Comments on: Quality content means shit

By: Ad Hustler

Ad Hustler — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:47:55 +0000

Your right about this. It’s amazing what people fall for and what’s even more incredible is that we as marketers don’t really know what they are going to go for. You just have to test test test and see what converts.

By: Google Search Sucks

Google Search Sucks — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:31:12 +0000

WITNESS….

As soon as I got my thick head past this “add value” “content is king” “white hat vs black hat” BS… I started to make money.

To this day I test new landers and web sites to watch them flop. Then I just do something stupid and obvious and I make teh moniez.

People know what they want so why not give it to them.

By: disco

disco — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:59:56 +0000

You’re absolutely right, except when you take into account the fact that garbage content is a lot of work to maintain. You can spend six months putting together a big unique website, and then make $5-10k a month off it with minimal work (just maintenance), or you can spend 15 hours a day making 20 poll campaigns. You might make 3x as much cash on the latter, but you’re also putting in far more time.

By: Donace

Donace — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:55:24 +0000

This brings in inferences from the tech industry…the shitty stuff that is just marketed well sells more and makes more money then its better rival.

Example being Generic MP3 players and Archos…Archos was MUCH better then anything on the market prices yes higher but justified. Yet the generics sold more and then the ipod came out….still way inferior yet sold more due to marketing (style wise archos stuff is good).

Could throw in the rise of DVD’s, VHS v Betamax , Hell HD-DVD v Blueray…the ones that win are the ones marketing better and therefore ’seem’ to be better!