There's a fantastic lesson to be learned in Internet Marketing for those that take the time to read the posts in the topic discussing the feud between Joe Kumar and Carlos Garcia. Joe let his ego, greed and temper get the better of him and he has, IMHO, virtually destroyed any credibility he once had with his actions. This is a good example on how NOT to behave when a Joint-Venture or Co-Promotion doesn't work the way you want!
Yes, I side with Carlos. I joined his program "Wealthy Secrets" and promote it because I think it is an excellent value and a good 'two tier' marketing program that can generate good residual income.
That aside, Carlos defended himself with facts and in a professional manner. Joe came across as a kid throwing a tantrum because he couldn't get his way. One thing not mentioned in the posts at the above link is how Joe resorted to spamming Carlos's forum - posting a link to his unethical and obnoxious "email" in every single mini-forum within Carlos's forum, which Carlos had the good sense to immediately remove.
- and maybe weep for a marketer's self-destruction due to immaturity, greed and ego.
Tom
SSWT Internet Marketing Forum
Join one of the fastest growing online communities to learn internet marketing strategies, grow your business, network with seasoned marketers and peers in your industry, and more - at no cost!
This Forum Has Been Archived
*Click Here To Visit The NEW Forum*
A Course on What NOT To Do!!!
Moderators: angienewton, tknoppe, terrapin719, lisamariemary
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
A Course on What NOT To Do!!!
by Tom Fosson » Sat Sep 13, 2003 1:42 pm
-
Tom Fosson - Posts: 168
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:19 pm
- Location: Waverly, Ohio
by flensborg » Sun Sep 14, 2003 5:49 am
Interesting thread - especially the part that includes Mike Merz, Becky and a firehose 
Seriously, there is much to learn from this Joe/Carlos story.
From what I read in the thread at Tony's forum until now, I tend to side with Carlos. And I also think that Joe Kumar will have a hard time making it in the internet marketing business/communities under his own name from now on. Seems like Stephan Ducharme has some real competition here on the subject of alienating people.
Joe is screaming and yelling and calling Carlos a scumbag, a lowlife and a scammer. Carlos responds by showing the email correspondance he have had with Joe as well as include "video evidence" from his affiliate program software.
They have radically different views on a phonecall they had, but none taped it (or admitted they taped it), so nothing really can't be judged by us outsiders.
I believe that Carlos made a mistake when he included personal information about members in his video, and I hope that he quickly masks the detailed information from the video.
A thing that very well could have everything to do with the discreprancy in number of members is this:
Joe recommended Carlos's offer to one of his lists and sweatened the deal with a few 'bribes' in the form of free bonus items.
That's ok, but all Joe asked for from his list was an email that basically said "I joined, now send me my free stuff"
He didn't ask his list to forward the receipt they got from Carlos when they paid.
What he ended up with was a list of people who wanted the free bonus that was a bit larger than the number of members we was getting paid for by Carlos.
He didn't see this as a case of some on his list trying to cheat themselves into some free bonuses, he took this as evidence that Carlos was deliberately robbing him out of commissions, by removing some members from Joe's downline or from preventing them from entering his downline (I'm not sure which of the two scenarios - preventing or removing - most accurately describes his accusations)
Lessons learned
1 ) If you want to stay in business, then act business-like
2 ) Stay to the facts.
3 ) No name-calling.
4 ) Investigate properly before making any accusations
5 ) Sort things out privately
6 ) Know, that what you 'experience' as the truth is nothing more than your perception of things.
7 ) Never recommend anything to your list that you haven't researched properly.
8 ) Always ask for proof of purchase in exchange for bonuses
9 ) Don't tell people what they are as if it was a universal truth - instead tell them how you perceived their actions. Don't say "you are a liar" - say: "I felt lied to". It takes the unprofessional sting out and replaces it with something that is legally more safe.
10 ) Record all your business phonecalls
I'm sure that none of the 30 Days Business Plans ebooks Joe is making money from recommends namecalling as a viable way to get and stay in business
Seriously, there is much to learn from this Joe/Carlos story.
From what I read in the thread at Tony's forum until now, I tend to side with Carlos. And I also think that Joe Kumar will have a hard time making it in the internet marketing business/communities under his own name from now on. Seems like Stephan Ducharme has some real competition here on the subject of alienating people.
Joe is screaming and yelling and calling Carlos a scumbag, a lowlife and a scammer. Carlos responds by showing the email correspondance he have had with Joe as well as include "video evidence" from his affiliate program software.
They have radically different views on a phonecall they had, but none taped it (or admitted they taped it), so nothing really can't be judged by us outsiders.
I believe that Carlos made a mistake when he included personal information about members in his video, and I hope that he quickly masks the detailed information from the video.
A thing that very well could have everything to do with the discreprancy in number of members is this:
Joe recommended Carlos's offer to one of his lists and sweatened the deal with a few 'bribes' in the form of free bonus items.
That's ok, but all Joe asked for from his list was an email that basically said "I joined, now send me my free stuff"
He didn't ask his list to forward the receipt they got from Carlos when they paid.
What he ended up with was a list of people who wanted the free bonus that was a bit larger than the number of members we was getting paid for by Carlos.
He didn't see this as a case of some on his list trying to cheat themselves into some free bonuses, he took this as evidence that Carlos was deliberately robbing him out of commissions, by removing some members from Joe's downline or from preventing them from entering his downline (I'm not sure which of the two scenarios - preventing or removing - most accurately describes his accusations)
Lessons learned
1 ) If you want to stay in business, then act business-like
2 ) Stay to the facts.
3 ) No name-calling.
4 ) Investigate properly before making any accusations
5 ) Sort things out privately
6 ) Know, that what you 'experience' as the truth is nothing more than your perception of things.
7 ) Never recommend anything to your list that you haven't researched properly.
8 ) Always ask for proof of purchase in exchange for bonuses
9 ) Don't tell people what they are as if it was a universal truth - instead tell them how you perceived their actions. Don't say "you are a liar" - say: "I felt lied to". It takes the unprofessional sting out and replaces it with something that is legally more safe.
10 ) Record all your business phonecalls
I'm sure that none of the 30 Days Business Plans ebooks Joe is making money from recommends namecalling as a viable way to get and stay in business
-
flensborg - Moderator
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:30 am
- Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
by Tom Fosson » Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:55 pm
Here's Paul Myers take on this from his TalkBiz newsletter - reprinted with permission...
*****************************************
TalkBiz News
Issue for Monday, September 15, 2003
In this issue:
* How to Kill Your Business, in One Easy Lesson!
* Who's Good, and Who's Good-For-Nothing?
* Gary Halbert's 'Scam'
Hi, folks...
I'm going to have part 2 of the series on the four modes that
businesspeople operate in shortly. Some things happened this
weekend that I'd like to talk about here. They are directly
related to the first two modes, and the communication problems
that come from the reactive mode described in the last issue.
"How to Kill Your Business, in One Easy Lesson!"
==============================================
Conflicts among Internet marketers aren't especially uncommon.
Accusations, while less common, are usually loud enough and
visible enough to be a problem.
One of the nastiest such imbroglios I've ever had the
misfortune to see occurred this weekend.
The background: Joe Kumar did an endorsement mailing for
Carlos Garcia's "Wealthy Secrets" site. He got an unexpectedly
high response, and wanted a higher commission than other
people who had also promoted the program. He became quite
nasty about Carlos' refusal to give him more money than other
people who were producing even larger numbers of sales.
Joe then saw a discrepancy between the number of sales he
thought he had made and the number Carlos' system showed him
as having made.
He approached Carlos with demands and accusations. When he
didn't get the response he wanted, he emailed his list with
the most vicious attack I have ever seen from an established
person in this business.
It was brutal. It was foul. It screamed "Little brat throwing
a tantrum."
It was also, as it turns out, quite untrue.
Ooops.
....
To compound the seriousness of the offense, Joe offered a
reward to his subscribers if they'd email his diatribe to
their lists.
He tried to create a viral smear campaign.
Bad Mojo, Joe.
Go to your room.
....
Someone posted this to Tony Blake's discussion board. A Battle
Royale ensued, with most of the people involved deciding, at
first, that Joe was right. No facts were presented. They just
assumed that no one would even consider making such extreme
accusations if they weren't true.
Wrong, Oh Great Moose Breath.
They do it all the time.
....
Carlos put together a video, showing the email discussions
between himself and Joe about this. His responses were
measured and factual.
Hmmm... Suddenly, things weren't quite so "obvious."
Funny how that happens, huh?
....
When Joe got involved, he went into full-blown reactive mode,
complete with the extreme negative emotions that tend to
characterize that way of "thinking."
In short, he was vulgar, vile, abusive and just plain
arrogant.
Carlos asked people for advice. He offered facts, and sought
solutions. He asked Joe for supporting documentation, so he
could track down any problems that might actually exist and
fix them. And he made it clear just where Joe had
misunderstood the process.
He was operating in a combination of responsive and proactive
modes.
When Joe saw that people were rejecting his accusations, he
became even more obnoxious. He actually got vicious and
insulting with people who had nothing at all to do with the
debate, simply because they had promoted Carlos' program.
You remember... the one that Joe himself had promoted just
days before?
....
Without getting into the actual language used, suffice it to
say that Joe pretty much insulted and offended the entire
Internet marketing community. Including direct and vicious
comments about some of the most respected and influential
people in the business.
On the most popular discussion boards in the industry.
In language and terms that I wouldn't use in a bar, after
hours, with only The Guys present. (He also managed to insult
the entire French population of the world while he was at it.)
It should be mentioned here that Joe's marketing arsenal
consists basically of one tool: Endorsed mailings from people
with influence in the Internet marketing community.
Score one for the Boy Genius!
....
It should also be noted here that this is far from the first
time Joe has done this. He has a long and consistent pattern
of attempting to flay anyone who questions or refuses him. On
anything.
He went so far as to pull a similar stunt, in private, with
Gary Halbert.
Anyone who's familiar with Gary Halbert can imagine how THAT
ended.
....
Joe developed a perception, based in his own paranoia, and
assumed that perception was accurate. He didn't make any
effort to check it. (No, Joe, accusing someone of theft and
rejecting their evidence out of hand is NOT an effort to
discern the truth.)
He let his ego and his assumptions and his overblown concept
of his own importance control his reactions.
He made a concerted effort to destroy Carlos' business based
on his own misunderstanding of the situation.
Anyone who disagreed with him on the basis of the factual
evidence presented was attacked, rudely and viciously.
He's history in this business.
Whether you have an opinion on the facts or not, anyone who's
seen the comments Joe made will realise:
Joe Kumar might be a good person, but he's not a good
person to do business with.
I personally wouldn't touch him with a 10' ethernet cable.
....
The point here is to show the damage that can result from
operating in reactive mode. It's how Joe handled the
situation, and it's likely cost him what was a prime place in
the business.
He's going to have to start over in another market. And if he
continues true to his pattern, he'll self-destruct there, too.
Rinse. Repeat.
Hell of a way to live, huh?
....
So, how did Carlos come out of this?
Unfortunately, some people will always believe that any
accusation must have some merit, so there are people who will
avoid him because of this.
To that extent, Joe was successful.
However, by sticking to the facts, and by looking for
solutions rather than calling names, Carlos showed a lot of
people who understand this sort of thing that he's someone you
can do business with.
In the long run, this will help him, rather than hurt.
That's the value of moving from reactive mode into the more
advanced modes of operation.
He turned a conflict into a positive thing, in the long term.
Keep that in mind as the series continues.
....
"Who's Good, and Who's Good-For-Nothing?"
=======================================
That question comes up every time there's a serious and
visible conflict between two or more established marketers in
a public forum.
Guru-bashing becomes the rage, and all the people who are
confused by the conflicting stories tend to jump on the
"They're all full of it" bandwagon.
Jay Jennings, of http://www.jayjennings.com , posted the
question, "Who Else Wants To Bash A Guru For Fun And Profit?,"
along with his thoughts on the value of paying to learn from
folks that really do have something useful to say.
Jay's post is at http://ablake.net/forum/index.cgi?read=138855
I highly recommend it. Jay usually has useful comments. This
one is even better than his wont. It's a perspective that you
really ought to consider if you've ever wondered if you can
make money online.
Below is my response to Jay's post. It outlines both the cause
and one potential cure for this problem.
....
Jay,
I think there are several points that need to be made here.
First, there are a lot of people out there talking the talk
who couldn't walk it and chew gum at the same time. They have
no clue how to actually make money online, except by
pretending they can help other people make money online.
They've created a backlash against so-called "gurus" (I hate
that word) because they make it hard to tell the folks who
really know what they're doing from the wannabes and "me-
toos."
Then there are the "gurus" who make a point of bashing other
"gurus." One of Gary Halbert's recent newsletters gets into
this sort of thing.
http://www.thegaryhalbertletter.com/new ... ecrets.htm
He shows Alexa rankings for a few sites from some well-known
online marketers, and acts as though those rankings alone are
the sign of success or failure. Of course, they're almost all
lower than his own ranking...
* A successful site is one that gets targeted traffic and
converts it to sales. You don't need to get huge amounts
of traffic to have a raging success on your hands.
* Some of the most heavily trafficked sites in recent years
were phenomenal failures.
Halbert, of course, knows this.
....
It's cute, but it's not a valid comparison. The fact that it's
someone with Halbert's name recognition saying it gives it
some credibility with many newbies, and even many experienced
marketers who don't understand the interplay of copy and
statistics at the psychological level.
They also don't understand the business and the background
details enough to see the deliberate slant that is given to
the statistics, and how the spin was applied.
Brilliant positioning by Halbert. Bad for the industry, but
good for his sales.
....
I wonder, just from random curiosity, how many people
bought the rather humorous concept of his "signature fist
analyzer software" for email? That was hysterical.
Extremely clever, too, given that the comments about
telegraphers having such a recognisable signature are
totally true.
Sheer genius. And I can just see Joe, or any other person
who doesn't understand the technology, buying into it.
....
And then, we have the in-fighting. It's usually reserved for a
few popular "targets," but it can lash out at anyone at any
time. This adds to the kinds of questions you mention in your
post, and creates a "Who do we listen to?" response among the
less experienced folks in the business.
What most of these people don't realise is that almost nothing
said on these boards matters. Yes, Tony's board gets a lot of
traffic, but if it's the customer you're concerned with, and
your market is anyone but Tony's visitors, what's said here is
just so much sound and fury, signifying nothing at all.
As an aside, Joe Kumar's current problem is that his
"customer" is precisely the same group that reads this board.
He hasn't the experience to market his product without access
to endorsed mailing partners. And the ones that can help him
most are all here.
The new folks don't know enough to separate the nonsense and
bad advice from the true gems that are posted here. They often
assume that anything said here that's not incontrovertibly
rebutted must be true.
That's a Very Dangerous Assumption.
....
Then we have the less-than-literate who read something with a
prejudice in mind and interpret what they've read in ways that
support that prejudice, regardless of context or content. They
make libellous assertions in forums, assuming they won't get
sued for their abusive behavior. One day soon, one or more of
them is going to find that they pushed that assumption too
far.
To add to the panoply of conflicting choices and claims, there
are those who assert that their own preferred method of
marketing is the One Great Truth of the Internet.
Chris Pirillo's insistence that "Email is Dead. Period," is a
great example of this. He feels that blogs are the wave of the
future in publishing, and has made some rather startlingly
presumptive declarations based on that belief. His comments
about the future of email are demonstrably wrong, but many
people don't have the knowledge, the time or the inclination
to analyze them properly.
Put a Name like Chris against the opinions of other well-known
and respected minds, and you have a situation where the less
experienced feel they have to choose. They don't have the
necessary context to see that there really aren't any
contradictions, except in the minds of the people asserting
their own Great Truth.
....
When faced with this level of confusion, contradiction and
conflict, the normal human response is to withdraw from the
fray.
Trusting the dangerous unknown is not a useful survival
strategy, evolutionarily speaking.
....
So, it all begins to look like BS. The result is predictable.
The cure?
People like Willie Crawford, Phil Wiley, Allan Gardyne, Allen
Says and Damon Zahariades. People who actually read and test
products, and who only recommend things they know work, from
people they know get results.
In short, reviewers with experience and integrity.
If you're confused about who to believe, I recommend
subscribing to these guys' newsletters.
http://www.williecrawford.com
http://www.ozemedia.com
http://www.associateprograms.com
http://www.webbusinesstoday.com
http://www.secretwisdom.com
I've been doing this stuff for roughly 8 years now. I've run
my own newsletter for just under 7. I have a fair idea of who
to listen to and who's fluff. These guys will steer you
straight. And no, I don't make a dime off these
recommendations.
There are a lot of great newsletters out there. I've pointed
these out because they're directly relevant to the question...
"How do we know what's good and what's good-for-nothing?"
....
If you're new, and want a really simple tutorial to learn the
real basics of getting started in business online, check out
my "Make Your Own Business" tutorial. It's free, and there's a
lot of useful info in it for beginners and experienced folks
alike.
http://www.talkbiznews.com/myob.html
Full Disclosure: Taking this tutorial will also sign you up
for my newsletter. I don't usually promote myself in forums,
but, again, this is directly relevant to the topic at hand.
And you can use the info in that tutorial to get started
without spending any money at all, if you want to.
Does it work? Yeah.
If you do.
....
The only way this sort of confusion wil be reduced to
acceptable levels is by the people in the industry policing
ourselves.
We need to be objective in our assessments of products and
services. We need to refuse to play the "Slam the guru" game.
And we need to call the people who spread lies, misinformation
and propaganda on the carpet, in the same forums in which they
occur.
We are the cause. Truth is the cure.
Paul
"Gary Halbert's 'Scam'"
=====================
I mentioned in the post that I thought Gary's "invention" of
the "signature fist analyzer software" for email was
brilliant. Hysterically funny.
http://www.thegaryhalbertletter.com/new ... ecrets.htm
In case you're wondering, though: No, it is NOT possible.
He scammed Joe into admitting that he was the perp, though,
and that was a Good Thing in my book.
It's classic Halbert. You gotta love him.
....
It might be possible, assuming a direct connection such as a
chat which transmits the keystrokes in real time and with no
latency, to develop a program that could give a strong
indication of the identity of someone typing, based on the
**time interval** between specific keystroke combinations.
Strong indication, under circumstances that are next to
impossible in current Internet conditions. Absolutely not with
the certainty of DNA matching.
But to judge the pressure applied to a keystroke from an email?
Sheesh, Gary. That took chutzpah. <g>
....
For those who wonder how I can be so sure, the answer is
simple: The information needed to do what Gary describes is
not transmitted with an email. It's never encoded even at the
originating end of the message
There is no "keyboard pressure used" data in computer files.
It makes for great story-telling, though.
....
Gary said of this software, "all the alphabet agencies in the
world could never find it."
That's true... unless they get a warrant to search his
imagination.
I'm not sure they're ready for Gary Halbert's imagination.
....
'Til next issue,
Same Bat-time, same Bat-channel...
Paul
-----===(*)===-----
Feel free to pass this issue along, as long as you forward it
in full. Give folks a chance to sign up for themselves.
To subscribe to TalkBiz News, send an email to
[url]mailto:subscribe@talkbiz.com[/url]
Copyright TalkBiz, Inc. 2003
-----===(*)===-----
"100% of the shots you don't take don't go in."
- Wayne Gretzky
*****************************************
TalkBiz News
Issue for Monday, September 15, 2003
In this issue:
* How to Kill Your Business, in One Easy Lesson!
* Who's Good, and Who's Good-For-Nothing?
* Gary Halbert's 'Scam'
Hi, folks...
I'm going to have part 2 of the series on the four modes that
businesspeople operate in shortly. Some things happened this
weekend that I'd like to talk about here. They are directly
related to the first two modes, and the communication problems
that come from the reactive mode described in the last issue.
"How to Kill Your Business, in One Easy Lesson!"
==============================================
Conflicts among Internet marketers aren't especially uncommon.
Accusations, while less common, are usually loud enough and
visible enough to be a problem.
One of the nastiest such imbroglios I've ever had the
misfortune to see occurred this weekend.
The background: Joe Kumar did an endorsement mailing for
Carlos Garcia's "Wealthy Secrets" site. He got an unexpectedly
high response, and wanted a higher commission than other
people who had also promoted the program. He became quite
nasty about Carlos' refusal to give him more money than other
people who were producing even larger numbers of sales.
Joe then saw a discrepancy between the number of sales he
thought he had made and the number Carlos' system showed him
as having made.
He approached Carlos with demands and accusations. When he
didn't get the response he wanted, he emailed his list with
the most vicious attack I have ever seen from an established
person in this business.
It was brutal. It was foul. It screamed "Little brat throwing
a tantrum."
It was also, as it turns out, quite untrue.
Ooops.
....
To compound the seriousness of the offense, Joe offered a
reward to his subscribers if they'd email his diatribe to
their lists.
He tried to create a viral smear campaign.
Bad Mojo, Joe.
Go to your room.
....
Someone posted this to Tony Blake's discussion board. A Battle
Royale ensued, with most of the people involved deciding, at
first, that Joe was right. No facts were presented. They just
assumed that no one would even consider making such extreme
accusations if they weren't true.
Wrong, Oh Great Moose Breath.
They do it all the time.
....
Carlos put together a video, showing the email discussions
between himself and Joe about this. His responses were
measured and factual.
Hmmm... Suddenly, things weren't quite so "obvious."
Funny how that happens, huh?
....
When Joe got involved, he went into full-blown reactive mode,
complete with the extreme negative emotions that tend to
characterize that way of "thinking."
In short, he was vulgar, vile, abusive and just plain
arrogant.
Carlos asked people for advice. He offered facts, and sought
solutions. He asked Joe for supporting documentation, so he
could track down any problems that might actually exist and
fix them. And he made it clear just where Joe had
misunderstood the process.
He was operating in a combination of responsive and proactive
modes.
When Joe saw that people were rejecting his accusations, he
became even more obnoxious. He actually got vicious and
insulting with people who had nothing at all to do with the
debate, simply because they had promoted Carlos' program.
You remember... the one that Joe himself had promoted just
days before?
....
Without getting into the actual language used, suffice it to
say that Joe pretty much insulted and offended the entire
Internet marketing community. Including direct and vicious
comments about some of the most respected and influential
people in the business.
On the most popular discussion boards in the industry.
In language and terms that I wouldn't use in a bar, after
hours, with only The Guys present. (He also managed to insult
the entire French population of the world while he was at it.)
It should be mentioned here that Joe's marketing arsenal
consists basically of one tool: Endorsed mailings from people
with influence in the Internet marketing community.
Score one for the Boy Genius!
....
It should also be noted here that this is far from the first
time Joe has done this. He has a long and consistent pattern
of attempting to flay anyone who questions or refuses him. On
anything.
He went so far as to pull a similar stunt, in private, with
Gary Halbert.
Anyone who's familiar with Gary Halbert can imagine how THAT
ended.
....
Joe developed a perception, based in his own paranoia, and
assumed that perception was accurate. He didn't make any
effort to check it. (No, Joe, accusing someone of theft and
rejecting their evidence out of hand is NOT an effort to
discern the truth.)
He let his ego and his assumptions and his overblown concept
of his own importance control his reactions.
He made a concerted effort to destroy Carlos' business based
on his own misunderstanding of the situation.
Anyone who disagreed with him on the basis of the factual
evidence presented was attacked, rudely and viciously.
He's history in this business.
Whether you have an opinion on the facts or not, anyone who's
seen the comments Joe made will realise:
Joe Kumar might be a good person, but he's not a good
person to do business with.
I personally wouldn't touch him with a 10' ethernet cable.
....
The point here is to show the damage that can result from
operating in reactive mode. It's how Joe handled the
situation, and it's likely cost him what was a prime place in
the business.
He's going to have to start over in another market. And if he
continues true to his pattern, he'll self-destruct there, too.
Rinse. Repeat.
Hell of a way to live, huh?
....
So, how did Carlos come out of this?
Unfortunately, some people will always believe that any
accusation must have some merit, so there are people who will
avoid him because of this.
To that extent, Joe was successful.
However, by sticking to the facts, and by looking for
solutions rather than calling names, Carlos showed a lot of
people who understand this sort of thing that he's someone you
can do business with.
In the long run, this will help him, rather than hurt.
That's the value of moving from reactive mode into the more
advanced modes of operation.
He turned a conflict into a positive thing, in the long term.
Keep that in mind as the series continues.
....
"Who's Good, and Who's Good-For-Nothing?"
=======================================
That question comes up every time there's a serious and
visible conflict between two or more established marketers in
a public forum.
Guru-bashing becomes the rage, and all the people who are
confused by the conflicting stories tend to jump on the
"They're all full of it" bandwagon.
Jay Jennings, of http://www.jayjennings.com , posted the
question, "Who Else Wants To Bash A Guru For Fun And Profit?,"
along with his thoughts on the value of paying to learn from
folks that really do have something useful to say.
Jay's post is at http://ablake.net/forum/index.cgi?read=138855
I highly recommend it. Jay usually has useful comments. This
one is even better than his wont. It's a perspective that you
really ought to consider if you've ever wondered if you can
make money online.
Below is my response to Jay's post. It outlines both the cause
and one potential cure for this problem.
....
Jay,
I think there are several points that need to be made here.
First, there are a lot of people out there talking the talk
who couldn't walk it and chew gum at the same time. They have
no clue how to actually make money online, except by
pretending they can help other people make money online.
They've created a backlash against so-called "gurus" (I hate
that word) because they make it hard to tell the folks who
really know what they're doing from the wannabes and "me-
toos."
Then there are the "gurus" who make a point of bashing other
"gurus." One of Gary Halbert's recent newsletters gets into
this sort of thing.
http://www.thegaryhalbertletter.com/new ... ecrets.htm
He shows Alexa rankings for a few sites from some well-known
online marketers, and acts as though those rankings alone are
the sign of success or failure. Of course, they're almost all
lower than his own ranking...
* A successful site is one that gets targeted traffic and
converts it to sales. You don't need to get huge amounts
of traffic to have a raging success on your hands.
* Some of the most heavily trafficked sites in recent years
were phenomenal failures.
Halbert, of course, knows this.
....
It's cute, but it's not a valid comparison. The fact that it's
someone with Halbert's name recognition saying it gives it
some credibility with many newbies, and even many experienced
marketers who don't understand the interplay of copy and
statistics at the psychological level.
They also don't understand the business and the background
details enough to see the deliberate slant that is given to
the statistics, and how the spin was applied.
Brilliant positioning by Halbert. Bad for the industry, but
good for his sales.
....
I wonder, just from random curiosity, how many people
bought the rather humorous concept of his "signature fist
analyzer software" for email? That was hysterical.
Extremely clever, too, given that the comments about
telegraphers having such a recognisable signature are
totally true.
Sheer genius. And I can just see Joe, or any other person
who doesn't understand the technology, buying into it.
....
And then, we have the in-fighting. It's usually reserved for a
few popular "targets," but it can lash out at anyone at any
time. This adds to the kinds of questions you mention in your
post, and creates a "Who do we listen to?" response among the
less experienced folks in the business.
What most of these people don't realise is that almost nothing
said on these boards matters. Yes, Tony's board gets a lot of
traffic, but if it's the customer you're concerned with, and
your market is anyone but Tony's visitors, what's said here is
just so much sound and fury, signifying nothing at all.
As an aside, Joe Kumar's current problem is that his
"customer" is precisely the same group that reads this board.
He hasn't the experience to market his product without access
to endorsed mailing partners. And the ones that can help him
most are all here.
The new folks don't know enough to separate the nonsense and
bad advice from the true gems that are posted here. They often
assume that anything said here that's not incontrovertibly
rebutted must be true.
That's a Very Dangerous Assumption.
....
Then we have the less-than-literate who read something with a
prejudice in mind and interpret what they've read in ways that
support that prejudice, regardless of context or content. They
make libellous assertions in forums, assuming they won't get
sued for their abusive behavior. One day soon, one or more of
them is going to find that they pushed that assumption too
far.
To add to the panoply of conflicting choices and claims, there
are those who assert that their own preferred method of
marketing is the One Great Truth of the Internet.
Chris Pirillo's insistence that "Email is Dead. Period," is a
great example of this. He feels that blogs are the wave of the
future in publishing, and has made some rather startlingly
presumptive declarations based on that belief. His comments
about the future of email are demonstrably wrong, but many
people don't have the knowledge, the time or the inclination
to analyze them properly.
Put a Name like Chris against the opinions of other well-known
and respected minds, and you have a situation where the less
experienced feel they have to choose. They don't have the
necessary context to see that there really aren't any
contradictions, except in the minds of the people asserting
their own Great Truth.
....
When faced with this level of confusion, contradiction and
conflict, the normal human response is to withdraw from the
fray.
Trusting the dangerous unknown is not a useful survival
strategy, evolutionarily speaking.
....
So, it all begins to look like BS. The result is predictable.
The cure?
People like Willie Crawford, Phil Wiley, Allan Gardyne, Allen
Says and Damon Zahariades. People who actually read and test
products, and who only recommend things they know work, from
people they know get results.
In short, reviewers with experience and integrity.
If you're confused about who to believe, I recommend
subscribing to these guys' newsletters.
http://www.williecrawford.com
http://www.ozemedia.com
http://www.associateprograms.com
http://www.webbusinesstoday.com
http://www.secretwisdom.com
I've been doing this stuff for roughly 8 years now. I've run
my own newsletter for just under 7. I have a fair idea of who
to listen to and who's fluff. These guys will steer you
straight. And no, I don't make a dime off these
recommendations.
There are a lot of great newsletters out there. I've pointed
these out because they're directly relevant to the question...
"How do we know what's good and what's good-for-nothing?"
....
If you're new, and want a really simple tutorial to learn the
real basics of getting started in business online, check out
my "Make Your Own Business" tutorial. It's free, and there's a
lot of useful info in it for beginners and experienced folks
alike.
http://www.talkbiznews.com/myob.html
Full Disclosure: Taking this tutorial will also sign you up
for my newsletter. I don't usually promote myself in forums,
but, again, this is directly relevant to the topic at hand.
And you can use the info in that tutorial to get started
without spending any money at all, if you want to.
Does it work? Yeah.
If you do.
....
The only way this sort of confusion wil be reduced to
acceptable levels is by the people in the industry policing
ourselves.
We need to be objective in our assessments of products and
services. We need to refuse to play the "Slam the guru" game.
And we need to call the people who spread lies, misinformation
and propaganda on the carpet, in the same forums in which they
occur.
We are the cause. Truth is the cure.
Paul
"Gary Halbert's 'Scam'"
=====================
I mentioned in the post that I thought Gary's "invention" of
the "signature fist analyzer software" for email was
brilliant. Hysterically funny.
http://www.thegaryhalbertletter.com/new ... ecrets.htm
In case you're wondering, though: No, it is NOT possible.
He scammed Joe into admitting that he was the perp, though,
and that was a Good Thing in my book.
It's classic Halbert. You gotta love him.
....
It might be possible, assuming a direct connection such as a
chat which transmits the keystrokes in real time and with no
latency, to develop a program that could give a strong
indication of the identity of someone typing, based on the
**time interval** between specific keystroke combinations.
Strong indication, under circumstances that are next to
impossible in current Internet conditions. Absolutely not with
the certainty of DNA matching.
But to judge the pressure applied to a keystroke from an email?
Sheesh, Gary. That took chutzpah. <g>
....
For those who wonder how I can be so sure, the answer is
simple: The information needed to do what Gary describes is
not transmitted with an email. It's never encoded even at the
originating end of the message
There is no "keyboard pressure used" data in computer files.
It makes for great story-telling, though.
....
Gary said of this software, "all the alphabet agencies in the
world could never find it."
That's true... unless they get a warrant to search his
imagination.
I'm not sure they're ready for Gary Halbert's imagination.
....
'Til next issue,
Same Bat-time, same Bat-channel...
Paul
-----===(*)===-----
Feel free to pass this issue along, as long as you forward it
in full. Give folks a chance to sign up for themselves.
To subscribe to TalkBiz News, send an email to
[url]mailto:subscribe@talkbiz.com[/url]
Copyright TalkBiz, Inc. 2003
-----===(*)===-----
"100% of the shots you don't take don't go in."
- Wayne Gretzky
-
Tom Fosson - Posts: 168
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:19 pm
- Location: Waverly, Ohio
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
Return to Networking, Joint Ventures & Co-Promotion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest