Andy Beard - Internet Business Systems Discussion - Latest Comments in John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Contamination — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:49:02 -0000

I still say that John Chow is on the money.

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Contamination — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:49:02 -0000

I still say that John Chow is on the money.

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Jez — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:26:50 -0000

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???

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Jez — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:26:50 -0000

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???

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Jez — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:23:49 -0000

Youve gotta be joking... JC makes his money herding a flock of ignorant mini bloggers from one scam to the next...

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Jez — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:23:49 -0000

Youve gotta be joking... JC makes his money herding a flock of ignorant mini bloggers from one scam to the next...

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Geetha K C — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:15:45 -0000

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!

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Geetha K C — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:15:45 -0000

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

BillyWarhol — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:35:28 -0000

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 ;))

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

BillyWarhol — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:35:28 -0000

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 ;))

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

chrisat — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:54:12 -0000

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.

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

chrisat — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:54:12 -0000

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

NTG (Natasha Khanna) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:05:51 -0000

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.

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

NTG (Natasha Khanna) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:05:51 -0000

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Josh Spaulding — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:22:14 -0000

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!

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Josh Spaulding — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:22:14 -0000

Kevin,

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Kevin Muldoon — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:28:59 -0000

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.

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Kevin Muldoon — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:28:59 -0000

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.

As has been said, he might have done better with an adwords campaign.

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Josh Spaulding — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:58:46 -0000

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.

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Josh Spaulding — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:58:46 -0000

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

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.

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Pramath Malik — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:53:51 -0000

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.

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Pramath Malik — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:53:51 -0000

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

AndyBeard — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:06:53 -0000

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.

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

AndyBeard — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:06:53 -0000

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.

Re: John Chow Slammed In Free Report

Ramana Rajgopaulr — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:57:31 -0000

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.