Updates from December, 2010 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • NegBox 7:20 pm on December 15, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: bevomedia, ppvspy   

    PPVSpy Purchased and Reviewed – The Sky Isn’t Falling 

    I bought a PPVspy “perpetual” license from BevoMedia on Friday morning five minutes after Mike Chiasson sent me a text message about it. Interested in an unbiased no-affiliate-links capsule review? Read on.

    And no, I’m not biased in trying to justify to myself my purchase – Lets get that out of the way.

    The way I make decisions is: Fast, once and over – This was no different – And part of choosing the $999 one-time payment option boils down to not wasting time re-evaluating the tool constantly. Once and done.

    So the first thing I saw when I accessed the tool was… Ho-hum.

    I have a box that runs some of these pop-up toolbars so I already peek at what folks are doing out there – Is this tool better than my own research?

    A bit of background – Before getting into PPV, I was doing PPC with Google, Yahoo and Bing and using a tool called PPCBully. PPCBully is really a top-notch tool, yet it stopped being useful to me – never mind the “warning” I got from Google, the real problems with PPCBully were somewhere else – and they happen to PPVSpy too.

    PPVSpy will give you a nice sorted listing of what pop-ups it has seen the most. Slight problem – Not just the most popular pops, the entire majority of them, are from two sources I don’t want: 1 – Advertisers going direct to the PPV network  and 2 – direct-linking noobs. So this nice sorted list, instead of telling you what works, just tells you where people are spending money.

    1 – Sit back and think about that last point for a second – it is the fatal flaw I found on PPCBully too. Its the cashflow model. If you are a lead brokerage firm, and have an offer on an affiliate network where you pay idiots like me $5 per e-mail and address, you have a ton more margin (plus less middlemen) and a ton of leverage to get a massive discount at the PPV network. The spread between what you as a direct advertiser can afford versus what an affiliate marketer can, is very wide… Sometimes you find an offer has an exclusive deal when you try to advertise it and the network tells you it can’t accept your ads because they have an exclusive agreement – pretty upfront and not much sleuthing there. Either way, if your funnel or cashflow model doesn’t match what you’re “spying” on, then it isn’t really useful.

    2 – Direct-linkers. It can be hard to tell at first sight someone who is direct-linking apart from the owner of the offer, yet not impossible – just look how they’re getting to the offer (direct or via network) and what if any affiliate ID they use. Judging by this, there is a deluge of direct-linkers. This is actually easy to see when you have the toolbar installed – Direct-linking is everywhere. These are usually new PPV users and are losing money – Wanna know which URLs they’re losing money on? Go right ahead. If you’re making bank direct linking, good for you – it never works for me.

    In this area of finding profitable stuff PPVSpy (just like PPCBully) gets a ton of “noise” and very little “signal” simply because “signal” to me is someone who matches my business model for a particular niche and is being successful. Everything else is noise… And there is an awful lot of noise that literally drowns out the signal. In niches you’re familiar with, or for targets you know, you can -with some effort- extract some signal from the noise.

    PPVSpy will also give you a nice breakdown of offers and niches… So I thought – “Awesome, lets see if I can jump on a niche I know very little about, like dating…”

    So I open the Dating niche pop-up thumbnails and see… Well, I have no fucking clue what I’m seeing… And therein lies the problem… I can’t tell apart what is a direct-linked/advertiser offer from an affiliate landing page, let alone figure out which one is working. – The reason is simple, I haven’t been spending the past two weeks looking at dating offers and their landing pages on different networks, and know didly about them. The same goes for practically every niche I haven’t been researching already. This makes the task of getting some “signal” (ie: info on popups that work) from that “noise” (everything else) impossible – you can’t tell it apart until you go do your normal research.

    So does it have any good points? Yes, of course… I’m learning a ton from different niches on how offers are run. … This tool is great for breaking out of “Pop-up block” and seeing things a bit differently.

    Is some of what I see something I can “copy, paste and bank“? No. I can’t just decide I’m going into a niche without doing the real research – its a guaranteed epic fail. There may be something I can use in niches I’m already researching or new ideas I can port from other niches – This tool is excellent for that. … This isn’t exactly push-button marketing.

    What does it really do for me? It accelerates and augments my research.

    Do I still have to do the same research? Less so – The difference is I can feel more confident of my conclusions faster and get to market faster – that’s my bottom line.

    Is it worth $1k ?Absolutely – Where else can you learn from the market itself and keep your finger on the pulse of what’s going on in so many niches at once while in your pajamas?

    Will it pay for itself? Don’t be silly, of course not. You have to do real work to recover the money.

    Enough talk, more action!

     
    • Mike Chiasson 1:32 am on December 16, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      I think a case study from newb to campaign is needed here!

    • Gamekeeper 11:27 am on December 16, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Excellent clean review, thanks. Just what i needed.

      PPV traffic can be used for arbitraging monetization of sites beyond just cpa offers too.

      • Slave Rat 12:47 pm on December 16, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks. Its a very flexible traffic source.

    • Sam 6:53 am on December 31, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Great post, and I would say that for me, direct linking has
      worked much better than building landers because I specifically
      pick offers that fit in a pop, instead of having the call to action
      outside of the fold.

    • Sans Juan 12:15 am on June 2, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Most people don’t know it but you can use PPV and Banners to generate “likes” and “friends” to your facebook page. Check out the article at (www)(dot)hotbusinessdeals(dot)info.


  • Gratuitous Eye Candy




  • NegBox 7:58 pm on December 10, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: holidays   

    Avoid Getting Swindled This Holiday Season 

    If you haven’t read Robert Cialdini’s masterpiece: “Influence”, you’re a tool. I can even tell you what tool you would be… You’d be a plunger, ready to dive into a toilet full of shit – My shit to be specific.

    In this little story below there is a tale of how massive amounts of people get screwed, along with an opportunity for you.

    Quote straight from Robert Cialdini’s “Influence” book:

    So the toy manufacturers are faced with a dilemma: how to keep sales high during the peak season and, at the same time, retain a healthy demand for toys in the immediately following months. Their difficulty certainly doesn’t lie in motivating kids to want more toys after Christmas. The problem lies in motivating postholiday spent-out parents to buy another plaything for their already toy-glutted children. What could the toy companies possibly do to produce that unlikely behavior? Some have tried greatly increased advertising campaigns, others have reduced prices during the slack period, but neither of those standard sales devices has proved successful. Both tactics are costly, and have been ineffective in increasing sales to desired levels. Parents are simply not in a toy-buying mood, and the influences of advertising or reduced expense are not enough to shake that stony resistance.

    Certain large toy manufacturers, however, think they have found a solution. It’s an ingenious one, involving no more than a normal advertising expense and an un-derstanding of the powerful pull of the need for consistency. My first hint of the way the toy companies’ strategy worked came after I fell for it and then, in true patsy form, fell for it again.It was January, and I was in the town’s largest toy store. After purchasing all too many gifts there for my son a month before, I had sworn not to enter that store or any like it for a long, long time. Yet there I was, not only in the diabolic place but also in the process of buying my son another expensive toy—a big, electric road-race set. In front of the road-race display I happened to meet a former neighbor who was buying his son the same toy. The odd thing was that we almost never saw each other anymore. In fact, the last time had been a year earlier in the same store when we were both buying our sons an expensive post-Christmas gift—that time a robot that walked, talked, and laid waste. We laughed about our strange pattern of seeing each other only once a year at the same time, in the same place, while doing the same thing. Later that day, I mentioned the coincidence to a friend who, it turned out, had once worked in the toy business.

    “No coincidence,” he said knowingly.

    “What do you mean, ‘No coincidence’?”

    “Look,” he said, “let me ask you a couple of questions about the road-race set you bought this year. First, did you promise your son that he’d get one for Christmas?”

    “Well, yes I did. Christopher had seen a bunch of ads for them on the Saturday morning cartoon shows and said that was what he wanted for Christmas. I saw a couple of ads myself and it looked like fun; so I said OK.”

    “Strike one,” he announced. “Now for my second question. When you went to buy one, did you find all the stores sold out?”

    “That’s right, I did! The stores said they’d ordered some but didn’t know when they’d get any more in. So I had to buy Christopher some other toys to make up for the road-race set. But how did you know?”

    “Strike two,” he said. “Just let me ask one more question. Didn’t this same sort of thing happen the year before with the robot toy?” Wait a minute … you’re right. That’s just what happened. This is incredible. How did you know?” No psychic powers; I just happen to know how several of the big toy companies jack up their January and February sales. They start prior to Christmas with attractive TV ads for certain special toys. The kids, naturally, want what they see and extract Christmas promises for these items from their parents. Now here’s where the genius of the companies’ plan comes in: They undersupply the stores with the toys they’ve gotten the parents to promise. Most parents find those toys sold out and are forced to substitute other toys of equal value. The toy manufacturers, of course, make a point of supplying the stores with plenty of these substitutes. Then, after Christmas, the companies start running the ads again for the other, special toys. That juices up the kids to want those toys more than ever. They go running to their parents whining, ‘You promised, you promised,’ and the adults go trudging off to the store to live up dutifully to their words.”

    “Where,” I said, beginning to seethe now, “they meet other parents they haven’t seen for a year, falling for the same trick, right?”

    “Right. Uh, where are you going?”

    “I’m going to take the road-race set right back to the store.” I was so angry I was nearly shouting.

    “Wait. Think for a minute first. Why did you buy it this morning?”

    “Because I didn’t want to let Christopher down and because I wanted to teach him that promises are to be lived up to.”

    “Well, has any of that changed? Look, if you take his toy away now, he won’t understand why. He’ll just know that his father broke a promise to him. Is that what you want?”

    “No,” I said, sighing, “I guess not. So, you’re telling me that the toy companies doubled their profits on me for the past two years, and I never even knew it; and now that I do, I’m still trapped—by my own words. So, what you’re really telling me is, ‘Strike three.’ ” He nodded, “And you’re out.”

    In the years since, I have observed a variety of parental toy-buying sprees similar to the one I experienced during that particular holiday season—for Beanie Babies, Tickle Me Elmo dolls, Furbies, etc. But, historically, the one that best fits the pattern is that of the Cabbage Patch Kids, $25 dolls that were promoted heavily during mid-1980s Christmas seasons but were woefully undersupplied to stores. Some of the consequences were a government false advertising charge against the Kids’ maker for continuing to advertise dolls that were not available; frenzied groups of adults battling at toy outlets or paying up to $700 apiece at auction for dolls they had promised their children; and an annual $150 million in sales that extended well beyond the Christmas months. During the 1998 holiday season, the least available toy that everyone wanted was the Furby, created by a division of toy giant Hasbro. When asked what frustrated, Furby-less parents should tell their kids, a Hasbro spokeswoman advised the kind of promise that has profited toy manufacturers for decades, “I’ll try, but if I can’t get it for you now, I’ll get it for you later” (Tooher, 1998).

    There are a couple of things you can do with this info, other than not promising toys that will be in short supply. One of those things would be to figure out what toys will be in short supply, get there first and bank on eBay. Another would be to catch these parents looking for these toys during the holiday season and offer an alternative. Another would be to re-target these parents AFTER the holiday seasons with, say.. An Amazon affiliate link – I can already see the landing page “Remember the toy you promised? Its available NOW”…

    Jesus saves, everybody else uses MasterCard.

     
    • Mike 7:25 pm on December 11, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Wicked site man, mixes my 2 favorite things together, porn and internet marketing! Great content too

      • Slave Rat 3:57 pm on December 12, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks! I read your blog post about CPV. I haven’t been able to see a DirectCPV pop yet (I installed some video thing that didn’t work) – I’ll have to try babelfish. Thanks for the tip.


  • Gratuitous Eye Candy




  • NegBox 5:22 pm on December 7, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    Video Boss Shitstorm and The Salty Droid 

    This is one of those posts I know I will regret within minutes…

    A while back I started reading The Salty Droid’s blog.

    Honestly, I don’t get it. The guy behind The Salty Droid is funny and brilliant – I laughed my ass off with his videos.

    What I don’t get is how “The Syndicate” are totally evil scumbags.

    I just listened to 90 minutes out of two hours of a Syndicate conference call The Salty Droid posted on his blog. I was really hoping to find some really juicy stuff – You know, killing kittens and human sacrifices to Cthulhu. All I found was a couple of guys trying to figure out how to do their product launch to get the most money – Their products may be good, or they may be shit – They’re probably shit, yet that’s not for me to judge. What I can make a judgment call on is the tone of the conversation and their intentions.

    Yes, they sell an overpriced dream. And they use many of science’s best marketing tactics available. And they are fairly well organized, to the point they can surround you with the message. Almost like a true cult… So? Life is chock-full of friends, and also brimming with people trying to fuck you over. What else is news? They belong to the “People trying to fuck you over” category – If we lived in the world of “The Invention of Lying”, then I would be shocked, as it is, these guys are kiddie candy thiefs – Why so much hate?

    I was hoping to hear how they were going to fuck people over by having them hand over their retirement funds in exchange for the philosopher’s stone – or something like Enron, or like Jim Jones and “The People’s Temple”, and really all they talk about is how to structure the launch so it sells more. I was hoping to hear how they were going to take the money and run to Bermuda. Or how they were going to escape the FBI. Or how they were going to embezzle ClickBank. Jeez, at the very least I was hoping to hear them talk about their customers in a condescending tone! Not even. WTF. Where is the video of Sekhmet drinking the blood of Syndicate  adepts?

    Cthulhu
     
    • Matthias 1:45 pm on December 9, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Why should you regret this post? I also discovered the Salty Droid some while ago and thought it was funny and useful to get some background information about some of the supposedly “big gurus” in the internet marketing business. Interesting to see how much money you can still pull with this stuff. By the way, who started this “I Make Money Online By Telling People How I Make Money Online” thing, it wasn’t John Chow was it? :-D

      • Slave Rat 5:03 pm on December 9, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        You’ll see – it never fails. It is indeed amazing what they do – at the same time these cronies are just ants crawling around the mouth of the shithole – a shithole that every time I thought I had seen the very bottom, I was wrong. I dare you to even peek under the hood of the cesspool of astrology.


  • Gratuitous Eye Candy




  • NegBox 8:14 pm on December 6, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Storm on Demand   

    Retargeting is the newest craze. You visit a site, then that advertiser can target you wherever you go across some advertising networks – like Google.

    It starts to get very creepy and ridiculous after a while, though. The bald dude from Storm on Demand has been following me around the net for over a week – I see him several times a day. I’m already a customer – this isn’t making me interested in buying more or inviting the dude for drinks or something.

    If you’re about to do a retargeting campaign, please think long and hard about your creatives.

    I for one wouldn’t mind if the ones chasing me around the net were Playboy bunnies – I’d be delighted. Then again I wouldn’t want hosting from dumb blondes.


     
    • Davey 1:28 pm on December 28, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      This fricking pedophile has been following me for a bout a month now. He is only chasing my in Opera so I had to go back to Firefox just to stop lookin at this asshole.

      Imagine my disapointment when I starting to get quite excited as I am scrolling down your blog I see a nice little piece of Gratuitous Eye Candy and then this fucker is back in my life.

      I was gonna go over to my Fav “TUBE” sites and bang done gone thanks a lot. Can you write some more shit to get this jerkoff off the front page of your site :)


  • Gratuitous Eye Candy




  • NegBox 4:12 pm on December 3, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    How to Become Stupid 

    This is an anecdote that shaped my beliefs and views on intelligence – as a little follow-up to my last post on “Drive” by Daniel Pink.

    I’ve only shared this story with close family members, as it stereotypes and isn’t very scientific. That didn’t matter for my young mind – Young minds don’t care about science as they’re trying to make sense of the world.

    [Fade to sepia]

    As I was attending elementary school (not in the US and not in Asia) I happened to have quite a few schoolmates of Asian descent. As a young kid, I could tell these kids were just as sharp as me, and sometimes even smarter, more patient, methodical, etc. We did have dumb kids, and even kids with true learning problems – this is not a story about kids with real problems.

    Among my Asian friends I noticed two distinct behaviors – Some would behave just normal, like me. Others would play the “language” card and pretend they didn’t understand things because of the difference in language – they had figured out they could get away with less school work and less demands from the teachers if they played like they were dumb… And they did, they kept playing dumb from the point I have clear school memories (about second grade) to the point they graduated from school six or seven years later.

    The teachers saw a dumb kid, with learning problems and a language barrier, struggle through school for several years and make it out.

    I saw a normal kid who played dumb since second grade – and by the time they were in seventh grade they had BECOME dumb. They were no longer faking it – you could tell the little spark of focused attention had been put out. It was like they became a little autistic as part of their act, and they became their act.

    My little mind understood something about intelligence in very straightforward terms:

    • If you play dumb, you will get away with doing less, and you will become dumb.
    • If you do what you’re supposed to do, you will get smarter in the same time that slackers become dumber.


    [Fade to color]

    Play dumb, be dumb. Play smart, get smart.

     
    • Mike Chiasson 12:58 am on December 6, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Wow that seriously sounds familiar. I agree that just as knowledge can be learned, so can stupidity.

      • Slave Rat 8:05 pm on December 6, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        Did you see this “become stupid” with family members or other folks too?

    • barman 8:09 pm on December 6, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      1. those nipples are awful
      2. how am i not in your blog roll and dupre is

    • Slave Rat 1:23 pm on December 7, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      1 -Those nipples, covered in whipped cream, are delicious. 2 – Of course you *are* on the blogroll. Justin is where the Squeaky Rats are too. .. Check again, I’ve just added a section on the sidebar titled “Mondo Blogs” for the squeaky AND jealous.


  • Gratuitous Eye Candy




  • NegBox 10:31 pm on December 2, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Daniel Pink, ,   

    Mastery is a Mindset 

    This is an excellent piece of the book “Drive” By Dan Pink

    The big a-ha! moment:

    If you believe intelligence is a fixed quantity, then every educational and professional encounter becomes a measure of how much you have.

    If you believe intelligence is something you can increase, then the same encounters become opportunities for growth.

    In one view, intelligence is something you demonstrate; in the other, it’s something you develop.

    Why this matters:

    These two types of thinking trigger contrasting responses to adversity—one of helpless,” the other, “mastery-oriented.”

    The full explanation cited directly from the book:

    Mastery Is a Mindset

    As with so many things in life, the pursuit of mastery is all in our head. At least that’s what Carol Dweck has discovered.

    Dweck, a psychology professor at Stanford University, has been studying motivation and achievement in children and young adults for nearly forty years, amassing a body of rigorous empirical research that has made her a superstar in contemporary behavioral science. Dweck’s signature insight is that what people believe shapes what people achieve. Our beliefs about ourselves and the nature of our abilities—what she calls our “self-theories”—determine how we interpret our experiences and can set the boundaries on what we accomplish. Although her research looks mostly at notions of “intelligence,” her findings apply with equal force to most human capabilities. And they yield the first law of mastery: Mastery is a mindset.

    According to Dweck, people can hold two different views of their own intelligence. Those who have an “entity theory” believe that intelligence is just that—an entity. It exists within us, in a finite supply that we cannot increase. Those who subscribe to an “incremental theory” take a different view. They believe that while intelligence may vary slightly from person to person, it is ultimately something that, with effort, we can increase. To analogize to physical qualities, incremental theorists consider intelligence as something like strength. (Want to get stronger and more muscular? Start pumping iron.) Entity theorists view it as something more like height. (Want to get taller? You’re out of luck.)

    If you believe intelligence is a fixed quantity, then every educational and professional encounter becomes a measure of how much you have.

    If you believe intelligence is something you can increase, then the same encounters become opportunities for growth.

    In one view, intelligence is something you demonstrate; in the other, it’s something you develop.

    The two self-theories lead down two very different paths—one that heads toward mastery and one that doesn’t. For instance, consider goals. Dweck says they come in two varieties—performance goals and learning goals. Getting an A in French class is a performance goal. Being able to speak French is a learning goal. “Both goals are entirely normal and pretty much universal,” Dweck says, “and both can fuel achievement.” But only one leads to mastery. In several studies, Dweck found that giving children a performance goal (say, getting a high mark on a test) was effective for relatively straightforward problems but often inhibited children’s ability to apply the concepts to new situations. For example, in one study, Dweck and a colleague asked junior high students to learn a set of scientific principles, giving half of the students a performance goal and half a learning goal. After both groups demonstrated they had grasped the material, researchers asked the students to apply their knowledge to a new set of problems, related but not identical to what they’d just studied. Students with learning goals scored significantly higher on these novel challenges. They also worked longer and tried more solutions. As Dweck writes, “With a learning goal, students don’t have to feel that they’re already good at something in order to hang in and keep trying. After all, their goal is to learn, not to prove they’re smart.”

    Indeed, the two self-theories take very different views of effort. To incremental theorists, exertion is positive. Since incremental theorists believe that ability is malleable, they see working harder as a way to get better. By contrast, says Dweck, “the entity theory . . . is a system that requires a diet of easy successes.” In this schema, if you have to work hard, it means you’re not very good. People therefore choose easy targets that, when hit, affirm their existing abilities but do little to expand them. In a sense, entity theorists want to look like masters without expending the effort to attain mastery.

    Finally, the two types of thinking trigger contrasting responses to adversity—one that Dweck calls “helpless,” the other, “mastery-oriented.” In a study of American fifth- and sixth-graders, Dweck gave students eight conceptual problems they could solve, followed by four they could not (because the questions were too advanced for children that age). Students who subscribed to the idea that brain-power is fixed gave up quickly on the tough problems and blamed their (lack of ) intelligence for their difficulties. Students with a more expansive mindset kept working in spite of the difficulty and deployed far more inventive strategies to find a solution. What did these students blame for their inability to conquer the toughest problems? “The answer, which surprised us, was that they didn’t blame anything,” Dweck says. The young people recognized that setbacks were inevitable on the road to mastery and that they could even be guideposts for the journey.

    My Notes

    Most of the “Drive” book is ok so far.

    This idea, however, is different. This idea is huge. It has huge practical applications from the workplace to the family. I challenge you to go around your house or through your friends and dig up what their belief is regarding intelligence as a fixed attribute or a malleable skill.

    Better yet – I went to my kids and checked their understanding of intelligence to make sure it aligned with mine – this is one concept I was keeping a close eye on already as it is tied to self-esteem – now I know exactly how it works its magic and what it must be shaped like to be beneficial.

     
    • Justin Dupre 5:07 am on December 3, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      This is a very interesting post on intelligence. Some good insights here especially the “helpless,” the other, “mastery-oriented.” I must dig in to this and find out more about it.

      • Slave Rat 4:08 pm on December 3, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        The book gets better, and more practical, towards the end. This bit of the book struck a chord as it resonated with one of my experiences growing up. I’ll post it up as the next post here.


  • Gratuitous Eye Candy




c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel