Due to the fact that certain partial people seem to delight in deleting my posts, I am forced to break out a new thread in answer to the two above which have now descended into defamation of me personally as well as Far Eastern business people:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you people no shame?
You lambaste and deride Mr Wong in his absence and your ignorance, and you slight and indeed defame me, and then you have the audacity to offer him your help, support and services.
You find time to write lengthy tomes setting out your theories of dastardly purpose and subterfuge, but when it comes to having the common courtesy to make time to apologies properly and respond, you obfuscate; you're too busy.
And the damage isn't undone - only today I saw another hasty, ill judged post acknowledging your warnings and forebodings, and no doubt spreading the word through the witch-finder grapevine, 'beware 'Ides of Google' for they are a thing of great evil perpetrated by an phantom from the far side - it must be so because I heard from the great and good of the academy' .... Gossip and rumor mongering of the worst kind.
There are words for this kind of behavior, and none are flattering.
Please, point out one thing that I knowingly said which I knew to be untrue and cause for calling me a liar?
My thread has been deleted - I am still waiting for an explanation and especially to know that no one involved in that action had any potential conflict of interest - for example were neither a contributor nor a subject of the thread - as far as I am aware, Mr Wong made no complaint, and, as I have said, nothing I said there was false.
If anyone quoted objected, then a judicious moderator could easily have removed the offending quote, however, since when has accurate quotation and attribution been against the rules. There was no need nor justification for hiding of the entire thread.
I note that Mr Wong has raised concerns about the allegations contained in this thread, but that nothing has been done to allay his concerns. Here is a man with a brilliant idea who has a vision and is prepared to bet his own resources on delivering it - but for you that's not enough - you have to look for mal-intent - what is wrong with you that you cannot be more gracious.
There is a blog on this site from a man who has his days measured out before him - will you be telling him he's wrong, that he should not live how he wants to live; will you be questioning the veracity of his situation and story, will you be telling him and us that his physicians are all charlatans and he should take no notice? Look at your behavior.
And yet you have the audacity to suggest that Mr Wong will find knowledge and people of value here.
Fortunately, Mr Wong is a reasonable and level headed man who has his mind focused on his objective, and I suspect he will spend little time being diverted from that, no matter how 'helpful' you profess to be. If you wanted to help him, and yourselves, you should have supported his endeavors rather than, as is often the case in here, deriding, criticizing, disparaging and generally denigrating his idea, objective, efforts and, by implication, self.
By helping him, you would have helped yourselves - his vision hinges on success for everyone and not a little wealth for those prepared to help him build his dream; those willing to subscribe to his theory and support his objectives. But no, you would rather question my motives, and then his, and even accuse me of a most elaborate subterfuge - I am Wong. You're mad!
Incidentally, how many of you, despite your protestations, have actually signed-up for AdGoggle - let's hear - yes or no, have you signed up …. No doubt you'll meet my expectations and remain silent on that challenge - go on; humor me - have you registered?
In my thread I had a man who seemed to be suffering from some sort of delusional obsessive compulsive disorder - he kept telling me that I was doing what he does and that what he does is good, but what I was doing was bad - arguing with himself - why; was he mad too?
So let's see how genuine your acceptance of Mr Wong and his innocence is, let's see how much tolerance and respect you've managed to learn so far, by this experience.
AdGoggle turns Internet Advertising on it's Head - that is Mr Wong's view - do you agree, or do you think his idea is flawed? You wanted to help - do tell, how is it flawed?
A practical question, do you think people favor or not using, 'sign on using facebook'? Do people trust it - do they believe it's secure - who believes that it provides the app with access to your 'address book' - access to invite all your friends without your knowledge?
AdGoggle's like an MLM but you don't have to buy anything - is it possible that a business that requires you not to spend money, but to spend time and click ads. could be reasonably described as an MLM? Is the classic MLM business model good or bad and why? Is the sharing of the revenue earned by the whole amongst the many according to their efforts, inputs and evangelism, reasonable?
Does AdGoggle's objective to effectively seek to combine the classic 6-degree networking phenomenon with a multi-layered business revenue sharing model have any credibility, and will AdGoggle create a fantastic viral marketing mesh, which will present a compelling opportunity to advertisers wishing to target their spending more accurately?
It is true that AdGoggle is not yet the mobile app that pays users passive recurring income when they and their social networks view ads, but that is Mr Wong's intention.
But he is (or at least he was before his experience of meeting you folks) planning to launch soon, and users really are pre-registering and building AdGoggle networks. When I last looked there were over 9,000 Likes on the AdGoggle facebook page - assuming all of those correspond with people who have signed up, and assuming that AdGoggle is experiencing the classic return of around 5%, then that means, probably, that, if 5% of the people who clicked through actually registered, and 5% of the people who saw some form of invitation clicked through, a total of 3.6M people, so far, have seen an invitation to join AdGoggle, and assuming that those 3.6M were in fact just 5% of all of those people who have actually been sent an invitation then it could be that over 72M people, so far, have been sent an invitation in some way!
However, as those involved in marketing will know, there is something known as "The Rule of Seven", an old marketing adage, which says that a prospect needs to see or hear your marketing message at least seven times before they take action and buy from you. So if that's the case, pent up in those 72M people are many who will take the plunge and register with AdGoogle at some point in time - and as those of you with functioning brain cells will have worked out by now, the sooner the better.
According to AdGoggle and Mr Wong, the more people in your network, the more money they and you could make - and it's FREE forever!!
http://www.adgoggle.com/ref/a/buwx2tvr
From a marketing point of view, AdGoggle is trying to crack a problem that no one has been wholly successful in so far: The AdGoggle vision is to allow advertisers to reach their target audience effectively, and for users to receive advertisements that match their interests. There's nothing new in that; Google, Facebook, et al, are all trying to achieve that. But to date, nobody has been able to.
For Google, a CTR of 5% is considered high. Tests of CTR for ads on Facebook render around 0.04%, which is around the average. So lots of ads are being sent out to uninterested people - just like invitations to join AdGoggle, however, most of those disinterested people do not spend their precious time slagging it off.
AdGoggle will incentive's people to read ads through the MLM revenue share, however, by ensuring ads are continually tailored to people's interests, that should also result in sales for advertisers. And if advertisers find that AdGoggle is a successful marketing platform where the ROI is significant, we could all be looking at the next best thing; whilst some of us will be joining in!
PS. Apologies for any typos which I will happily rectify if they are pointed out to me - I don't have the time today to write much more, so please excuse my brevity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you people no shame?
You lambaste and deride Mr Wong in his absence and your ignorance, and you slight and indeed defame me, and then you have the audacity to offer him your help, support and services.
You find time to write lengthy tomes setting out your theories of dastardly purpose and subterfuge, but when it comes to having the common courtesy to make time to apologies properly and respond, you obfuscate; you're too busy.
And the damage isn't undone - only today I saw another hasty, ill judged post acknowledging your warnings and forebodings, and no doubt spreading the word through the witch-finder grapevine, 'beware 'Ides of Google' for they are a thing of great evil perpetrated by an phantom from the far side - it must be so because I heard from the great and good of the academy' .... Gossip and rumor mongering of the worst kind.
There are words for this kind of behavior, and none are flattering.
Please, point out one thing that I knowingly said which I knew to be untrue and cause for calling me a liar?
My thread has been deleted - I am still waiting for an explanation and especially to know that no one involved in that action had any potential conflict of interest - for example were neither a contributor nor a subject of the thread - as far as I am aware, Mr Wong made no complaint, and, as I have said, nothing I said there was false.
If anyone quoted objected, then a judicious moderator could easily have removed the offending quote, however, since when has accurate quotation and attribution been against the rules. There was no need nor justification for hiding of the entire thread.
I note that Mr Wong has raised concerns about the allegations contained in this thread, but that nothing has been done to allay his concerns. Here is a man with a brilliant idea who has a vision and is prepared to bet his own resources on delivering it - but for you that's not enough - you have to look for mal-intent - what is wrong with you that you cannot be more gracious.
There is a blog on this site from a man who has his days measured out before him - will you be telling him he's wrong, that he should not live how he wants to live; will you be questioning the veracity of his situation and story, will you be telling him and us that his physicians are all charlatans and he should take no notice? Look at your behavior.
And yet you have the audacity to suggest that Mr Wong will find knowledge and people of value here.
Fortunately, Mr Wong is a reasonable and level headed man who has his mind focused on his objective, and I suspect he will spend little time being diverted from that, no matter how 'helpful' you profess to be. If you wanted to help him, and yourselves, you should have supported his endeavors rather than, as is often the case in here, deriding, criticizing, disparaging and generally denigrating his idea, objective, efforts and, by implication, self.
By helping him, you would have helped yourselves - his vision hinges on success for everyone and not a little wealth for those prepared to help him build his dream; those willing to subscribe to his theory and support his objectives. But no, you would rather question my motives, and then his, and even accuse me of a most elaborate subterfuge - I am Wong. You're mad!
Incidentally, how many of you, despite your protestations, have actually signed-up for AdGoggle - let's hear - yes or no, have you signed up …. No doubt you'll meet my expectations and remain silent on that challenge - go on; humor me - have you registered?
In my thread I had a man who seemed to be suffering from some sort of delusional obsessive compulsive disorder - he kept telling me that I was doing what he does and that what he does is good, but what I was doing was bad - arguing with himself - why; was he mad too?
So let's see how genuine your acceptance of Mr Wong and his innocence is, let's see how much tolerance and respect you've managed to learn so far, by this experience.
AdGoggle turns Internet Advertising on it's Head - that is Mr Wong's view - do you agree, or do you think his idea is flawed? You wanted to help - do tell, how is it flawed?
A practical question, do you think people favor or not using, 'sign on using facebook'? Do people trust it - do they believe it's secure - who believes that it provides the app with access to your 'address book' - access to invite all your friends without your knowledge?
AdGoggle's like an MLM but you don't have to buy anything - is it possible that a business that requires you not to spend money, but to spend time and click ads. could be reasonably described as an MLM? Is the classic MLM business model good or bad and why? Is the sharing of the revenue earned by the whole amongst the many according to their efforts, inputs and evangelism, reasonable?
Does AdGoggle's objective to effectively seek to combine the classic 6-degree networking phenomenon with a multi-layered business revenue sharing model have any credibility, and will AdGoggle create a fantastic viral marketing mesh, which will present a compelling opportunity to advertisers wishing to target their spending more accurately?
It is true that AdGoggle is not yet the mobile app that pays users passive recurring income when they and their social networks view ads, but that is Mr Wong's intention.
But he is (or at least he was before his experience of meeting you folks) planning to launch soon, and users really are pre-registering and building AdGoggle networks. When I last looked there were over 9,000 Likes on the AdGoggle facebook page - assuming all of those correspond with people who have signed up, and assuming that AdGoggle is experiencing the classic return of around 5%, then that means, probably, that, if 5% of the people who clicked through actually registered, and 5% of the people who saw some form of invitation clicked through, a total of 3.6M people, so far, have seen an invitation to join AdGoggle, and assuming that those 3.6M were in fact just 5% of all of those people who have actually been sent an invitation then it could be that over 72M people, so far, have been sent an invitation in some way!
However, as those involved in marketing will know, there is something known as "The Rule of Seven", an old marketing adage, which says that a prospect needs to see or hear your marketing message at least seven times before they take action and buy from you. So if that's the case, pent up in those 72M people are many who will take the plunge and register with AdGoogle at some point in time - and as those of you with functioning brain cells will have worked out by now, the sooner the better.
According to AdGoggle and Mr Wong, the more people in your network, the more money they and you could make - and it's FREE forever!!
http://www.adgoggle.com/ref/a/buwx2tvr
From a marketing point of view, AdGoggle is trying to crack a problem that no one has been wholly successful in so far: The AdGoggle vision is to allow advertisers to reach their target audience effectively, and for users to receive advertisements that match their interests. There's nothing new in that; Google, Facebook, et al, are all trying to achieve that. But to date, nobody has been able to.
For Google, a CTR of 5% is considered high. Tests of CTR for ads on Facebook render around 0.04%, which is around the average. So lots of ads are being sent out to uninterested people - just like invitations to join AdGoggle, however, most of those disinterested people do not spend their precious time slagging it off.
AdGoggle will incentive's people to read ads through the MLM revenue share, however, by ensuring ads are continually tailored to people's interests, that should also result in sales for advertisers. And if advertisers find that AdGoggle is a successful marketing platform where the ROI is significant, we could all be looking at the next best thing; whilst some of us will be joining in!
PS. Apologies for any typos which I will happily rectify if they are pointed out to me - I don't have the time today to write much more, so please excuse my brevity.
No comments:
Post a Comment