Shawn
· 2 years ago
I think some people get confused and equate review to advertising. Advertising is something where you control the message because you're paying for it. A review is where you pay for a public critique, good or bad. It's up to you, the person shelling out the cash, to know the differences and to have realistic expectations about what you get from each.
Clement
· 2 years ago
Shawn, I agree with you completely.If he wanted a positive review, he should have mentioned in the first place. I am not all that familiar with reviewme but my experience from PayPerPost is that an advertizer (Alvin in this case) would opt for either a neutral or a positive review.The publisher would have all that info before accepting the offer.
Clement
· 2 years ago
Shawn, I agree with you completely.If he wanted a positive review, he should have mentioned in the first place. I am not all that familiar with reviewme but my experience from PayPerPost is that an advertizer (Alvin in this case) would opt for either a neutral or a positive review.The publisher would have all that info before accepting the offer.
Alvin Phang
· 2 years ago
I guess it is natural all the John Chow fans will have their says and say good things about John.. but anyway.. I am a businessman and the only think I care about is advertisements that converts..
I think as a blogger and a full time marketer, many bloggers fail to see that buying traffic needs to be track.
John's review was no doubt great in terms of traffic but in business sense it does not convert and I was just sharing my experience in hopes to help other aware of the problems bloggers faced when getting paid for reviews =)
But looking at more test results, I can conclude that Atomic Blogging is not good for paid reviews but more better at PPC. It was a risky test I did but hey I learn something new =)
Alvin Phang
· 2 years ago
I guess it is natural all the John Chow fans will have their says and say good things about John.. but anyway.. I am a businessman and the only think I care about is advertisements that converts..
I think as a blogger and a full time marketer, many bloggers fail to see that buying traffic needs to be track.
John's review was no doubt great in terms of traffic but in business sense it does not convert and I was just sharing my experience in hopes to help other aware of the problems bloggers faced when getting paid for reviews =)
But looking at more test results, I can conclude that Atomic Blogging is not good for paid reviews but more better at PPC. It was a risky test I did but hey I learn something new =)
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
I think some people are still missing the point.
Review = tell the truth about the product, and preferably only write reviews that relate to your audience
Paid Review = tell the truth about the product, and preferably only write reviews that relate to your audience but still give value to the person paying you
There are all kinds of ways to give value.
Does slagging off someone's sales letter really give value to a reviewer looking for a product review? Obviously if you have been asked to critique a blog or sales letter that is a different matter.
I am sure a fair percentage of John Chow's readers are hosting their blogs on blogspot and are missing out on tons of readers, repeat visitors and subscribers.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
I think some people are still missing the point.
Review = tell the truth about the product, and preferably only write reviews that relate to your audience
Paid Review = tell the truth about the product, and preferably only write reviews that relate to your audience but still give value to the person paying you
There are all kinds of ways to give value.
Does slagging off someone's sales letter really give value to a reviewer looking for a product review? Obviously if you have been asked to critique a blog or sales letter that is a different matter.
I am sure a fair percentage of John Chow's readers are hosting their blogs on blogspot and are missing out on tons of readers, repeat visitors and subscribers.
Hank
· 2 years ago
That's te first time I hear about a bad review about advertising with John, wow..
Hank
· 2 years ago
That's te first time I hear about a bad review about advertising with John, wow..
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
Paid Review = tell the truth about the product, and preferably only write reviews that relate to your audience but still give value to the person paying you
This is where I have a major difference in opinion with you. As I said before, there is a very fine line between giving value to your advertiser and selling out your readers. In my opinion the reviewing site should be reviewing the site in the same manner it would had it not been paid for.
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
Paid Review = tell the truth about the product, and preferably only write reviews that relate to your audience but still give value to the person paying you
This is where I have a major difference in opinion with you. As I said before, there is a very fine line between giving value to your advertiser and selling out your readers. In my opinion the reviewing site should be reviewing the site in the same manner it would had it not been paid for.
Josh Spaulding
· 2 years ago
but still give value to the person paying you
You're exactly right Andy!! Unfortunately, no matter how many times you harp about it, there are some people that just don't get it. These are the same people who constantly look for shortcuts and don't really care to help others.
The only thing they care about is what they can get away with.
The argument that he did nothing wrong goes two ways. Sure, he was within ReviewMe's guidelines, so if you look at it that way he did nothing wrong.
But if you consider yourself an ethical person and you honestly don't see anything wrong with John degrading every product that's in front of him, then you may want to reconsider your ethics!!!
Josh Spaulding
· 2 years ago
but still give value to the person paying you
You're exactly right Andy!! Unfortunately, no matter how many times you harp about it, there are some people that just don't get it. These are the same people who constantly look for shortcuts and don't really care to help others.
The only thing they care about is what they can get away with.
The argument that he did nothing wrong goes two ways. Sure, he was within ReviewMe's guidelines, so if you look at it that way he did nothing wrong.
But if you consider yourself an ethical person and you honestly don't see anything wrong with John degrading every product that's in front of him, then you may want to reconsider your ethics!!!
Josh Spaulding
· 2 years ago
Just to be clear my last reply wasn't directed at you Andy. I re-read it and it almost sounded like I was questioning your ethics, no way.
Josh Spaulding
· 2 years ago
Just to be clear my last reply wasn't directed at you Andy. I re-read it and it almost sounded like I was questioning your ethics, no way.
Reena Daruwalla
· 2 years ago
The contrasting views of Beard and Muldoon notwithstanding, I agree with some of the views expressed here, that it does not make too much sense to sell a product teaching you to blog on a site that it self is oriented towards teaching effective blogging. So it seems unlikely that bloggers will be willing pay what appears to be a fairly stiffish price.
Also I don’t think that it is the reviewer’s job to give “good value†to an advertiser. This is preposterous and goes to the very root of the integrity and credibility of reviewers whether paid or otherwise. This has nothing to do with John Chow detractors or his fans. Surely a reviewers’ reputation is built up on this integrity and the soundness of his ethics? That being the case how can anybody say that a paid reviewer is required to give “good value†to the person paying him.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Reena that seems like a "take the money and run" attitude.
I would then question the ethics of the reviewer in reviewing a product that isn't suitable for their readership.
If John really thinks he doesn't have anyone in his audience who could benefit from the ebook, then he really shouldn't have reviewed it.
If he thinks that there are people who would benefit from it, he should write the review in such as way that they wouldn't be put off buying it just because he wouldn't use it himself.
The difference is subtle and does not cross any ethical boundary.
Kevin maybe this will partially help you understand the point being made, the SEOmoz sale page testing.
Every single sales page is saying the same thing, but there is a variance of 300% in the conversion, and the click through data is also interesting.
A review is one step back up the traffic funnel, but it might not be a reviewer's role in circumventing the sales letter.
Another point, I am not perfect on this either, and reports such as Alvin's help me to improve the quality of the reviews I write, not just for my audience, but to try to enhance the value of the reviews to the advertisers / consultancy clients.
Reena Daruwalla
· 2 years ago
The contrasting views of Beard and Muldoon notwithstanding, I agree with some of the views expressed here, that it does not make too much sense to sell a product teaching you to blog on a site that it self is oriented towards teaching effective blogging. So it seems unlikely that bloggers will be willing pay what appears to be a fairly stiffish price.
Also I don’t think that it is the reviewer’s job to give “good value†to an advertiser. This is preposterous and goes to the very root of the integrity and credibility of reviewers whether paid or otherwise. This has nothing to do with John Chow detractors or his fans. Surely a reviewers’ reputation is built up on this integrity and the soundness of his ethics? That being the case how can anybody say that a paid reviewer is required to give “good value†to the person paying him.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Reena that seems like a "take the money and run" attitude.
I would then question the ethics of the reviewer in reviewing a product that isn't suitable for their readership.
If John really thinks he doesn't have anyone in his audience who could benefit from the ebook, then he really shouldn't have reviewed it.
If he thinks that there are people who would benefit from it, he should write the review in such as way that they wouldn't be put off buying it just because he wouldn't use it himself.
The difference is subtle and does not cross any ethical boundary.
Kevin maybe this will partially help you understand the point being made, the SEOmoz sale page testing.
Every single sales page is saying the same thing, but there is a variance of 300% in the conversion, and the click through data is also interesting.
A review is one step back up the traffic funnel, but it might not be a reviewer's role in circumventing the sales letter.
Another point, I am not perfect on this either, and reports such as Alvin's help me to improve the quality of the reviews I write, not just for my audience, but to try to enhance the value of the reviews to the advertisers / consultancy clients.
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
Josh - Go back and read the review John did for Atomic Blogging. He wrote about it very positively in my opinion and didn't degrade it like you suggested.
'The only thing they care about is what they can get away with.'
You're clearing missing the point here. JC gave a positive review. Andy thinks that he should have encouraged readers more to purchase the product. I don't think JC tried to get away with anything.
Giving biased reviews is the reason a lot of blogs have not used the reviewme system ie. too biased and it just turns into an advertisement. Which is fine if you label it as such but not when you claim it's a review (I know most reviewme reviewers tell their readers its a sponsored review)
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
Josh - Go back and read the review John did for Atomic Blogging. He wrote about it very positively in my opinion and didn't degrade it like you suggested.
'The only thing they care about is what they can get away with.'
You're clearing missing the point here. JC gave a positive review. Andy thinks that he should have encouraged readers more to purchase the product. I don't think JC tried to get away with anything.
Giving biased reviews is the reason a lot of blogs have not used the reviewme system ie. too biased and it just turns into an advertisement. Which is fine if you label it as such but not when you claim it's a review (I know most reviewme reviewers tell their readers its a sponsored review)
Ramana Rajgopaulr
· 2 years ago
Let us take this to a different level. Publishers of books send new books for reviews to various news papers and magazines. Some authors send them to other authors for reviews/comments which may even be included in the covers prior to release.
The reviewer in such cases is being approached for his opinion and honest review of the book. Just because a magazine or a newspaper pays a reviewer for the review, does not automatically imply that the review should be favorable.
In this case, since the review has been objective and has even generated traffic, I do not see any room for angst.
Ramana Rajgopaulr
· 2 years ago
Let us take this to a different level. Publishers of books send new books for reviews to various news papers and magazines. Some authors send them to other authors for reviews/comments which may even be included in the covers prior to release.
The reviewer in such cases is being approached for his opinion and honest review of the book. Just because a magazine or a newspaper pays a reviewer for the review, does not automatically imply that the review should be favorable.
In this case, since the review has been objective and has even generated traffic, I do not see any room for angst.
Josh Spaulding
· 2 years ago
Kevin, I have read the review and compared to his other "reviews" I suppose you could call that positive, but it was still degrading.
I believe you're the one missing the point here. You keep bring this back to review vs. promotion blah blah
The fact is, he was paid $400 for this review. Do you think anyone pays to be ripped apart in public? Hell no!!! If that were the case he would have just told John to do the review and email it to him.
Obviously anyone who pays this moron for a review is looking for traffic. He's an arrogant prick so he accepts the money (usually from newbies that make very little) then proceeds to tell his readers how lousy it is.
As most of his readers are extremely new to IM, it's not surprising that they take up for him though.
Maybe you'll understand in a few years, when you're at a more advanced level.
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
Your arguing the point I mentioned before. It is the advertisers duty to research the blog they want a paid review on. As you said yourself, this review was positive compared to other reviews he has done.
I have no sympathy for any blogger who pays $10 or $1000 on a blog if they do not even take 5 minutes out of their day to check some previous reviews.
Also, can you explain how he was ripped apart? He paid $400 and got a lot of traffic.
Maybe you'll understand in a few years, when you're at a more advanced level. I've been working on the web for 7 years and have been self employed for 4. I do not appreciate you suggesting im an amateur. The internet is where I make my living, I'm not suggesting that makes me more knowledgable on everything but I do have a lot of experience on the web.
The product sells for $47. His review cost $400 and he got loads of traffic, good return in my opinion. Clearly, he was annoyed because this $400 was more than what he usually spends. You need to compare that $400 with other advertising compaigns he could have got for that price.
As has been said, he might have done better with an adwords campaign.
Also, I don't think theres any reason to call John Chow a moron or an arrogant prick because you disagree with him. I disagree with a lot of what JC has done but I dont think theres any need to resort to childish name calling.
Josh Spaulding
· 2 years ago
Kevin, I have read the review and compared to his other "reviews" I suppose you could call that positive, but it was still degrading.
I believe you're the one missing the point here. You keep bring this back to review vs. promotion blah blah
The fact is, he was paid $400 for this review. Do you think anyone pays to be ripped apart in public? Hell no!!! If that were the case he would have just told John to do the review and email it to him.
Obviously anyone who pays this moron for a review is looking for traffic. He's an arrogant prick so he accepts the money (usually from newbies that make very little) then proceeds to tell his readers how lousy it is.
As most of his readers are extremely new to IM, it's not surprising that they take up for him though.
Maybe you'll understand in a few years, when you're at a more advanced level.
Kevin Muldoon
· 2 years ago
Your arguing the point I mentioned before. It is the advertisers duty to research the blog they want a paid review on. As you said yourself, this review was positive compared to other reviews he has done.
I have no sympathy for any blogger who pays $10 or $1000 on a blog if they do not even take 5 minutes out of their day to check some previous reviews.
Also, can you explain how he was ripped apart? He paid $400 and got a lot of traffic.
Maybe you'll understand in a few years, when you're at a more advanced level. I've been working on the web for 7 years and have been self employed for 4. I do not appreciate you suggesting im an amateur. The internet is where I make my living, I'm not suggesting that makes me more knowledgable on everything but I do have a lot of experience on the web.
The product sells for $47. His review cost $400 and he got loads of traffic, good return in my opinion. Clearly, he was annoyed because this $400 was more than what he usually spends. You need to compare that $400 with other advertising compaigns he could have got for that price.
As has been said, he might have done better with an adwords campaign.
Also, I don't think theres any reason to call John Chow a moron or an arrogant prick because you disagree with him. I disagree with a lot of what JC has done but I dont think theres any need to resort to childish name calling.
Josh Spaulding
· 2 years ago
Kevin,
I won't go further with this, as it's obvious we are both set on our opinion. I probably went a little too far calling you an amateur, but as far as my thoughts of John Chow, I call it how I see it. My opinion of him isn't based on this review, it's based on a collections of things he does that are just wrong!
I'm not perfect and I'll be the first to admit that, but I believe in a certain level of morals in Business and in life. John Chow doesn't display any type of moral behavior whatsoever, UNLESS it benefits him!
Josh Spaulding
· 2 years ago
Kevin,
I won't go further with this, as it's obvious we are both set on our opinion. I probably went a little too far calling you an amateur, but as far as my thoughts of John Chow, I call it how I see it. My opinion of him isn't based on this review, it's based on a collections of things he does that are just wrong!
I'm not perfect and I'll be the first to admit that, but I believe in a certain level of morals in Business and in life. John Chow doesn't display any type of moral behavior whatsoever, UNLESS it benefits him!
NTG (Natasha Khanna)
· 2 years ago
When Alvin Phang paid $400 for a review i think he wasn't expecting a fair review in return, his main concern was traffic and sales. I think John Chow's review was quite fair, balanced and gave an insight into the product so why doubt his credibility just because it didn't turn out very profitable for Alvin. Frankly i can't understand whether the whole fuss is about the $400 or not getting enough traffic or sales. In any case Alvin should have researched Chows audience before paying him to write a review. So basically this free report is nothing but bitterness from not getting an overtly positive review. Maybe not from his e-book or its review but, Alvin Phang definitely got more traffic and publicity for his free report on John Chow.
NTG (Natasha Khanna)
· 2 years ago
When Alvin Phang paid $400 for a review i think he wasn't expecting a fair review in return, his main concern was traffic and sales. I think John Chow's review was quite fair, balanced and gave an insight into the product so why doubt his credibility just because it didn't turn out very profitable for Alvin. Frankly i can't understand whether the whole fuss is about the $400 or not getting enough traffic or sales. In any case Alvin should have researched Chows audience before paying him to write a review. So basically this free report is nothing but bitterness from not getting an overtly positive review. Maybe not from his e-book or its review but, Alvin Phang definitely got more traffic and publicity for his free report on John Chow.
chrisat
· 2 years ago
I am against the concept of paying and getting a review .Reviews are basically given in order to guide one the truth about a product.But hopefully John Chow was true in his review event though he was paid for it.So there's no point in Alvin having a bitter feeling.
chrisat
· 2 years ago
I am against the concept of paying and getting a review .Reviews are basically given in order to guide one the truth about a product.But hopefully John Chow was true in his review event though he was paid for it.So there's no point in Alvin having a bitter feeling.
BillyWarhol
· 2 years ago
It really is ALL about the $$$!
I think both Alvin + John give good down to Earth Blogging Tips for all Bloggers + especially those damn Newbies!!
Cheers! Billy ;))
BillyWarhol
· 2 years ago
It really is ALL about the $$$!
I think both Alvin + John give good down to Earth Blogging Tips for all Bloggers + especially those damn Newbies!!
Cheers! Billy ;))
Geetha K C
· 2 years ago
I think Mr.Andy Beard has written impartially and without hiding the truths. I think, this controversy itself will send more traffic to Alvin's blog. Even if JC review was more on the negative side, AP should not get upset. What he should have done is to spend his energy on improving himself instead of publishing a Free Report on JC's Review, which is again on the negative side. What one has to learn is to appreciate negative comments also and it is a difficult lesson to learn, but try hard and make it!
Geetha K C
· 2 years ago
I think Mr.Andy Beard has written impartially and without hiding the truths. I think, this controversy itself will send more traffic to Alvin's blog. Even if JC review was more on the negative side, AP should not get upset. What he should have done is to spend his energy on improving himself instead of publishing a Free Report on JC's Review, which is again on the negative side. What one has to learn is to appreciate negative comments also and it is a difficult lesson to learn, but try hard and make it!
All Comments
If you look at this post you will see that he confirmed that he did get a lot of traffic.
He seems to be annoyed that he hasn't turned that $400 fee into a profit. John Chow's job was to do a fair review of the site and send traffic. Whether the review was fair or not is not for me to say however he did send traffic, infact, I believe he sends a lot of traffic to all the sites he reviews.
Why do I think he didn't make money through it? I think it's because of his sales page. I don't know too much about the product but I know that the atomic website is a clickbank clone and I would close any page which resembled that. It just looks like a scam (not saying it is!).
Nothing against Alvin Phang but he needs to appreciate that when you order a review you can and will get critized. I got criticism in my review but the points were valid and fair. You should take criticism like that positively and look to improve what you can. Again, all you are assured with a paid review on a high traffic blog is traffic and he did get that so I don't think he has any reason to complain.
If you look at this post you will see that he confirmed that he did get a lot of traffic.
He seems to be annoyed that he hasn't turned that $400 fee into a profit. John Chow's job was to do a fair review of the site and send traffic. Whether the review was fair or not is not for me to say however he did send traffic, infact, I believe he sends a lot of traffic to all the sites he reviews.
Why do I think he didn't make money through it? I think it's because of his sales page. I don't know too much about the product but I know that the atomic website is a clickbank clone and I would close any page which resembled that. It just looks like a scam (not saying it is!).
Nothing against Alvin Phang but he needs to appreciate that when you order a review you can and will get critized. I got criticism in my review but the points were valid and fair. You should take criticism like that positively and look to improve what you can. Again, all you are assured with a paid review on a high traffic blog is traffic and he did get that so I don't think he has any reason to complain.
What did he expect. He sent what reads like a very basic ebook on blogging to a blogger with a more advanced mindset (as well as more advanced readers) on blogging and expected a glowing review. John would have lost credibility if he had off written a positive review only to be found out that he was pushing inferior stuff onto his readers.
I think he fell for the trap that with his $400 he thought he was buying John's favor and influence, and not an unbiased review.
That's why I like ReviewMe - you can't buy a glowing review. If that ever changes, then ReviewMe will loose all credibility.
What did he expect. He sent what reads like a very basic ebook on blogging to a blogger with a more advanced mindset (as well as more advanced readers) on blogging and expected a glowing review. John would have lost credibility if he had off written a positive review only to be found out that he was pushing inferior stuff onto his readers.
I think he fell for the trap that with his $400 he thought he was buying John's favor and influence, and not an unbiased review.
That's why I like ReviewMe - you can't buy a glowing review. If that ever changes, then ReviewMe will loose all credibility.
You can't sell a newbie ebook to JC's readers.
You have listed TWO sites, and for each site calculated PPC against a single review price of $400.
Should you not have done $400 / traffic site 1 + traffic site 2 together?
You have two different figures for two sites both calclated against the full price of $400.... but you got traffic to both sites from one review.... or did you order two reviews???
You can't sell a newbie ebook to JC's readers.
You have listed TWO sites, and for each site calculated PPC against a single review price of $400.
Should you not have done $400 / traffic site 1 + traffic site 2 together?
You have two different figures for two sites both calclated against the full price of $400.... but you got traffic to both sites from one review.... or did you order two reviews???
Martin - Exactly. I think the lad has shot himself in the foot by responding in this nature. JC did what he was paid to do, infact, some may argue that he was a bit too nice about it.
Martin - Exactly. I think the lad has shot himself in the foot by responding in this nature. JC did what he was paid to do, infact, some may argue that he was a bit too nice about it.
In fact, in a nice sort of way (that's more to do with the $400 review payment), John really tore it to shreds, imho ... I mean, you had half the ebook about buying a domain and setting up a basic WP install, a few free plugins and a freely available theme and a Yaro interview thrown in. No wonder so many are cynical with these info products!
Add add to that the very gimmicky sales page and what do you expect ... :-)
Alvin did state that the review was fair and honest
I have seen a number of very respectable bloggers give positive reviews to what I would deem to be a competitor of Alvin's book, and I refused to review the products.
This free report gives some good advice about targeting, though there is a character to John's reviews that for some reason discourages people clicking through unless he really likes something and would use it himself.
John wasn't highly critical of the ebook, but it is something he wouldn't use or learn from.
I think it is, for want of a better word a "John Chow Groupie" effect.
Even though many in his audience might benefit from the product, because it is not something he found useful, they won't take a look.
That is an important message to advertisers. You don't just need a positive review, you have to have something John would use, or even does use to gain a real benefit.
In Alvin's case, he might have been much better off with a much shorter but still honest review of what is included.
The review isn't negative of the product, but is so full of "I don't need this" type comments, it might as well have said "This is some dodgy crappy ebook" which I don't think is what John was trying to say.
Yesterday I actually spent some time answering queries over on John Reese's blog as lots of people were having problems adding a widget to their blog.
John is going to pay some guys to create special tutorial videos on how to add a widget to each blogging platform.
There are beginners who need to know this stuff and are still using blogspot because the idea of running a blog on their own domain seems too complicated.
So I think Alvin is a little critical of the ROI, as you can see from his graphs, page impressions are slightly up. So I'd say that Alvin is still getting exposure out of it. And perhaps no body who is reading John Crow's blog regularly will purchase from Alvin's website, but I'd say it is just a matter of time... and perhaps some reading your blog will purchase.
$400 is probably better spent on a blogger who does see more immediate benefit - the ROI will probably be quicker and more tangible! So I think Alvin's free article is useful.
In fact, in a nice sort of way (that's more to do with the $400 review payment), John really tore it to shreds, imho ... I mean, you had half the ebook about buying a domain and setting up a basic WP install, a few free plugins and a freely available theme and a Yaro interview thrown in. No wonder so many are cynical with these info products!
Add add to that the very gimmicky sales page and what do you expect ... :-)
Alvin did state that the review was fair and honest
I have seen a number of very respectable bloggers give positive reviews to what I would deem to be a competitor of Alvin's book, and I refused to review the products.
This free report gives some good advice about targeting, though there is a character to John's reviews that for some reason discourages people clicking through unless he really likes something and would use it himself.
John wasn't highly critical of the ebook, but it is something he wouldn't use or learn from.
I think it is, for want of a better word a "John Chow Groupie" effect.
Even though many in his audience might benefit from the product, because it is not something he found useful, they won't take a look.
That is an important message to advertisers. You don't just need a positive review, you have to have something John would use, or even does use to gain a real benefit.
In Alvin's case, he might have been much better off with a much shorter but still honest review of what is included.
The review isn't negative of the product, but is so full of "I don't need this" type comments, it might as well have said "This is some dodgy crappy ebook" which I don't think is what John was trying to say.
Yesterday I actually spent some time answering queries over on John Reese's blog as lots of people were having problems adding a widget to their blog.
John is going to pay some guys to create special tutorial videos on how to add a widget to each blogging platform.
There are beginners who need to know this stuff and are still using blogspot because the idea of running a blog on their own domain seems too complicated.
So I think Alvin is a little critical of the ROI, as you can see from his graphs, page impressions are slightly up. So I'd say that Alvin is still getting exposure out of it. And perhaps no body who is reading John Crow's blog regularly will purchase from Alvin's website, but I'd say it is just a matter of time... and perhaps some reading your blog will purchase.
$400 is probably better spent on a blogger who does see more immediate benefit - the ROI will probably be quicker and more tangible! So I think Alvin's free article is useful.
Andy, yes I would be annoyed about that however I did not see any reference to that in either of his posts.
I think you moving away from the main argument here. Yes, there is a market for this kind of thing as there are a lot of complete newbies out there.
Check out the last paragraph of the review
Those of us who already know the basics won’t find much new information in the Atomic Blogging eBook. However, the audio interview with Yaro was very good and I say that’s worth the $47 price in itself. Atomic Blogging comes with a risk-free 8 week money back guaranteed. Download the system and try it for the next 8 weeks. If it don’t like it for any reasons, Alvin will give you your money back and remove you from his database.
I think that's a pretty good summary of the product in question and it's fairly positive.
You are correct though, advertisers need to do a bit of research on the blog they are going to advertise on. Infact, I'd go as far as saying it's their responsiblity to do it. JC's job was to do a fair review. Personally, if I had did a review of that site I don't think I would have been as positive. I'm sure the product is worth $47 to a lot of people but the website is very very misleading in my opinion (for example, on the home page the from date is just using a script to display todays script to give the image it was written that day).
It is much better to use PHP for that stuff though.
The sales letter might be slightly old style internet marketing, but a lot of the elements most likely work though they have to be tested.
Yaro also had the same situation for http://www.Blogmastermind.com , and created a separate sales letter for Darren Rouse readers, but that doesn't mean that the original sale letter didn't convert extremely well from some traffic sources.
If I was writing a sales letter and had to choose a format to suit Ewen Chia's email list or John Chow readers, I would go for Ewen Chia because he can send more traffic and drive more sales.
However I am not sure if Ewen sent a promotion, I just know he gave a testimonial.
I am not questioning whether the review was accurate or not.
There are nuances in reviews in much the same way there are nuances in copywriting.
I am sure there are ways that John could have written the review such that it drove twice as much traffic, resulted in some sales to customers who were happy, and still remained faithful to his readership.
I certainly don't feel I am moving away from the argument, as nothing I wrote stated that John was in some way dishonest.
He didn't slam the product, he was positive in many ways.
JCs job wasn't to do a fair review.
JCs job was to write an honest review about the product, that would still make it appealing to the audience who would most benefit from it.
Do you really think only 5% of John Chow's readers are newbies who could benefit from it, let alone the ones who are so new they don't subscribe to feeds?
I know subscribers don't read every article, but the numbers really did seem very low to me
I have to disagree with this. He is under no obligation to make it appealing, he just has to give a fair review. He could have made the whole review negative if he really wanted.
I'm sure the numbers are low because it's a product. I got a paid review on JC and I saw a great return on it but all I was looking to do was expose my blog to a new audience. It's a different kettle of fish when the reader has to actually get his credit card out.
You make a good point about those sales letters though. I'm a bit biased against them if I'm honest. Theyve been on the web for more than 10 years and they still look amateurish. As you correctly stated though, they do work. I cant hide away from that.
Kevin lots of marketers use javascript for dates, you are not the intended audience ;)
I understand I'm not the target audience but I don't believe it changes the fact that using a script for the date is correct here. Years ago I used a javascript date on a site but all I was doing was letting people know the date, this website is using the date to give the impression the letter was wrote that day. A minor gripe but valid nonetheless.
Also, he links to a google image showing 28,000 related pages. All he did was type in his name to google and he missed out the quotation marks. So the results would provide pages with his first name or second name on it. If I search for my own name I get 340,000 results via google, if you search for Andy Beard you get 1,870,000. It's things like that which I have a problem with and this kind of thing would be reviewed negatively if I had to do it (not that he ever would want me to do one after reading this haha)
:)
Some of the most reviewed products are books, movies and restaurants. Whilst books, movies and restaurants rarely exibhit negatively written reviews ( we all are familiar with the ellipses ... but that is rather out of context here) they quite boisterously accent the ones that might benefit them.
But if you pick up any newspaper/magazine you can quite easily tell wether the reviews are fair or just plain humbug. Thus the critical review is more of a defense mechanism on jc's part so that his readers don't feel he is inept.
As far as the javascripts question is there. That is mere impoliteness on the author's part. Some of us are "cool" with it while some of us disdain it. It's just internet manners I guess.
Andy, yes I would be annoyed about that however I did not see any reference to that in either of his posts.
I think you moving away from the main argument here. Yes, there is a market for this kind of thing as there are a lot of complete newbies out there.
Check out the last paragraph of the review
Those of us who already know the basics won’t find much new information in the Atomic Blogging eBook. However, the audio interview with Yaro was very good and I say that’s worth the $47 price in itself. Atomic Blogging comes with a risk-free 8 week money back guaranteed. Download the system and try it for the next 8 weeks. If it don’t like it for any reasons, Alvin will give you your money back and remove you from his database.
I think that's a pretty good summary of the product in question and it's fairly positive.
You are correct though, advertisers need to do a bit of research on the blog they are going to advertise on. Infact, I'd go as far as saying it's their responsiblity to do it. JC's job was to do a fair review. Personally, if I had did a review of that site I don't think I would have been as positive. I'm sure the product is worth $47 to a lot of people but the website is very very misleading in my opinion (for example, on the home page the from date is just using a script to display todays script to give the image it was written that day).
It is much better to use PHP for that stuff though.
The sales letter might be slightly old style internet marketing, but a lot of the elements most likely work though they have to be tested.
Yaro also had the same situation for http://www.Blogmastermind.com , and created a separate sales letter for Darren Rouse readers, but that doesn't mean that the original sale letter didn't convert extremely well from some traffic sources.
If I was writing a sales letter and had to choose a format to suit Ewen Chia's email list or John Chow readers, I would go for Ewen Chia because he can send more traffic and drive more sales.
However I am not sure if Ewen sent a promotion, I just know he gave a testimonial.
I am not questioning whether the review was accurate or not.
There are nuances in reviews in much the same way there are nuances in copywriting.
I am sure there are ways that John could have written the review such that it drove twice as much traffic, resulted in some sales to customers who were happy, and still remained faithful to his readership.
I certainly don't feel I am moving away from the argument, as nothing I wrote stated that John was in some way dishonest.
He didn't slam the product, he was positive in many ways.
JCs job wasn't to do a fair review.
JCs job was to write an honest review about the product, that would still make it appealing to the audience who would most benefit from it.
Do you really think only 5% of John Chow's readers are newbies who could benefit from it, let alone the ones who are so new they don't subscribe to feeds?
I know subscribers don't read every article, but the numbers really did seem very low to me
I have to disagree with this. He is under no obligation to make it appealing, he just has to give a fair review. He could have made the whole review negative if he really wanted.
I'm sure the numbers are low because it's a product. I got a paid review on JC and I saw a great return on it but all I was looking to do was expose my blog to a new audience. It's a different kettle of fish when the reader has to actually get his credit card out.
You make a good point about those sales letters though. I'm a bit biased against them if I'm honest. Theyve been on the web for more than 10 years and they still look amateurish. As you correctly stated though, they do work. I cant hide away from that.
Kevin lots of marketers use javascript for dates, you are not the intended audience ;)
I understand I'm not the target audience but I don't believe it changes the fact that using a script for the date is correct here. Years ago I used a javascript date on a site but all I was doing was letting people know the date, this website is using the date to give the impression the letter was wrote that day. A minor gripe but valid nonetheless.
Also, he links to a google image showing 28,000 related pages. All he did was type in his name to google and he missed out the quotation marks. So the results would provide pages with his first name or second name on it. If I search for my own name I get 340,000 results via google, if you search for Andy Beard you get 1,870,000. It's things like that which I have a problem with and this kind of thing would be reviewed negatively if I had to do it (not that he ever would want me to do one after reading this haha)
:)
Some of the most reviewed products are books, movies and restaurants. Whilst books, movies and restaurants rarely exibhit negatively written reviews ( we all are familiar with the ellipses ... but that is rather out of context here) they quite boisterously accent the ones that might benefit them.
But if you pick up any newspaper/magazine you can quite easily tell wether the reviews are fair or just plain humbug. Thus the critical review is more of a defense mechanism on jc's part so that his readers don't feel he is inept.
As far as the javascripts question is there. That is mere impoliteness on the author's part. Some of us are "cool" with it while some of us disdain it. It's just internet manners I guess.
I purchased a review from him about a month ago, and had a good initial response. It produced a good surge of traffic, and a couple of hundred signups to my service. By itself, it wasn't going to help things truely take off, but it was useful to guage the response of potential users to what I had to offer at an early stage. The biggest benefit was the amount of feedback I got from his readers who started trying out the service. It helped me no end, and so my goals for the review were achieved I'd say.
I would say that it wasn't a very technical review, he focused mainly on the concept (as opposed to Andy who critiqued the mechanics a lot more!). I therefore felt that Chow's review was more useful for gaining users / gauging reader responses, whereas Andy's article was more helpful to me personally, as the developer.
I think that in itself shows that it is up to the advertiser to research the type of review you will most likely get, and decide whether it would be right for you.
The review was very targeted, but more to his possibly more experienced readers. It is useful to them and free, so they jumped on it.
I don't believe in the idea that a reviewer's only duty is to give an honest review.
I believe in some ways it is a reviewer's duty to try to give good value to an advertiser as well.
Sometimes that might mean using a different angle. Maybe not just what features it contains but concentrate on what could be improved.
Also, you need to make sure your blogs integrity is not lost. Theres a fine line between looking after your advertisers and selling out your readers.
I purchased a review from him about a month ago, and had a good initial response. It produced a good surge of traffic, and a couple of hundred signups to my service. By itself, it wasn't going to help things truely take off, but it was useful to guage the response of potential users to what I had to offer at an early stage. The biggest benefit was the amount of feedback I got from his readers who started trying out the service. It helped me no end, and so my goals for the review were achieved I'd say.
I would say that it wasn't a very technical review, he focused mainly on the concept (as opposed to Andy who critiqued the mechanics a lot more!). I therefore felt that Chow's review was more useful for gaining users / gauging reader responses, whereas Andy's article was more helpful to me personally, as the developer.
I think that in itself shows that it is up to the advertiser to research the type of review you will most likely get, and decide whether it would be right for you.
The review was very targeted, but more to his possibly more experienced readers. It is useful to them and free, so they jumped on it.
I don't believe in the idea that a reviewer's only duty is to give an honest review.
I believe in some ways it is a reviewer's duty to try to give good value to an advertiser as well.
Sometimes that might mean using a different angle. Maybe not just what features it contains but concentrate on what could be improved.
Also, you need to make sure your blogs integrity is not lost. Theres a fine line between looking after your advertisers and selling out your readers.
As revenue increases, I'll start requesting compensated reviews. I'd much rather have everything be where it needs to be than buy traffic related reviews and have nothing stick because I'm not ready.
As revenue increases, I'll start requesting compensated reviews. I'd much rather have everything be where it needs to be than buy traffic related reviews and have nothing stick because I'm not ready.
You won't convert a lot of people simply because they receive *so much* free content from the blog already.
My experience with Darren's promotion of Blog Mastermind was similar. Darren brought in quite a few people into my program, but as a percentage of his readership it was a terrible conversion rate.
Darren's site provides so much training already on the topic Blog Mastermind is about, lots of people simply don't see the need to spend money on more information.
When I do similar promotions with Internet marketers email lists, the conversion is a lot higher and I believe this is because-
A) There are proven buyers on the list
B) They are not coming from a source that already provides them with ample info about blogging
I'd like to do some form of promotion with John one day soon too, but I don't think a paid review is the best angle for either of us. I think with a more value-add style post John could make more ongoing commissions as an affiliate than the $400 from a paid review. He just needs to bring in about 10 people into the program and he will have a new recursive income source rather than a once off hit.
Hats off to Alvin though for writing the report - I think he's doing all the right things by testing and reporting back his results. This will help build his following and enhance his credibility.
You won't convert a lot of people simply because they receive *so much* free content from the blog already.
My experience with Darren's promotion of Blog Mastermind was similar. Darren brought in quite a few people into my program, but as a percentage of his readership it was a terrible conversion rate.
Darren's site provides so much training already on the topic Blog Mastermind is about, lots of people simply don't see the need to spend money on more information.
When I do similar promotions with Internet marketers email lists, the conversion is a lot higher and I believe this is because-
A) There are proven buyers on the list
B) They are not coming from a source that already provides them with ample info about blogging
I'd like to do some form of promotion with John one day soon too, but I don't think a paid review is the best angle for either of us. I think with a more value-add style post John could make more ongoing commissions as an affiliate than the $400 from a paid review. He just needs to bring in about 10 people into the program and he will have a new recursive income source rather than a once off hit.
Hats off to Alvin though for writing the report - I think he's doing all the right things by testing and reporting back his results. This will help build his following and enhance his credibility.
That seems to be the problem here. I don't believe it is so. A traditional review is (or should be) totally unbiased and the reviewer has full editorial control over what he thinks and says about the products.
The problem lies in that it's a "paid for" review.
The blurring of the lines between what is a review and what is an advertisement is a fine line.
If a paid-for-review is nothing more than a puff piece article (aka: an advertisement) hiding as a review then the concept of a review will quickly lose its effectiveness.
In this instance, it also depends on what the buyer wants from the review: some branding and exposure or click-throughs and actual sales.
For me, unless the reviewer falls in love with the product and says "you must buy this" to his readership then you shouldn't really be counting on actual sales coming from the review but see it more as exposing your product to a wider audience and build from that.
And as Yaro says, Alvin would have done better if he had gone into a j/v with John Chow, such as an affiliate deal, even if it means giving JC a higher commission to push the product.
On the subject of those sales letter, don't get me started... :-)
But at the end of the day, they do work if the intended target is hungry enough. For those in this business, we're jaded because we've seen and know all the tricks - but we're not the intended audience with this sales pages.
I can go through dozens upon dozens of these sales pages and pick out so many cheap tricks being used. I dig around in the source code and it's even worser. But that's an ethics things and each one of us has our own values.
Though I do think more and more of the general internet public are getting savvier to the techniques being used.
Sheesh, long comment :-) - I might have to write about it at my own blog.
That seems to be the problem here. I don't believe it is so. A traditional review is (or should be) totally unbiased and the reviewer has full editorial control over what he thinks and says about the products.
The problem lies in that it's a "paid for" review.
The blurring of the lines between what is a review and what is an advertisement is a fine line.
If a paid-for-review is nothing more than a puff piece article (aka: an advertisement) hiding as a review then the concept of a review will quickly lose its effectiveness.
In this instance, it also depends on what the buyer wants from the review: some branding and exposure or click-throughs and actual sales.
For me, unless the reviewer falls in love with the product and says "you must buy this" to his readership then you shouldn't really be counting on actual sales coming from the review but see it more as exposing your product to a wider audience and build from that.
And as Yaro says, Alvin would have done better if he had gone into a j/v with John Chow, such as an affiliate deal, even if it means giving JC a higher commission to push the product.
On the subject of those sales letter, don't get me started... :-)
But at the end of the day, they do work if the intended target is hungry enough. For those in this business, we're jaded because we've seen and know all the tricks - but we're not the intended audience with this sales pages.
I can go through dozens upon dozens of these sales pages and pick out so many cheap tricks being used. I dig around in the source code and it's even worser. But that's an ethics things and each one of us has our own values.
Though I do think more and more of the general internet public are getting savvier to the techniques being used.
Sheesh, long comment :-) - I might have to write about it at my own blog.
I think as a blogger and a full time marketer, many bloggers fail to see that buying traffic needs to be track.
John's review was no doubt great in terms of traffic but in business sense it does not convert and I was just sharing my experience in hopes to help other aware of the problems bloggers faced when getting paid for reviews =)
But looking at more test results, I can conclude that Atomic Blogging is not good for paid reviews but more better at PPC. It was a risky test I did but hey I learn something new =)
I think as a blogger and a full time marketer, many bloggers fail to see that buying traffic needs to be track.
John's review was no doubt great in terms of traffic but in business sense it does not convert and I was just sharing my experience in hopes to help other aware of the problems bloggers faced when getting paid for reviews =)
But looking at more test results, I can conclude that Atomic Blogging is not good for paid reviews but more better at PPC. It was a risky test I did but hey I learn something new =)
Review = tell the truth about the product, and preferably only write reviews that relate to your audience
Paid Review = tell the truth about the product, and preferably only write reviews that relate to your audience but still give value to the person paying you
There are all kinds of ways to give value.
Does slagging off someone's sales letter really give value to a reviewer looking for a product review? Obviously if you have been asked to critique a blog or sales letter that is a different matter.
I am sure a fair percentage of John Chow's readers are hosting their blogs on blogspot and are missing out on tons of readers, repeat visitors and subscribers.
Review = tell the truth about the product, and preferably only write reviews that relate to your audience
Paid Review = tell the truth about the product, and preferably only write reviews that relate to your audience but still give value to the person paying you
There are all kinds of ways to give value.
Does slagging off someone's sales letter really give value to a reviewer looking for a product review? Obviously if you have been asked to critique a blog or sales letter that is a different matter.
I am sure a fair percentage of John Chow's readers are hosting their blogs on blogspot and are missing out on tons of readers, repeat visitors and subscribers.
This is where I have a major difference in opinion with you. As I said before, there is a very fine line between giving value to your advertiser and selling out your readers. In my opinion the reviewing site should be reviewing the site in the same manner it would had it not been paid for.
This is where I have a major difference in opinion with you. As I said before, there is a very fine line between giving value to your advertiser and selling out your readers. In my opinion the reviewing site should be reviewing the site in the same manner it would had it not been paid for.
You're exactly right Andy!! Unfortunately, no matter how many times you harp about it, there are some people that just don't get it. These are the same people who constantly look for shortcuts and don't really care to help others.
The only thing they care about is what they can get away with.
The argument that he did nothing wrong goes two ways. Sure, he was within ReviewMe's guidelines, so if you look at it that way he did nothing wrong.
But if you consider yourself an ethical person and you honestly don't see anything wrong with John degrading every product that's in front of him, then you may want to reconsider your ethics!!!
You're exactly right Andy!! Unfortunately, no matter how many times you harp about it, there are some people that just don't get it. These are the same people who constantly look for shortcuts and don't really care to help others.
The only thing they care about is what they can get away with.
The argument that he did nothing wrong goes two ways. Sure, he was within ReviewMe's guidelines, so if you look at it that way he did nothing wrong.
But if you consider yourself an ethical person and you honestly don't see anything wrong with John degrading every product that's in front of him, then you may want to reconsider your ethics!!!
Also I don’t think that it is the reviewer’s job to give “good value†to an advertiser. This is preposterous and goes to the very root of the integrity and credibility of reviewers whether paid or otherwise. This has nothing to do with John Chow detractors or his fans. Surely a reviewers’ reputation is built up on this integrity and the soundness of his ethics? That being the case how can anybody say that a paid reviewer is required to give “good value†to the person paying him.
I would then question the ethics of the reviewer in reviewing a product that isn't suitable for their readership.
If John really thinks he doesn't have anyone in his audience who could benefit from the ebook, then he really shouldn't have reviewed it.
If he thinks that there are people who would benefit from it, he should write the review in such as way that they wouldn't be put off buying it just because he wouldn't use it himself.
The difference is subtle and does not cross any ethical boundary.
Kevin maybe this will partially help you understand the point being made, the SEOmoz sale page testing.
Every single sales page is saying the same thing, but there is a variance of 300% in the conversion, and the click through data is also interesting.
A review is one step back up the traffic funnel, but it might not be a reviewer's role in circumventing the sales letter.
Another point, I am not perfect on this either, and reports such as Alvin's help me to improve the quality of the reviews I write, not just for my audience, but to try to enhance the value of the reviews to the advertisers / consultancy clients.
Also I don’t think that it is the reviewer’s job to give “good value†to an advertiser. This is preposterous and goes to the very root of the integrity and credibility of reviewers whether paid or otherwise. This has nothing to do with John Chow detractors or his fans. Surely a reviewers’ reputation is built up on this integrity and the soundness of his ethics? That being the case how can anybody say that a paid reviewer is required to give “good value†to the person paying him.
I would then question the ethics of the reviewer in reviewing a product that isn't suitable for their readership.
If John really thinks he doesn't have anyone in his audience who could benefit from the ebook, then he really shouldn't have reviewed it.
If he thinks that there are people who would benefit from it, he should write the review in such as way that they wouldn't be put off buying it just because he wouldn't use it himself.
The difference is subtle and does not cross any ethical boundary.
Kevin maybe this will partially help you understand the point being made, the SEOmoz sale page testing.
Every single sales page is saying the same thing, but there is a variance of 300% in the conversion, and the click through data is also interesting.
A review is one step back up the traffic funnel, but it might not be a reviewer's role in circumventing the sales letter.
Another point, I am not perfect on this either, and reports such as Alvin's help me to improve the quality of the reviews I write, not just for my audience, but to try to enhance the value of the reviews to the advertisers / consultancy clients.
'The only thing they care about is what they can get away with.'
You're clearing missing the point here. JC gave a positive review. Andy thinks that he should have encouraged readers more to purchase the product. I don't think JC tried to get away with anything.
Giving biased reviews is the reason a lot of blogs have not used the reviewme system ie. too biased and it just turns into an advertisement. Which is fine if you label it as such but not when you claim it's a review (I know most reviewme reviewers tell their readers its a sponsored review)
'The only thing they care about is what they can get away with.'
You're clearing missing the point here. JC gave a positive review. Andy thinks that he should have encouraged readers more to purchase the product. I don't think JC tried to get away with anything.
Giving biased reviews is the reason a lot of blogs have not used the reviewme system ie. too biased and it just turns into an advertisement. Which is fine if you label it as such but not when you claim it's a review (I know most reviewme reviewers tell their readers its a sponsored review)
The reviewer in such cases is being approached for his opinion and honest review of the book. Just because a magazine or a newspaper pays a reviewer for the review, does not automatically imply that the review should be favorable.
In this case, since the review has been objective and has even generated traffic, I do not see any room for angst.
The reviewer in such cases is being approached for his opinion and honest review of the book. Just because a magazine or a newspaper pays a reviewer for the review, does not automatically imply that the review should be favorable.
In this case, since the review has been objective and has even generated traffic, I do not see any room for angst.
I believe you're the one missing the point here. You keep bring this back to review vs. promotion blah blah
The fact is, he was paid $400 for this review. Do you think anyone pays to be ripped apart in public? Hell no!!! If that were the case he would have just told John to do the review and email it to him.
Obviously anyone who pays this moron for a review is looking for traffic. He's an arrogant prick so he accepts the money (usually from newbies that make very little) then proceeds to tell his readers how lousy it is.
As most of his readers are extremely new to IM, it's not surprising that they take up for him though.
Maybe you'll understand in a few years, when you're at a more advanced level.
I have no sympathy for any blogger who pays $10 or $1000 on a blog if they do not even take 5 minutes out of their day to check some previous reviews.
Also, can you explain how he was ripped apart? He paid $400 and got a lot of traffic.
Maybe you'll understand in a few years, when you're at a more advanced level. I've been working on the web for 7 years and have been self employed for 4. I do not appreciate you suggesting im an amateur. The internet is where I make my living, I'm not suggesting that makes me more knowledgable on everything but I do have a lot of experience on the web.
The product sells for $47. His review cost $400 and he got loads of traffic, good return in my opinion. Clearly, he was annoyed because this $400 was more than what he usually spends. You need to compare that $400 with other advertising compaigns he could have got for that price.
As has been said, he might have done better with an adwords campaign.
Also, I don't think theres any reason to call John Chow a moron or an arrogant prick because you disagree with him. I disagree with a lot of what JC has done but I dont think theres any need to resort to childish name calling.
I believe you're the one missing the point here. You keep bring this back to review vs. promotion blah blah
The fact is, he was paid $400 for this review. Do you think anyone pays to be ripped apart in public? Hell no!!! If that were the case he would have just told John to do the review and email it to him.
Obviously anyone who pays this moron for a review is looking for traffic. He's an arrogant prick so he accepts the money (usually from newbies that make very little) then proceeds to tell his readers how lousy it is.
As most of his readers are extremely new to IM, it's not surprising that they take up for him though.
Maybe you'll understand in a few years, when you're at a more advanced level.
I have no sympathy for any blogger who pays $10 or $1000 on a blog if they do not even take 5 minutes out of their day to check some previous reviews.
Also, can you explain how he was ripped apart? He paid $400 and got a lot of traffic.
Maybe you'll understand in a few years, when you're at a more advanced level. I've been working on the web for 7 years and have been self employed for 4. I do not appreciate you suggesting im an amateur. The internet is where I make my living, I'm not suggesting that makes me more knowledgable on everything but I do have a lot of experience on the web.
The product sells for $47. His review cost $400 and he got loads of traffic, good return in my opinion. Clearly, he was annoyed because this $400 was more than what he usually spends. You need to compare that $400 with other advertising compaigns he could have got for that price.
As has been said, he might have done better with an adwords campaign.
Also, I don't think theres any reason to call John Chow a moron or an arrogant prick because you disagree with him. I disagree with a lot of what JC has done but I dont think theres any need to resort to childish name calling.
I won't go further with this, as it's obvious we are both set on our opinion. I probably went a little too far calling you an amateur, but as far as my thoughts of John Chow, I call it how I see it. My opinion of him isn't based on this review, it's based on a collections of things he does that are just wrong!
I'm not perfect and I'll be the first to admit that, but I believe in a certain level of morals in Business and in life. John Chow doesn't display any type of moral behavior whatsoever, UNLESS it benefits him!
I won't go further with this, as it's obvious we are both set on our opinion. I probably went a little too far calling you an amateur, but as far as my thoughts of John Chow, I call it how I see it. My opinion of him isn't based on this review, it's based on a collections of things he does that are just wrong!
I'm not perfect and I'll be the first to admit that, but I believe in a certain level of morals in Business and in life. John Chow doesn't display any type of moral behavior whatsoever, UNLESS it benefits him!
I think both Alvin + John give good down to Earth Blogging Tips for all Bloggers + especially those damn Newbies!!
Cheers! Billy ;))
I think both Alvin + John give good down to Earth Blogging Tips for all Bloggers + especially those damn Newbies!!
Cheers! Billy ;))