AdSense Resurrected: Interview With Zeila Rich
As promised, here’s the interview I did with Zeila Rich, one of the two masterminds behind AdSense Resurrected.
Q: We understand you’re using pseudonyms for privacy, but can you tell us a bit about yourselves?
A: We’re a couple from Singapore. We’ve been married for about 1.5 years and have an 8-month old baby. Mo is a national scholar and teacher in a high school and doesn’t intend to quit because he loves teaching. He’s completing his PhD in Educational Psychology and has a Masters in Biological Science Research. As for me, I used to work for a non-profit organization but have quit to look after our daughter full time and to help Mo out. Both of us are in our late 20s.
Q: When did you first join the AdSense program? What were your earnings first like?
A: Early 2006. Mo joined the program, and I joined him. It was embarrassing. Our first month was about $10, and the second month was about $20, and never grew beyond that by the third month.
Q: When did the ideas for your “AR Tactics” first occur to you? How quickly did you implement them?
A: Mo came up to me one day and asked me why our AdSense earnings were stagnant. And being an absolute newbie at this, I gave him answers and I supposed that made him think hard. We brainstormed and then we came up with a plan. We immediately implemented our tactics with the help of several credit cards. Once our websites were up, the earnings came gushing in lterally. The effects of our tactics were phenomenal considering the buzz at the time was that AdSense was dead. Literally overnight we “resurrected” AdSense and it’s never going to die again. It has become immortal.
Q: You’ve got a lot of sites. How much do you depend on outside help to maintain them?
A: Different sites have different maintenance requirements. Based on that, we outsourced some of the work to companies in India and China. But once the sites are up, we maintain them ourselves and they usually don’t require much maintenance. We have a system for looking after them and we constantly add more websites to our network. We don’t have to manage them on a daily basis, however, because they’re not blogs.
People have become disheartened when their dreams of making millions from their blogs fail. They don’t know how to make millions from the Internet because these bloggers learn from people who’ve not made millions and hence, they too can’t be millionaires. It’s a paradigm shift that’s crucial. Drop the blog and stop blogging to death. The money is in the content, but blogs are not the only way, there easier and faster ways. Treat this like a business. Most bloggers treat it like their hobbies, and they ask why they are not earning enough.
Q: Some people automatically assume that you’re creating “Made For AdSense” (MFA) sites. Why are they not MFA sites?
A: We have high quality content on all our websites. We built the websites not for AdSense, but for making money in general. As long as the websites brought in revenues for us, we made them, but they are all websites with content that everyone can use. We monetized the websites to their maximum potential and all these tactics are revealed in our book, soon to be released. Everything is out strategizing and troubleshooting.
Q: If hundreds or thousands of people start implementing your tactics, how ill it be possible for all of them to succeed? Your already have over 1000 sites, if even a few hundred people do the same thing then how will they not dilute the market and compete with each other?
A: there are infinite niches to go for. Different niches have different saturation points, and in our AR book we will tell you the 3 phases of any website. When the saturation point has been reached, you move the niche up to the next phase, and so on. In this case, you are not really diluting the market. The truth is that there are a billion Internet users. We will show you how to get access to all of them.
The great thing about knowledge is that it’s ever changing and growing. There’s no such as thing as competition in the information arena.
We will even show you new avenues of information other than the text format.
Q: What can we expect from AdSense Resurrected in terms of packaging and pricing?
A: AdSense Resurrected has only one purpose: to bring as much joy, peace and happiness to the world as possible. We didn’t want to surface from the underground. We were far too comfortable being unknown. But I always knew that to make more people rich is better than making us many times richer. Mo and I share this philosophy that there is abundance everywhere we are. If we could just share our knowledge, tools and everything for free, we would. But based on Mo’s views in psychology, and his experience dealing with students, people are less motivated to see through an entire plan and be successful if they are given hand-outs. So we had to come up with a pricing strategy that addresses this. We’ve been reading, and we had enough of gurus “stealing” hard-earned money from the “small” people. We are here for the underdogs.
We want to give these people a break. AdSense Resurrected will be made available to everyone, even those without a penny to their name. We have put in place strategies to help those without money to find the money to purchase the book, and then the package, and finally AdSenseResurrector.
The book by itself will cost $67. We wanted to make it cheaper, but our book reviewers have warned us about devaluing its quality. But we may bring down the price further. The book comes with the 10 Minutes AR Tactics Flyer, which anyone can use to understand AR in less than 10 minutes. It’s graphical, so it’s easier to understand.
Then we want to get everyone started on AR. We are selling the AR Jumpstart Kit for $97. It includes the blueprint to success with AR, the book, the flyer, plus over 300 AR-ready websites that can immediately earn you money. We wanted people to immediately see the power of AR.
Our software, AdSenseResurrector (co-developed by Eric Giguere) will have different pricing to meet everyone’s wishes. We have the lifetime use license and the flexi use license. We accept monthly installments for the lifetime use license and our flexi use license costs only $97 a month. So, for $97, anyone can have access to AdSenseResurrector, which is the most advanced piece of software the Internet world has ever seen. [Eric: Zeila may be overstating things a bit…] This software will not only build websites in seconds but it will also drive traffic to every one of your websites and help you do many, many things. To find out all about these you have to wait for the launch. 1 minute before Christmas!
We hope to overdeliver and we don’t really fancy hype. We are in this for the long run. We don’t intend to stop just with the software. We will have coaching and mentoring programs, seminars, workshops and conferences. We are offering the entire suite of products and services to help everyone succeed in AR.
Our belief is that everyone can be a success story and it’s all in a MEAL. We will cover this in our book. All our products come with a 90-day money-back guarantee. We want everyone to have the same time we had — 3 months — to make their first million from the AR tactics we use.
[End of interview]
Let me clarify something that’s been asked before. AdSenseResurrector (the software) was not used by Mo and Zeila to build their AdSense empire. It just so happened that I was getting set to release some software I’d built based on my own tools around the same time that they were going to originally launch… we met by chance (I sent them an email asking them to spell “AdSense” properly, if you can believe it… what can I say, it bugs me!) and they were looking for something to help their potential customers do what they did without having to outsource anything, or at least outsource much less. So I’ve been transforming my software according to their directions and hopefully we’ve come up with something that you’ll find really useful. I just don’t know how I’ll do it all before Christmas, but that’s a different problem….
If you have any questions for Mo and Zeila, feel free to leave a comment here.
Eric Giguere is the author of several printed books and knows a thing or two about content monetization. Subscribe to his AdSense blog today and never miss any of his insightful comments. And the not-so-insightful ones, for that matter.
 |
Enjoyed this post? Get free updates by mail or by RSS! |
Socialize This Post (Please!)
Tags
AdSense, AdSense Resurrected, AdSenseResurrector, blogging, earnings, Eric Giguere, gurus, hype, made for AdSense, MFA, monetization, niche, traffic, website
Comments
39 Responses to “AdSense Resurrected: Interview With Zeila Rich”
Leave a Reply
[…] http://www.memwg.com/adsense-resurrected-interview/ […]
Eric,
I guess you’ve been rushing to get your 1,000 websites up and running to avoid the Christmas rush. LoL
Maurice
Funny guy
Actually, spending your time writing software is a great way NOT to deploy ANY new sites. My empire building is kind of on hold right now because of this… Good point though, I need to get some sites out pronto before that rush 
Color me…”highly skeptical”.
There are many obvious issues that Zeila didn’t address here…and it’s hard for you to serve as an objective interviewer, Eric, when you’re a partner. An MFA site doesn’t become any less an MFA site just because the webmaster doesn’t personally refer to it that way. I would contend that, based on the motivation for building the sites and the limited description she offered, it is precisely “Made For AdSense”.
“We built the websites not for AdSense, but for making money in general.”
Errr…making money in general (thru AdSense). Hence, the title of the package.
“AdSense Resurrected has only one purpose: to bring as much joy, peace and happiness to the world as possible.”
Uh-huh. And that’s why it’s being priced at 99 cents for the entire package, eh? Plus, scholarships are available to those without an extra dollar handy.
“The truth is that there are a billion Internet users. We will show you how to get access to all of them. The great thing about knowledge is that it’s ever changing and growing. There’s no such as thing as competition in the information arena.”
Huh? No such thing as competition in the information arena? I’d either need a much clearer explanation of that, or I call “hogwash”. In fact, it’s SO absurd that I’ll simply let it lay there just the way she phrased it.
“there are infinite niches to go for. Different niches have different saturation points, and in our AR book we will tell you the 3 phases of any website. When the saturation point has been reached, you move the niche up to the next phase, and so on. In this case, you are not really diluting the market.”
That all sounds nice, but it leaves completely open the actual VALUE of the content they’re providing.
“Based on that, we outsourced some of the work to companies in India and China. But once the sites are up, we maintain them ourselves and they usually don’t require much maintenance.”
Yes, that’s usually the case with article sites. They are low-maintenance, because they are filled with the words of others (whether from PLR content or hired out to article writers from India). This doesn’t mean that anyone anywhere in the chain has added value. I still contend that they are (most likely) doing nothing but crapping up search engine results with tens of thousands of articles created by someone with zero personal, practical knowledge of any of the subjects. That’s the way this game works. And it hurts all of us (except for the one cashing the checks).
“Literally overnight we “resurrected” AdSense and it’s never going to die again. It has become immortal.”
I’m sure Google is very grateful.
Skeptics aside, I’m looking forward to this release with great interest! No matter what people say there will be the nay sayers. The Internet has made me a few thousand dollars last year, then 3 times as much this year. I think I can kick that increment up a few extra notches in the coming year with this information too. So thank you for the time to speak to us from your beliefs instead of using the hype I’m sure some have told you to use.
Blessings to you and yours
Chuck, I appreciate your comments and I know you have extremely high expectations, and I respect that. If you recall from what I said in The AdSense Crapshoot, there are essentially two approaches to making serious money with AdSense or any other kind of monetization system: build one or two high-quality, high-traffic sites (though it can be argued that the high-quality part isn’t actually a requirement!) or build a bunch of smaller long tail sites. Implicit in that, I think, is the fact that if you build a lot of sites then on the whole the average per-site quality will be lower than the quality of the few-sites model.
Most of my current readers probably haven’t seen this, but over two years ago I wrote about how Google doesn’t define what an MFA site is, not in any kind of explicit terms that we can use as guidelines. I think we can agree that there is a spectrum of MFA sites and that one person’s MFA site is another person’s useful info site.
I still think the key to success is to provide value in the content. That was actually why I wrote PLRSiteBuilder (now AdSenseResurrector) in the first place: to ease the drudgery of site building so you can focus on content. The flipside of that is that it makes it easier for people to build and deploy crappy sites. I know this. But I can’t police what people are going to do with my tool a priori. I’m OK with this.
As for Mo and Zeila, I’ve had some fairly long email conversations with them. I think they’re enthusiastic and optimistic, something I think many of us lost a long time ago
Their exuberance is unusual and perhaps overdone, but I think they mean well. Let’s wait and see….
Eric
Chuck,
not to expect skepticism is just being a two-year old kid.
Thanks for the thoughts. How do you define high quality website? Websites that are built and run by people who have put a lot of hard work into it, because they are experts in the subject areas?
For us, websites with high quality websites, are websites that visitors keep coming back for more. Let’s leave the judging to the visitors of our websites. If they keep coming, doesn’t that mean our websites are valuable to them? If so, how can these websites have junk?
Does content need to be produced by ourselves? We are not experts in every niche. Can’t we get someone else who is willing to spend the time and effort to research on a niche, to come up with the whole write-up on the niche? Eg. Freshwater Fishing? And then, we become the agent that allows for that content to be online.
If we price it 99 cents, how many would bother to do what we have done, and be millionaires themselves? The probability is as close to zero.
For your information, our primary marketing method, is not Search Engine Optimization. Surprise, surprise. Most of our traffic is generated using other means.
To end this, let us allow the audience of the content of our websites decide whether we are adding value or not. You have no say, but the visitors do. And the visitors keep coming back for more, and how we did it, you have to find out.
Love,
Zeila and Mo
Rick Macaulay.
We appreciate your support and words of encouragement.
We hope we can help you bring your earnings up a notch or two with the information we are going to share with you.
Zeila and Mo
Eric,
While I often come off as a grouch, I get no pleasure from standing off to the side whizzing on the campfire. That’s not my goal.
Yes, there are two schools of thought. A few high-traffic sites or “a bunch” of long-tail sites. Nothing I say will ever change the second school of thought. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t think that someone needs to speak up for the ethical dilemma posed therein. Referring back to our previous discussion inspired by this same “phantom” ebook (I use the term not because it’s not coming, but because it’s been coming forever…and it’s still not here, so we’re still discussing theory, plus what few details you’ve referred to previously), the model that you spoke of was 1200 sites. I’m sure they’re still building new ones today, because that’s the way this model works. But when you use a term like “a bunch of”, it’s…well, I’ll use the term…somewhat disingenuous…not to be more specific. You can argue that others won’t be falling all over themselves trying to follow the Rich’s model. But it won’t be for lack of effort. Even though, in their exuberance, they want to sell a million ebooks…even if they only have 50 people that take this vision seriously, then we have 50K+ new sites online that arguably have little reason to exist, other than as a “cash grab” by folks who are not willing to consider the true implications of what they’re doing. Intentional or out of ignorance…this is hardly a good thing. The world doesn’t need ANY more article sites on most topics. Call them long tail…call them whatever you want. They generally involve low-integrity information…backed up by zero personal investment in the content. Just TRY to get someone to stand behind the information in most articles. There’s no one there. This is a lousy business model…doomed to failure in the long run…and hurting plenty of people in the meantime by filling the search engines with garbage. Again, I don’t care if we have 10 BILLION of these sites on the web tomorrow. They won’t hurt me, UNLESS the goal is to bring traffic to them from the search engines…which, of course, it is. And the minute they do that, now they are on my dirt list…and they should be on everyone else’s as well. I want good, valuable results. Why? Because I’m a consumer of products and information, of course…just like everyone else. And also, because I’m a web developer. I am not at war with most other web sites in my genre. It’s most common for me to be ranked #1 or #2 for my primary key phrases. Why? Because I truly provide value for visitors to my sites. I don’t want to see the search engines filled with low-quality info…profitable for the webmasters or not.
Article sites, for the most part, exist to draw people in, but not to deliver authoritative information. In fact, many article sites have very high CTR for AdSense (20%-30%). Arguably, this is because they have little useful information…and the “frustration clicks” only serve to enrich the webmaster…so it’s not in THEIR interest to increase the quality or relevance of the content. This is well-known…no new revelation on my part.
It’s one thing to find a topic….5 topics…10 topics….50 topics (if you’re superhuman), and add value thru a site by writing about something you know something about…something you can actually vouch for…and then aggregating other support resources. I can see the value there. But I can’t see with more than that. Certainly not in the hundreds or thousands. I argue that, when you serve a thousand masters, you serve none.
Exuberance too often leads in unhealthy directions. Are the Rich’s investing in an unhealthy direction? Not for their bank account, certainly. If this is just about “ME” (gimme mine!), then I would waste my time trying to shape a credible response. But if there’s a role to be played for responsible online behavior…if there’s a “right way” to do things, and not just “a way that works”…then it’s time to speak up.
Finally…and then I’ll shut up: I know that you can’t be held responsible for what people do with your tools. However, I still think you bear at least some responsibility to look at the angle those with whom you partner are promoting…and the fact that they are hoping to encourage others to crap up the web using that tool. Can I prove this? No…we’re talking about a book that doesn’t exist in the public forum yet. And, even after that, I rather strongly suggest that they’re not going to be listing all 1200 of their sites in the book. Probably not 20. Maybe none. So, I am criticizing a phantom…and you can make of that what you want. ALL I’m really trying to say is that there are consequences for our actions. I believe there’s a better way to do business. Sure, as you well know from our email exchanges, I could use the money. But I won’t cross that bridge, because I can’t see how ANYONE is served by doing so, other than my own selfish interests.
Eric, you’re one of the more principled guys I’ve run across online. My beef isn’t really with you. But I am somewhat disappointed to see what appears to be an endorsement of a quantity-over-quality model. How do you spell “1200 sites”?: “Just enough there to get by…”
(was signing off…but…)
Zeila and Mo:
Here I thought I was done for the night and YOU have to drop by!
Yes, your definition is how I define a high-quality web site. It appears that we’ll differ on this one. I would agree with you that the visitors ultimately determine the quality of the site. However, I suspect I’ll have to buy the book to learn how you know that your visitors are repeat visitors, eh? LOL…but, you would have a point…if you can document that most of your business is repeat business, you’ll shut up one of my strongest arguments.
Yes, I assumed that most of your traffic is from search engines. Again, you’re gonna talk me into spending $67 if you’re going to reveal a great technique for bringing in traffic that is not search-engine dependent. Assuming that you can back it up. And if your energy is not going into the search engines for traffic, that’s another staple thru my lips. I guess I’ll just have to see when the info becomes available.
I was not seriously suggesting that you should sell anything for 99 cents. I was responding to the absurd comment about there being no other motivation for the book than “peace, love and freedom”, or whatever it was. I believe, if you have valuable content, you most certainly should charge a fair rate, and $67 is not too much for good quality information that can lead to making money. I have paid much more for books that gave me nearly nothing.
>> Does content need to be produced by ourselves?
>> We are not experts in every niche. Can’t we
>> get someone else who is willing to spend the
>> time and effort to research on a niche, to
>> come up with the whole write-up on the niche?
>> Eg. Freshwater Fishing? And then, we become
>. the agent that allows for that content to be
>> online.
Yes, I believe that, in general…content needs to be produced by the person with the vision for the site…UNLESS you are using subject matter experts in the field to create your content…or…are you paying $5 an article to a warehouse in India to cobble and scramble up info from Wikipedia and a few other key articles already online? If it’s the latter, then you are adding zero value. If you are providing a platform for subject experts, then that’s a separate discussion. But…subject matter experts rarely work for free. So I suspect it’s the other.
I am always open to new ideas. And if your ideas are truly something new…and not just repackaged gunk…then I will owe you an apology for criticizing too harshly even before your product hits the market. But I suspect that I am more on-target than off. And I’m willing to check out your product and see for myself.
I am not ANTI-Zeila-and-Mo. I am “PRO” doing-things-a-better-way. If you have things to teach me that fall into that category, I’ll not only pay for the privilege of learning them, but I’ll be happy to splash your names all over the place.
But…I’m still skeptical. Thanks for contributing here, though.
best,
c-
By the way, Eric…when my comments are twice the length of your original posts…don’t I rate “guest blogger” status or somethin?
After all, it’s all about the content, baby!
Hi Chuck,
every society needs people like you to keep the checks and balances in place. We thank you for that. We are not conformists ourselves.
When the books hit the “shelves”, you will quickly learn how we know visitors are coming back to our website, again and again, and again, and again.
And, we don’t utilize SEO at all, they come naturally, when our first wave of visitors spread about the websites.
I can’t wait for you to read the book, and start feeling bad about being so skeptical in the first place.
Let me ask you something. Do you think there are books better than the Harry Potter’s series? If so, why are these books not selling as well as JK’s? It’s all about marketing, it’s all about capturing your market.
You might have a website about web-design, but your website is not an authority website, but does that make your website low quality? No, it’s just that the information you have is not reaching out to as many people as you would like, because the problem is with marketing and packaging.
Our business model revolves around marketing and packaging. Content wise, our websites all have content visitors keep coming back for more.
But let’s just say, our strategies are very new, but have been tested to work. Even Google approves them. In our book, we’ll have case-studies, not all of them, a few, enough to make our readers understand the AR Tactics.
Nice to discuss this with you, Chuck.
I think I’ll enjoy your sense of humor.
Zeila
Chuck, anytime you want an account on this blog, let me know, you’re perhaps the only one I’d let post here!
But does anyone read these comments is the real question?
I’m going to bed right now, so I’ll have to respond later… always interesting talking to you!
Eric
I picture Chuck lying in bed chanting create quality content, create quality content, … What is the point of reading a blog about making money with Google AdSense and then railing against the people that do make money with Google Adsense? Since when are websites morally obligated to make the world a better place? You seem to be the one preaching “peace, love and freedom”.
>>Yes, I believe that, in general…content needs to >>be produced by the person with the vision for >>the site
Ever visited Wikipedia?
Anyway, I’m looking forward to the book. Best of luck Zeila and Moe.
Thanks Scott for the words of encouragement.
It’s not easy to surface, and deal with this. But thank God for people like you.
Zeila
Zeila & Mo,
The field of internet marketing is filled with empty promises and half-truths. I appreciate your willingness to show up and stick up for your product. I would LOVE it if you proved me wrong. It’s certainly much easier to point to something one can support than it is to bash old, failed, warmed-over concepts.
Eric,
Thanks for the kind words. I tend to think that my role is more the rabble-rouser than as a blogger. While I have a blog, I publish content rarely… only when I can find something that really impresses me. I think I’m better to suited to stay down here in the comments.
Scott,
It’s a funny thing about websites…they don’t create themselves. Webmasters are (purportedly) businesspeople. If you’re asking me to establish the need for a link between ethical behavior and business practices, then I’d be happy to…in some other forum. It saddens me that the need for such a link is not obvious to all already.
Yes, I love Wikipedia. But I don’t see your point. Wikipedia is (generally speaking) considered a key source of authoritative content. They take this sense of mission very seriously. Google agrees, and shows it by ranking them consistently in the top 5. They also have no overt profit motive intermingled with their content. And if there are $5 articles written by those who have no personal subject knowledge on Wikipedia, they are certainly few and far between. If there’s a parallel here, I’m not seeing it.
I’m with Chuck, on this one. I’m more than a bit skeptical. However, I’ll also admit that I’m biased against the mass production of made for Adsence sites (oops… that’s AdSense. Just wanted to see if Eric was paying attention :>)
I don’t know what the laws are like in Singapore or Canada, but here in the United States people love lawsuits. Here’s my fear…
Let’s say I put together a medical, financial, or safety related AdSense site from PLR or paraphrased Ezine Articles. Someone then takes my site’s advice — with dire consequences — and sues me. Then, in court, it comes out that my site consists primarily of the cheap, unresearched crap and I end up living in a cardboard box.
It could happen. That’s why I’m hesitant to write about anything except the relatively fews topics that I’m familiar with. But that’s just me. (Heck, if I get sued, maybe I’ll just move to Singapore.)
Johnny
Johnny,
If you move to Singapore, be prepared to give up chewing gum - it’s banned there.
Actually, like Canada and the U.S., Singapore law is based on English Common Law. You would probably find the law in Singapore to be not too different from U.S. or Canadian law, although local customs and needs do change the way in which law is administered.
I believe that the citizens of both Singapore and Canada are far less litigious than in the U.S. although the mechanisms are just as available to sue. If the need should arise, there are probably ways of reaching people attempting to avoid the service of U.S. court orders by suing in Singapore courts.
I have lost touch with Singapore in the past few years but I was impressed by it when I lived there for a few years.
Hi Zeila and Mo,
I’m waiting to learn more from you… not like others spending their valuable (or idle?) time on other people’s blog posting disagreeing views - they should be writing more “quality” content in their own sites instead.
Good luck in your coming new launch and I wish you Happy Hari Raya Haji in advance! May The Force be with You!
my best wishes,
Lum (”>)
your fellow S’porean
Johnny, Maurice, Lum.
Thanks for the comments.
Johnny:
if you are uncomfortable with the medical niche, then leave it to whoever is comfortable. Suggestion is to get a real medical professional to do the write-up, and split the revenues. I can understand your biased views about this. But let me assure you there are far too many niches, and far too many Internet users. It’s all about marketing your websites that’s the key!
Maurice:
Singapore is a very good place to do business. It’s world’s top 3 best places to do business.
Lum:
That’s what years of business has taught us.
thanks for the kind words. I feel the world is a great place because of the diversity. I don’t expect everyone to be as supportive as you.
Zeila and Mo
1 minute before Christmas to find it all out yourself
Well some people do read the comments, Eric … and Chuck and Zelia and Mo
I for one want to see the product … I’m frankly a little tired of the overlong “buildup” myself.
I am aligned in a lot of ways with Chuck’s thinking about quantity versus quality and the ethical dilemma posed by putting up sites for the sole purpose of attracting AdSense clicks … even though it is absolutely the case that Google, for all their pontification, encourages this business model wholeheartedly. I’m going to have a look … and make my decision then.
For Zelia and Mo … I like a lot of what you say, but please, please, please get off this alturistic pedestal of “we want to release this to help the world”. I’m 62 years old. I’ve been listening to bogus “crappola” like that since long before there was an Internet.
It’s like mixing ardent religious persuasion with people’s breakfast orders in a restaurant … out of place and inappropriate.
You are a talented team who has devised a “better way’ to earn money with AdSense. Super. You are the authors of an ebook whose market research has suggested $67 as the best sell price point. Again, great, I applaud you. Nothing I have ever written is worth 67 cents.
But let it go at that, please. To be an entrepreneur who provides as useful product at a fair price is nothing that requires apology … you do not have to position yourselves as the ’saviors” of the Internet or any of its denizens.
MOF I do not care for the title at all … “resurrection’ (especially if capitalized … and I’m sure Eric wants it properly capitalized ;-)) has significant religious overtones to many and it also presumes AdSense is dead … or it couldn’t be resurrected. Let’s separate business from religious fervor and together make money … honorably, of course.
Hi Dave Starr.
Appreciate your comment.
Let us clarify something here.
We were very comfortable and happy when we unknown. We made the money from Google, and we were satisfied.
We could have chosen to be selfish, and remain earning the money each month without fail, and avoid all these.
We decided to surface from the underground because of several reasons:
1. to help people make real money off the Internet (and stop scammers and gurus alike from stealing money from people)
2. to raise money for our charity
3. networking, and get to know more people, as we do have other businesses, and we need the network to make them successful as well
We have no reason or motivation to share our tactics with anyone except for the above three reasons.
I work for a religious organisation, and Mo’s a teacher. We can’t help it, but get ourselves into the business of altruism, and at the same time, we don’t feed anyone with fishes, but teach them to fish. We love meeting people, and helping them. We’ve been doing these for ages.
Mo came up with the marketing campaign, because the buzz was that AdSense is dead. It was purely marketing gimmick, nonewhatsoever religiously inclined. We also have a campaign for the general public “Make Millions From Google”.
We appear to be “saviors” of the Internet, because that’s what we desire to be. If not for that desire, we wouldn’t be here replying to your comment.
Well, at the end of the day, the reason why we are successful, and others will not, even after knowing our tactics, is because of themselves. They are not motivated enough to succeed. I can give anyone the key to a million dollars, but on the condition that you climb the mountain, and grab the key first. Not everyone can succeed in AR, not because our tactics don’t work, but because some people have been living their lives, trying to make something out of their lives.
We really hope to prove you wrong about the “bogus “crappola” you’ve been listening too.
Well, 1 minute before Christmas!
Nice talking to you. There’s much to learn from a 62-year-old man like yourself.
Zeila and Mo
Chuck, it almost sounds like that if it were up to you, the only website that should appear for ANY search would be Wikipedia. Just one search result for all keyphrases. And that perhaps bookstores should only contain reference sections. But there is more to good content that expert advice.
Say I had a website and wanted to make use of the keyphrase “best cat toys.” I agree that if I put some jumbled-up stuff on an article, taken from snippets of 17 other articles, put the phrase “best cat toys” all over it, and stuck it on my website and did black-hat tactics to get it listed on the Google first page, that would be criminal. Frankly if the AdSense Resurrected kit suggests doing something like that, I would ask for a refund.
On the other hand, I don’t think I need to be an expert on “best cat toys” to write my own article about it. I don’t need to do years of research, travel to Tokyo to see the latest inventions, or do interviews with cats themselves, in order to write a decent article about cat toys. Nor do I need to spend thousands of dollars to cat toy experts, to have them write my content. There is a middle ground here.
I can certainly do some research on what the best cat toys are; it doesn’t have to take hours to do. Then I can take that knowledge and form my own opinions and create a personalized article that I hope would be read.
My point is, that I don’t feel good content needs to be expert content. It needs to enlighten readers. Yeah I don’t like reading garbage, but I don’t like reading college textbooks either. I like reading something enjoyable to read, that gives me the information I need, in an easy-to-understand manner.
I just wanted to comment on content, thanks.
Rich,
You won’t be asking for a refund I guarantee you that. We don’t use blackhat tactics. If we were, do you think Eric G, AdSense extraordinaire, would work with us on the project?
I trust Eric a whole lot. That’s why we’ve been able to reveal a few tactics here, and a few tactics there to him, so that he can develop AdSenseResurrector, for everyone. It brings costs down, and quickens up the whole process. It’s all about your returns on investment. We maxed out all our credit cards when we first applied our AR tactics. But you don’t have to!
It’s our time, money and effort that you are buying, not AR, per say.
Content is important. But how do you get your content to your targeted audience, and get them coming over and over again, and then make them your customers for life? That’s the question AdSense Resurrected will provide answers to. It’s truly the $1 million dollar question.
Here’s something else. We don’t rely on SEO that much, because backlinking is exponential over time. We have websites which we have not pumped in a single cent on marketing anymore, but still bringing in traffic. We did not even bother to do any SEO in the first place. We paid for small traffic, and this wave of traffic made way for long term free traffic. That’s what AR is all about.
It’s all about being intelligent in making money, and at the same time, abiding all laws. Remember, we are Singaporeans. We law-abiding citizens. LOL.
Zeila and Mo
P.S. Can you guys do a favour? Please record your comments on video, and upload on YouTube. We would love to put up all the video comments on our new TV Channel - GoogleMillions.TV. Launching soon.
Rich (et al),
I agree 100% with the statements you made. As in any discussion/argument/debate, I overstated a bit in the matter of “subject matter experts” to make a point…that point being that a fairly decent degree of personal investment SHOULD be implied by putting up a website in the first place on a given topic. You and I both know that that’s very frequently not the case. But when someone creates a site, they are implicitly declaring themselves some sort of authoritative resource…otherwise, why would ANYONE ever visit them?
I don’t believe you have to be a true subject matter expert to sell a product or a line of products. But very few folks will ever patronize a business who doesn’t have at least enough knowledge to make informed personal recommendations (whereas a true SME would also be able to address all the surrounding issues, etc)use. Most of us don’t have time to do a lot of research every time we want to buy a product, unless the product really represents a signficant investment. And, even then…well, I’ll take myself for example. I’m getting ready to buy a decent digital camera. I don’t have hours to spend in reading up on all there is to know about the various product lines available. But that’s why a site like Amazon is so valuable to me. I can read about the $250 camera that I am intending to buy in a couple weeks (Kodak EasyShare Z812), and I get the benefit of reviews from folks who have a bit of personal hands-on experience…who can tell me what they like, and what they’ve found the personal drawbacks to be…and to allow me to purchase with a reasonable degree of confidence.
Of course, not all sites can provide product reviews. But if we are going to position ourselves as purveyors of reputable information (i.e., article sites), then SOMEONE in the process should really know what they are talking about! And, if the articles are written by people with zero personal experience with the topic or product, or simply straight-up or jumbled reprints of content which already exists elsewhere, in my view, the webmaster is a “web spammer”…which I would define as someone who intends to make money by getting in the way of the purchasing process without adding any additional value to the process whatsoever. Can’t we agree that this is, in fact, the very definition of “spam”?
In terms of the way Zeila and Mo make their claims and express their motives, etc…I have begun to surmise that some of the issues with the claims of solely altruistic motives and the highly superlative speech may be more cultural than anything else. I have observed that kind of thing a lot with various Asian cultures…and I didn’t pick up on it right away in this case, or I might not have been so quick to criticize it. This internet marketing stuff IS a field filled with hype, and I initially recoiled from those statements, thinking that it was more of the same. But, to be fair, it may just be their personal style of communication…and it would be unfair of me to insist that they adjust to fit my cultural comfort level.
However, for me, the proof has to be in the pudding. I’ll take a look at the product when it comes out. Until then, I’ll hold my peace…lest I be found tilting at windmills. I’m still just as skeptical as I always have been in this matter, but I do appreciate the fact that Zeila and Mo have been vociferous in their defense of their product…even if there has been, so far, no actual content presented to-date in support of those assurances. I would dearly LOVE to find an angle for making money with niche marketing which I deem honorable enough to merit my personal involvement. I have yet to see it done in a way that makes me comfortable, other than those who write about things regarding which they have personal knowledge. I am not hopeful as regards this particular product, but I am open.
I, too, have a lot of respect for Eric. There are no longer even handful of blogs to which I subscribe on the topics of “making money online” (a phrase which I personally loath because of what it’s come to represent for me, as a result of the scammy nature of most of what is taught about it). I have always found that Eric conducts himself in a well-formed, balanced manner…whether teaching about an AdSense technique that he has researched, or reviewing a product. If it weren’t for that respect, I wouldn’t be here, either, and wouldn’t even have heard about Z&M’s upcoming product…and I certainly wouldn’t have hunted them down just to comment on it.
Chuck,
Internet is a place for information. And the only way to get the traffic you need for your business, you need content.
And the quality of content is subjective.
Let’s say I rehashed somebody’s information, let’s say from wikipedia, and I presented it in a different way. I brought traffic to that information, and the traffic keeps coming back, and eventually becomes my customers, and keep making me money. Is it unethical? I created something more palatable to a different segment of internet users. What’s wrong with that?
Seriously Chuck, I just feel you worry that if too many people get their hands on AdSense Resurrected, you’ll face stiff competition.
Content wise, it’s good for everyone. Internet users are spoilt for choices. We do not spam the search engine with useless links, or content. It’s content that real visitors would pick up on, not just the search engine robots.
It’s a paradigm shift. We mass produce content on a large scale with special features, in a systematic way. It makes us the money. Someone who prefer to build a website at a time. It’s like a factory in China mass producing t-shirts, and a grandma sewing a t-shirt for her favourite grandchild. Who’s t-shirt is better? It’s subjective, isn’t it?
10 more days, Chuck! I would love for you to review it, and let me know. I would like to put your review on our website along with other reviews.
Hello Z&M,
>> the only way to get the traffic you
>> need for your business, you need content.
Not true, but somewhat true. There are many ways to get traffic. Better selection of products, lower prices, word of mouth, ads, search engines, social media, blog subscriptions, a sense of community…i.e., you need to have something people want. It depends on your business model, but there certainly needs to be SOMETHING that draws them back. Some sites do this better than others. But…if you’re speaking of article-based sites exclusively…yes, you have to have some sort of info-content. However, I don’t think many people go to article sites for info on their own…because of patronage to the site (”yeah, I found good stuff on killing off my acne here once before…I wonder what they have to say about LED lightbulbs”). You’ve indicated that they do, and for that, I’ll have to wait until I see what you’re suggesting. I believe that the vast majority of article sites get their traffic from the search engines.
>> And the quality of content is subjective.
Again, we disagree. On one level, I have to acknowledge that the quality of content varies somewhat…drastically, in fact. But rather than claiming that it is subjective, I think its far more accurate to say that it is “unjudged” (I may have just invented a word). Maybe “unexamined” or “unscruitinzed” is better. I think that, laid out side-to-side, almost all of us would judge content in a fairly similar manner. For example, when someone writes about something they really understand, they write a certain way. There is a flow of thought, topics are covered, helpful information is offered, and usually expert opinion is rendered on some level. This kind of writing is helpful. There are other kinds of writing where someone will take that same basic content (created originally by someone else)…and without adding any value whatsoever, they will jumble the content…mix up the paragraphs, mix up the individual sentences (as long as they contain proper keyword density, etc) and spit out something else. There are even programs that will do this for you. For the most part, this is inferior content…produced with the intent of getting all or most of the benefit, without the personal investment required to make any claims of authority. It doesn’t take a genius to follow the strategy in this game.
>> Let’s say I rehashed somebody’s information,
>> let’s say from wikipedia, and I presented it
>> in a different way. I brought traffic to that
>> information, and the traffic keeps coming back,
>> and eventually becomes my customers, and keep
>> making me money. Is it unethical? I created
>> something more palatable to a different segment
>> of internet users. What’s wrong with that?
IF (and that’s a strong “if”) you found a way to add additional value based on someone else’s information, then I have no beef with that. On one level, content becomes somewhat like “common property” once it’s released online. There is a certain aspect of that which cannot be stopped. It is generally considered appropriate, of course, to quote your source…giving a tip of the hat to an authoritative source, when you quote them. However, just to republish the content as-is… or just to jumble the words…and especially, to take an author’s own work and go to war with him in the search engines…yes, sorry…that is most certainly unethical behavior. What gives anyone the right to do this? Just because you are ABLE to do it? This is the very heart of my argument. You are, in effect, scraping or stealing content without benefit of personal investment and using it for your personal profit. And not only that…by aggressively promoting this duplicate content, you are diluting the authority and value of those who created it in the first place. Your site has ZERO reason to exist, and in fact stands in the way of people finding the original authoritative source. Without clear addition of value, there is no ethical system where this can be justified.
>> Seriously Chuck, I just feel you worry
>> that if too many people get their hands
>> on AdSense Resurrected, you’ll face
>> stiff competition.
No need to worry on my account. I don’t make my living on article content. I do have a single article site that features exclusive content, not duplicate material. But it’s probably the lowest-priority of all my sites, and I will likely sell it soon. So I don’t have a dog in this hunt in terms of competition.
>> Content wise, it’s good for everyone.
>> Internet users are spoilt for choices.
>> We do not spam the search engine with
>> useless links, or content. It’s content
>> that real visitors would pick up on, not
>> just the search engine robots.
More and more content is not good for everyone when the truly authoritative content is lost in a sea of impersonal, inferior content. I’ve heard you say that you don’t depend on the search engines. I can’t respond until I see what you do depend on. And if you are generating real, valuable content that builds loyalty and return traffic, then I likely have no beef with it. But we’re still discussing a phantom until I see specifics…so I can’t say more about that.
>> It’s a paradigm shift. We mass produce
>> content on a large scale with special
>> features, in a systematic way. It makes
>. us the money. Someone who prefer to build
>> a website at a time. It’s like a factory
>> in China mass producing t-shirts, and a
>> grandma sewing a t-shirt for her
>> favourite grandchild. Who’s t-shirt is
>> better? It’s subjective, isn’t it?
Again, these are all somewhat empty claims until demonstrated. I’m not saying you’re not doing it…but I can’t know yet. I DO think there’s a place for certain kinds of aggregation sites, featuring better presentation of content (some of it duplicated, with sources properly referenced), supported by relevant resources. But I am HIGHLY skeptical that you can add true benefit to more than a limited number of sites. 1200? I’m almost BEYOND skeptical at that point. But…I will wait and see.
>> 10 more days, Chuck! I would love for
>> you to review it, and let me know. I would
>> like to put your review on our website
>> along with other reviews.
I have every intention of checking it out.
I think what you and many others are missing is this: It’s very easy to make claims that “info is just info”. Everyone who stops and thinks objectively about this issue for a few minutes knows that this is not true. And, in fact, a great deal of time and money are being invested to trump “all y’all” (a saying from the southern U.S.) by some very big dogs. We already know about Wikipedia and Squidoo…and how dominant they can be in the rankings (esp. Wikipedia, as they have carefully separated profit from content in an effort to be seen as an authority sites). But we haven’t yet seen the real fight that’s coming. This week, Google announced “Google Knol”, their OWN version of Wikipedia…and whaddayaknow, they are featuring authors with pictures and bios. Yes, on one level, this is a cash grab by Google…but it’s also a response to all this inferior information… because “we” (collectively speaking) want to be able to trust that what we read bears some authority. And you can bet that every search engine will eventually move in this direction, or partner with someone who has already built info-sources with true authority.
What I don’t believe you get, Z&M, is that these systems you’re touting are short-lived…purely short-term strategies. But I’m suggesting that you are building your base on a sandy beach rather than a solid foundation. If you don’t have in mind the two precepts by which I believe all new sites should be judged…uniqueness and value…then you are just moving shells around on a tabletop, hoping to game the system before the police come along and shut down your table. I believe there’s a very “spammy” quality to sites that don’t hold uniqueness and value as a personal standard. This kind of thinking is not new to me. Anyone who sits down and tries to figure out how to serve the web surfing public can see this. Certainly the search engines struggle with it every day. Thus, they first de-rank the sites with hundreds of occurences of “Britney Spears” in white type on a white background. Then, they begin to penalize duplicate-content pages/sites. Then, they come back and de-rank “scraper” sites (stolen content, slightly repackaged…and packed with AdSense). Recently, they came back and began de-ranking Pay-per-Post sites…another spammy blight on value, where people whored out their own personal reputations for $20 a pop. Blogs have been used for the last few years as blog-and-ping systems (zero value added) and there have been moves to de-rank these as well…and in Google’s case, to shut some of them down.
I am suggesting that it’s time for people to start considering where true value lies. It’s only when we take a personal stand against garbage that we really free ourselves to see what we really have to contribute. In some cases, we have little to offer and little business taking it online. Unfortunately, a very large number of people spend so much time viewing it as a numbers game that they never truly get around to finding out what they could offer that brings TRUE value to others.
I have taken that personal stand. I want to encourage others to do the same. I have created quite a few high-value sites myself based on my interests and personal strengths. I’m not saying that others should follow my lead, per se (I’m not personally knowledgable enough for anyone to get in line and follow me)…but only that they should examine where they are investing themselves…to see whether they are just playing numbers games…trying to stay one step ahead of the sheriff, hoping to cash out before their sites get de-ranked, or whether they are building something with long-term value…something that builds a loyal bases, that serves an actual need, and still makes money on the side.
Z&M, I don’t know yet where your system falls in all this. I have heard your words. I’m waiting to see what you have to offer. As I said, I would dearly LOVE for you to show me that you’re not just repackaging the same old garbage. There are plenty of people making a ton of money with junk…so your financial success is, in my mind, no endorsement of the quality of your business model. But if you are different, then I’d certainly like to know about it, because there’s always a place for new presentation and application of things that can truly add value online.
best,
c-
Chuck,
sorry but we didn’t read everything you wrote. It’s getting too long for comfort.
Anyhow, let’s just wait for Christmas.
Thanks!
With the AdSense Resurrector, will there be addtional templates to use? I don’t want to use the same template everyone else is using,sorry!
Kim,
most definitely. We have what we call AR Monthly Membership, that provides you templates to use with your AdSenseResurrector, every month. We also will provide custom design solutions to your websites if necessary.
We totally understand where you coming from.
Zeila
Sounds great! I look forward to the launch, have one more question, how would one go about getting alot of domain names hosted, say if I wanted 200 domains for my adsense websites using the AR tactics? That would be alot of money on domain names alone, or do you have a way, or is there away around this? Thanks again!
Well Kim,
how one can get many domain names for lower prices? That’s our trade “secret”. Hahaha…
It will all be in the book. Sorry..
Zeila
I have been waiting for the launch for AR tactics patiently, I hope I am one of the few to get a special link, I’ve even been saving my money for this launch, keeping my fingers crossed:)
Well all the hype has come and gone, so we are just left with the disappointment of the AR tactics, to bad, I was hoping to join!!
Hey Eric, How about you releasing something like Ar tactics to the rest of us, I would buy it!
So what’s going on? Is the launch late, is it not happening at all, did I miss it?
Rich, you did not miss anything, Ar will be giving to a select few, obvious you and were not among the chosen 10 spots, but it will be released later(so they say) I honestly felt that this was going to be big, waited and waited, only to be let down again! So all I can say now is just wait and see, maybe something else will come along that might be better, keep your finger crossed!
Kim thanks for the reply… if that’s the case I guess I misunderstood everything, the emails and this blog seemed to state that the launch was Christmas Day, which to me mean that it would all be ready today, to purchase. But if it meant only to 10 people it would be ready, then I realy feel stupid sitting here waiting for a reply as to what happened.
I know it’s Christmas but I hope Eric and the Rich’s reply to this misunderstaning today, because it’s distressing to me to look forward to something that I thought was going to happen today, and it does not and there is no clear explanation.
Yes it was going to launch today, but they feel it is not ready for the masses, testing it out on 10 people is not what I have been waiting for all this time! So all you and I can do is keep going forward! Maybe in the future it will be ready, who knows! If it is offered in the future, I will still try it out, all you can do is keep pushing forward and try things in hope that maybe I will find something that works!
Thanks Kim. Yes what I got from the site is that it was to launch today, and 10 people would be lucky enough to try it for free. The rest of us could pay for it, which is what I was willing to do.
But what bothers me is that there was no explanation here, or on their site, saying that the launch is delayed, and when it will happen. Since I’ve seen so much hype about this launch, I think either Eric or the Rich’s can spend 10 minutes today and explain what is going on. That to me is unprofessional. Hopefully tomorrow we will get a reply about this.