Don’t Panic About My A $100K Shutdown
August 23rd, 2011 | 
Author: I wanted to clear up some panic about my A $100K site getting shut down. Wow people are speculating all over the place.
Yesterday one of my readers sent me a link to the forum in Michael’s AdSense $100K Blueprint forum where people were discussing what went wrong with my case study, should they be worried etc. So here are some of the things I read – along with my response:
Michelle, a moderator there, stated:
One thing that strikes me is that most of her articles are really short – most ranging around 300-350 words, and she only had eight posts total (at least in the cached version) that were all posted within a few days of each other (although her initial post did have just over 500 words – 506 to be exact). The site hadn’t been updated since the first week she set it up (looks like the last post was April 6th).
Based just on these factors, I would say she definitely wasn’t following the Blueprint “to the letter.” Although the content might be “original”, much of it is very short, there was little content on the site and was she was not updating the site regularly with new posts. (I, personally, never add AdSense to any site with less than 10 pages of quality content).
I might add that Tiffany Dow has been having a lot of problems as of late. Her YouTube account was recently banned as well, and it may be that Google may have her under close scrutiny. Others have also mentioned that that the pharmaceutical niche is one that Google also has under close watch, so that may be another factor to consider.
Another member commented that “very little research was done here,” insinuating that the content wasn’t very valuable. Here is my response to those “observations:”
Just a quick FYI on the “thin” content. I was following the copy I had page 54 that specifically stated articles (other than the 1st one mentioned) should be at least 300 words but “don’t have to be 500″ so when I do a review, I follow the plan verbatim (or I did until now). It wasn’t until later that Paula informed me that Google might prefer longer articles, but that wasn’t in the guide.
On the same page, it’s specified that we “don’t want any Pulitzer Prize writing here.” So if you know my normal writing, you’ll know it’s generally not so “thin.” I was, what I thought, following instructions.
Page 49 specifically warns us to not be “too good” with our content. After all, the goal is an ad click through, right?
Regarding some who feel the niche is worrisome – wish I’d been warned of that. I again, felt I was following instructions for the lesson. I was told on page 16 to focus on schools/training and health, so I paired the two.
…To which Michael replied that I was correct on all counts about. I was working off version 1 and he’s about to release version 2. So for the members to say I wasn’t following the Blueprint – um, yeah I was. Length wise, style wise. Now if they’re going above and beyond, GREAT! But the guide was followed.
The only REALLY misguided person I saw in there was some guy named Jeff who said this mouthful:
Yes, very thin content indeed.
She did do a “case study” of 100k Adsense Blueprint, however, even in the case study she said she wasn’t following it to the letter. There was several times that she said she hadn’t posted in several weeks. She worked very very loosely on it; maybe posting once a week to it, and not doing very many backlinks at all.
Even thought she said she wrote all the content her self; she goes and says in an earlier post that she had a ghost writer write content for her.
I was looking over her blog, and it looked like she had way way way too many things on her plate to do a good case study on the 100k blueprint. She even SAID this on numerous occasions in the beginning.
She was far more focused on her PLR challenge than she was on the 100k case study.
She admits that doing this kind of thing was not up her alley in the first place, as she had bombed a case study on the OWM ( one week marketing ) because of the same reason. Both of those sites got axed, this means that it is something that SHE is doing that ruins those sites.
Not sure what planet Jeff is on. The official final review for AdSense $100K Blueprint was on JUNE 12th. The first day of the PLR challenge was JULY 12th – a full month later. I always have multiple things going. He states that I flip flopped on ghostwritten versus content created by me. I specified which elements I created myself versus outsourced. Never a secret there. There was some I wanted specifically down to the letter written by me and some I was more lax about.
Never did I bomb the OWM case study – he says I had the same problem then. Um, the OWM site still makes me money to this DAY! I didn’t bomb that! One of the dozens of backlinks she had me build (the Blogger site) got deleted but nothing else. Site’s still in my control and still profitable. So personally I don’t think it’s anything I’m doing to “ruin those sites.” I’m following advice given in courses.
*Update: Jeff apologized to me in the forum for mistakenly thinking I had bombed with the OWM review – he thought I was doing something different with the course.
And I also have to say that I don’t believe there is any timeline in the guide about how fast things have to be put into place. With Michael and Paula paying such close attention to my review, I’m also sure they would have alerted me if my delays in content creation were a hazard to my site’s well being – because they’re good people.
Anyway, with the specific page numbers I quoted above, I’m surprised to see the members shocked at the content. It wasn’t some unreadable spun content – it was what he described – decent content that’s not “too good” so you can get that click. And remember, it WAS starting to convert well – it was a nice percentage and amount!
Maybe those members Franken style it as they go through, but when I was doing reviews, I implemented verbatim – even if I didn’t like some things – so that I could see how it worked.
Here’s my final word on the matter post-wise:
If you run an AdSense site, I’m 100% positive you’ll find some good tips in his course. I know I did. They also seem responsive customer service wise. But don’t be an idiot and spout off about facts you obviously have wrong. At least double check that shit first!
And if anyone knows anywhere in the guide that tells how often you should update or contribute content to your site, refresh my memory (seriously – not being smart ass here). I wanted to look that over but I can’t find anything other than what we should initially post.
Personally, I don’t know why they disabled the site – Michael was right on this – none of us will know. Why was my YouTube account disabled for a Squidoo video that had “make money on Squidoo” in the title without selling anything, but millions of truly spammy accounts aren’t disabled? It’s a gamble, period.
I honestly don’t care either because it’s not a passion of mine. Some of my subscribers asked me to review an AdSense product, so I did. End of story. It was never anything I would go after like a pitbull.
So bottom line – if you’re following his course, keep going – have fun, build well, etc. If you’re not, ok. LOL None of this is earth shattering. As a long term marketer with many successes and many failures, it’s good to test and tweak and learn – otherwise you sit stagnant.
Tiff 
Share and Enjoy
Posted in Career
Tiffany-
Excellent post. One of the things I most admire about you is your honesty. If you screw something up-you’re the first to say so. If you do the right thing, you have every right to defend yourself. I wouldn’t be on your list if I didn’t trust your judgment. I can also vouch for the quality of your content. Thank you for being the wonderful provider and mentor that you you have become to me!
Cindi
Since you asked, I’d direct you to page 53 of the blueprint “We use posts to continually update our blog and to support, or bolster, our Pages” and “‘Supporting’ content consists of our ongoing posts…” and then in the “action plan” pages 79-82, they clearly state that you should be posting to the site every other day.
Of course, even 50 pages of really bad content isn’t going to protect you in the case of a manual review. Content, of course, is a subjective judgement call, but I think you are really misrepresenting the program when you suggest that Michael and Adam suggest you put poorly written content up on the site. In fact, they repeated state the opposite. Although they do state that it doesn’t need to be “Pulitzer Prize” quality, that repeatedly state that they want “decent/good content… we definitely don’t want garbage, or fluff” and that “We are creating high-value informational sites, websites intended to provide legitimate information to legitimate searchers” (p. 12).
In my opinion, setting up a site with eight pages of (in my honest opinion) very poorly written content, and then not updating the site in the four months following when you initially set it up, really made the site appear like a MFA site. In fact, to my eyes, it closely resembling the micro-niche sites developed in the “Xfactor” system that were plagued with problems last year. I don’t think this was ever the kind of site that the A100K program recommended we build, at least how I read the guide. I know that the authors are about to release an updated version of the guide, and it is my hopes that they will stress in this guide even more stongly the need for quality content so that others won’t have similar problems in the future.
Ah see I took that first statement as him pointing out the difference between posts and pages, since he was clarifying that. Pages are the staple and posts bolster it. On the action plan, I also read that differently since he stated it was about our keywords we had mapped out, so I spaced my initial posts for that set of keywords out but I did not take that as an ongoing thing. Good for the clarification, but I didn’t read it that way upon implementation.
I am not “suggesting” anything – I flat out quoted the manual. And nowhere did I say it was suggested we put “poorly written” content up, Michelle – you’re really reaching! I specifically stated decent “but not too good” – which is verbatim what he said! Don’t try to change history. The information was researched, was accurate and was original.
Sorry you weren’t impressed with the content. But in no way was it poorly written. Personally, I think you’re just being rude about it because you’re a mod there, etc etc. Maybe you shouldn’t be representative of Michael’s program out in public. Poor attitude when he reflects such a graceful one – as well as Paula – and you muddy that.
No need for nastiness here on either side, and thanks for at least admitting you read/understood the blueprint wrong on this point. It’s a crucial one, because if you don’t update your site regularly and build it beyond the few initial posts, it WILL look MFA when undergoing a manual review.
As far as the content goes, I read it and thought it was very poor quality. But as I also said, quality of content is subjective. You thought it was acceptable, obviously. In the end, I doubt there will be any agreement on this point between us. I simply think what people on the A100K want to do is to try to learn from your experiences in order to avoid similar problems down the road.
For me, making it clear that building thin content sites for AdSense (meaning short on quality content in general and little content in general) seems a crucial point to stress so that more people don’t suffer similar problems (or even worse) when building AdSense sites.
The only reason I bothered posting about this was to try to discourage other people from doing this and possibly losing their sites (or worse) down the road. People are free to hate me for saying this, of course, and do what they wand and I certainly won’t be posting on this again here. Best wishes!
Just for clarification – I’m not saying I read it wrong Michelle. I’m saying how I interpreted it. As a consumer, that’s how I read it, so that’s how it was implemented. I had no problem with you trying to share a lesson but your attitude sure needs improvement – especially if you’re representing someone whose product you adore. It reflects poorly on it as a whole when he certainly doesn’t deserve any ill will from attitude issues. If you want to talk product on your own site about your product or others, have whatever attitude you want – but you’re a mod in Mike’s forum. Pays to be positive and helpful, not degrading – especially to someone who has and continues to promote the product for him.
Tiffany, thank you for including the dialogue between you and those of the 100k path. Other than your description of Michael’s response, it seems like their defensive posture was sprung and could not address the fundamental difficulties in the 100k path as written. They make themselves look little and could have seized the opportunity to make themselves look very big if they had praised your review and made changes or clarifications for their people. The attitude or disposition of “How can I make this product better, more clear?” goes very far today.
And that’s EXACTLY what Paula and Mike both have – Michelle ‘s just lacking in it. You wouldn’t believe all the time Mike saw a little thing in my review and thanked me for alerting him to something that needed clarification. He’s got a great attitude.
I don’t know if you’ve seen the post yet, but Jennifer at PotPiegirl.com thinks it has something to do with the footer in the template. One of her clients got axed as well.
Hi Tiffany,
Michelle needs to get a GRIP!! You couldn’t write bad content even if you tried to!
I actually rec’d an email from potpie girl a few days ago, about 100K blueprint issues. You all might want to go to her blog & check it out. It seems that the theme that is used has a huge foot print that might be flagged by google. Here is her post: http://www.potpiegirl.com/2011/08/100k-blueprint-warning-read-this/
Didn’t know if you had seen this, thought it might be important.
I’m going to go with Mark here and say when these things happen it is an opportunity to improve. I don’t think it is ever a good idea to start knocking down your customers or those sending you potential customers.
Frankly, I would be a little leery now of the investment due to a few of the very unprofessional things said above by a representative of the company. I have given a few things a bad review on my blog. A couple of times someone from the company has stopped on by to respond. I have never been spoken down to or told I must not have understood it. It is usually handled rather professionally, “Sorry this didn’t work for you. We’re working on improvements. We hope you will try us again.” That’s what I like to hear. I do try to revisit them after the improvements. It was good business on their part. Even if I didn’t like their product, I left the relationship feeling rather good about the situation and the company regardless.
Like Kitt, I also got the email notif from PotPie Girl. Though Mike didn’t like her post, in his second comment he did kind of say “perhaps we should implement an alternative.”
What a day, Tiffany!
Tiff – don’t let this get in “craw” as my grandma used to say. You were supported by the owners and they said you were correct.
Michelle NEEDS to be right. She has invested herself in this “program” and wants to take anyone on who says it has flaws. She is defensive – but why?? it isn’t her product. So there is something more going on here. Possibly she is reacting to you questioning “her” credibility when “she” doesn’t have anything to do with it. You are questioning the PRODUCT. Possibly she is concerned it will effect her ability to make affiliate sales?? She has taken this PERSONALLY and that is the puzzle. So, you just need to disengage and see the situation for what it truly is. This is about HER and HER feelings and not the product. Let her go on her merry way.
You know Tiff, I gotta say this is why I am leery of networking with other marketers sometimes, and frankly other female marketers in particular. This whole “tucking poison in the crumbcakes” thing is just amazing to me.
What’s the problem with the program? Oh, you’re a *bad writer* ( in my *humble* opinion) and you know, you *do* have a lot of problems, no offense…
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously?
I think when people decide to go public with some “news” about someone they had better check the facts before letting their lips loose especially if it is something that you can prove to be untrue.
I think it’s in poor taste to have the nerve to comment rudely on someone’s blog and to go make forum posts about someone without having all of the facts. If they don’t like the content, don’t read it. How simple is that?
Keep doing what you do Tiffany! There will always be haters.
Meh, don’t listen to them Tiff. You are the most honest Im’r I know.
As far as Adsnese, they are on the WAR PATH! 3 of my sites just got the kibosh today, and I am sure it won’t be long before they ban my acct altogether.
My Adsense sites are similar to 100k, but with diff themes and very good OG content. So this leads me to believe Googs is bounty hunting right now looking at many factors including backlinks, age, low traffic, purposeful keywords, and outgoing links, etc.
Remember, they want high quality and decent traffic so their adwords customers will pay more in the end. Small “sniper-like” adsense sites are being put out to pasture by them… these techniques worked years ago no prob, but not anymore. just my hunch.
It takes two people to have an argument. In the end no one wins even if you were “right”. The world would be a much better place if people would give up their need to be right.
Marketing online is an ever changing game and rather than trying to figure out what went wrong or pointing fingers its best to just move on. The biggest thing that I’ve learned about marketing online is that I’m not in control. The only thing that I can control is what I do every day but what eventually happens on or off my websites is not in my control.
When all else fails love is the answer and the sooner more people both online and offline realize this the better off we will be. You will only get more of what you put your attention on anyway.
I don’t think it’s anything to do with your writing.
FWIW potpiegirl has a warning about the link in the footprint of the theme, which is how G are finding the sites.
http://www.potpiegirl.com/2011/08/100k-blueprint-warning-read-this/
G hates these sorts of courses and periodically makes an example of people using them.
BTW – people producing Adsense courses really should do their homework about how and why G zaps you. See this famous article from early 2010:
http://www.makemoneyonlinewithseo.com/how-not-to-make-money-online/
Here’s a little quote:
“2. Same Theme on All Sites
This is a big one. If you are putting the same theme on all your websites, god help you. This is a huge sign of a MFA clone factory going on.”
Potpiegirl says she found 400,000 sites with this theme, which is a massive, massive footprint. The course owners were being naive or foolish allowing such a footprint to develop, given G’s history with this type of site.
Yes someone tried comparing that to socrates theme but socrates isn’t a specific “make money on adsense” course I don’t think so it could be – but high five for Mike for making a footerless theme available.
Actually I need to update my statues, so far 11 of my sites got the adsense smackdown… all in a row.
Yikes well I’m sure it was because you created poo content Marc. LOL! (/sarcasm)
Make way people!
“The” honey badger is here.
Just do your thing girl; ignore the rest of ‘em.
Shazi
lol she is! She tried going back in her hidey hole but couldn’t resist.
Gotta admire her ability to ignore the facts – you “thin content writer”, you LOL.
Wonder how many sites she has up, that are actually converting – and at what percentage? Offering advice that’s asked for, is one thing – posturing as an expert, without the chops to back it up, will make her look – well, lame… wait, too late (evil grin).
Yep, Jennifer mentioned you by name, as one of the folks that got a smackdown… that, combined with the other folks she advises with a similar problem, is why she started looking. Jennifer KNOWS you’re a pro… and that footer thing is a biggie. Oooops.
Give what’s-her-name high marks for a strong spine – it’s the connections higher up, that are exhibiting quality control problems. She DOES have the right to her opinion – and we have the right to diss her for it LOL.
Do the right thing, Tiff – live well, and watch her wish she was you.
Jennifer has class too. Always have admired her – she was gracious during the review as well.
I guess I can’t really see what was so nasty in Michelle’s comments.I’ve followed both her blog for awhile and yours and I really admire you both a lot for being straightforward and telling it like you think it is. You both are definitely two of my favorite bloggers and I think you both know your stuff in different ways.
Is it that she said the content was poor quality? I guess I just read that as her opinion as to some of the problems Google might have had with the site. I have to admit I’m still really confused on the content because at times you seem to say what you wrote was “not too good” because that’s what they wanted. How do you write content that is “not too good”. I’m not sure what that means. But anwyay, I’m definitely not taking sides, and I’m sorry you had these problems with Google Tiffany! You definitely don’t need Adsense to be successful.
Hey Missy!
As a writer, if I’m creating content to represent my own stuff, I will delve into every detail, cover and exhaust every topic related to it, etc. That’s not what the instructions were for this. I was told not to make it too good, but then bashed for it being thin – it was bothersome to have the course say one thing (and Mike back that up) and her CONTINUE beating a dead horse afterwards to say it was because of the poor quality content.
I’m not offended at the fact that she said it wasn’t stellar – it’s certainly not my caliber (on purpose). I was annoyed that she’s continually stating that’s why it got deleted and THAT I DIDN’T FOLLOW the program, when I did and Mike confirmed it. That’s what bugs me about her. Hope that makes sense
Hi Tiff,
Dont normally reply to these although I read avidly… I actually saw adsense100k on war room and bought it and you actually did me a big favour and I agree with you wholeheartedly on your decision.(Good god my spelling is atrocious this morning) After you stopped your project I decided not to pursue as well bec when I thought about it ….To me it was grey hat.
BUT I learnt so much about SEO and the general explanation of how it all works…I apply a lot of what I learnt to other endeavours so all in all WORTH EVERY PENNY….
K I have one more thing to say about this:
They screwed up. They were trying to scale a system and left that footprint there without having any idea of what would happen. Why? Because how could you test such a scenario? How *could* you know that was going to happen? You could be the most brilliant marketer in the world and still not know what was going to happen if you tried to game Google at that level.
I don’t think Google was looking to de-index sites — I think it was trying to shut down A100K due to the massive flood of backlinks due to that footer.
So to me, a marketer who said: hm. Ooops. Let’s revise the strategy, okay? Take the footerprint out and tweak out the sites you’ve got for reindexing and we’ll show you how — is worth about ten thousand times the person who blames *you* for following their program.
You can turn even a serious mistake into an opportunity, if you’re honest and you have integrity, and you’d rather be ethical than right; and you take the time to communicate to your customers with respect.
I might have bought this program even after the big de-index if they had been up front about it. But after the way Michelle talked to you?
Nuh uh. They might have some Google strategy but clearly, as *real* marketing people, they don’t know their asses from a hole in the ground.
Ooops, did I say that out loud?
Ah Mike though DID do just that Alison – he created a footerless theme option. She’s not part of the program officially – just a mod – but icky nonetheless. A good lesson for marketers to carefully handpick people and have some etiquette rules in place for sure!
“They were trying to scale a system and left that footprint there without having any idea of what would happen. Why? Because how could you test such a scenario? How *could* you know that was going to happen? You could be the most brilliant marketer in the world and still not know what was going to happen if you tried to game Google at that level.”
Ummm….How could they have known what G would do? Only by the fact that G has been doing this for Years and Years. This is not a new phenomenon at all.
G did a mass deindex of Adsense “X-Factor” sites in 2009 – they found the sites by looking for that green and black template that X Factor recommended. Then there’s that guy who wrote that “how not to make money with adsense” in 2010 about how he got his 150+ sites deindexed. Then there’s the guy who runs linkvanareviews, who got several hundred adsense sites deindexed this Feb.
If you are operating in Adsense and are anywhere near an expert, it’s hard NOT to know what would happen. Unless these guys are not the experts they are claiming to be…
Bottom line is that if you are selling a course plus membership, you better do your homework first. Saying “how could I have known, I’m a noob” only cuts it if you arn’t taking people’s money and really are a noob.
Sorry if that sounds harsh.
This whole thing seems to be getting a little funny. It seems that telling it like it is always causes controversy for you Tiff – but stick to your guns!
I’m not sure why Michelle is getting so defensive and I don’t think that she should be directly interacting with Mike’s customers in a way that looks bad for his business and his product. It’s not fair for him. And to call Tiffany Dow a bad writer is hilarious! That’s when I burst out laughing! ha ha. Tiffany Dow with her head removed is still a perfect writer! That’s when I knew Michelle was clutching at straws…
Really, this whole situation boils down to G’s strange ways. I read all this stuff about themes and footers and content and have had emails from Google myself, but I would love for Google to just come out and make a much clearer policy with regards adsense so that we all know where we stand. Otherwise, we just get lots of speculation from all different people thinking different things but very little is actually clarified. There’s nothing in G’s policy to say that you can’t use the same theme or even anything to do with a footer. If that’s the case then they should make it clear.
I always think that the best way to think about it is from the point of view of the advertiser. People are paying money to have their ads featured on out sites and, at the end of the day, would you pay to have your ads featured on a site that you have created? That’s the only question we need to ask ourselves when creating a site.
A lot of the time it’s just common sense. If you don’t feel quite sure that what you’re doing is right, then don’t do it. It’s not fair on G, the advertisers or – more importantly – ourselves if we try to game the system. We all know how good the sites we are creating are and we know whether we are really proud of them or not.
I think what’s different in your case, Tiff, is that you were program exactly to show its effectiveness as a product. I don’t think you would have made a similar site otherwise. But, there are many of those A100K sites out there that I have happened to stumble across accidentally – not even by going looking for them. And most of them are really poorly put together in terms of content – nowhere near as good as yours, Tiff. So the last reason that you got yours shut down was because the content was poor.
Thanks Nathan
I agree G is weird. You know what’s odd too…? They say advertisers want to pay for links from real authority sites, etc. But if I’m truly an authority site, I’m gonna keep my customer here – he’s not gonna need to click through to your site.
Could someone please share the url to the 100k forum?
http://adsense100kblueprint.com/members/index.php?topic=1866.0 but you have to be a member
Hi Tiffany,
I think this “Michelle” is a reject from another program where she was just as nasty and destructive as she’s tried to be here, unfortunately at the other place she wasn’t given her marching orders that I know of and now it seems she’s migrated to the Adsense 100K place.
No matter where she goes she’ll be exactly the same pain in the arse she’s been with you as miserable people like this just can’t accept they’re ever wrong and never ever learn to shut their mouths at the appropriate time, hopefully she’ll fall down a cravass and when her echo dies away we wont hear from her anymore.
Unfortunately we all have to put up with these overbearing types but they make those nice people shine like rays of sunshine.
Just keep keepin’ on.
Oh no she did that elsewhere too? Oh well someday maybe she’ll learn a lesson.
I would like to suggest that we remove personalities from this discussion. Michelle is one of the moderators on our members forum, where this has been discussed at length. She’s entitled to her point of view. If any of it becomes nasty of inciting, that’s wrong and has no place anywhere.
Similarly, no constructive points are made by responding with antagonism.
To date, there have been an extremely small number of sites – less than 5 – with even a suggestion that anything related to our Adsense course has caused any problems, and that is out of thousands of sites.
Regardless, I heard the posts and comments, and we have now removed the attribution links from the theme downloads, and provided instructions for removing them from existing sites for those who want to.
There is always a balance between the ‘ideal safest’ web development practices, and the goals of internet marketing. Does anyone pursue internet marketing with no concern for how long it will take to see returns? Or how much effort they will have to put in? We all want to see returns in the shortest period, and look for ways to improve & maximize the efficiency of our methods. And we want to achieve this without jeopardizing our efforts. Unfortunately, these goals are by definition sometimes at odds.
We put considerable effort into promoting positive, long-term business practices. We have tried to strike what we feel is a good balance between achieving good results and competing successfully, and minimizing the potential for those efforts to cause problems.
Anyone who believes there is no room for improvement – in anything – is either perfect or naive; I don’t think we’re either of those. We will continually look to improve our methods, strategies, and in turn our courses.
For my part, I’ll try to keep the conversation focused on methods, results, and related points-of-view. To the extent there has been any bickering or tit-for-tat, I apologize. I believe at the core, all of us – on all ‘sides’ feel strongly about the same things: looking for ways to find success in IM and sharing those experiences with others.
Michael Ullman
“Bottom line is that if you are selling a course plus membership, you better do your homework first. Saying “how could I have known, I’m a noob” only cuts it if you arn’t taking people’s money and really are a noob.
Sorry if that sounds harsh.”
I mean unless you sold them shampoo and they’re trying to wash their windows with it. That might be something you could gently point out.
~a
Wow, now my brain hurts!
Internet marketing is truly not for the “faint at heart” type of crowd. It can get downright gruesome, to say the least.
If nothing else, this is truly an experience to walk away from. And, it’s in my best interests (read: in my humble opinion) NOT to invest in this program or any other like it. Sad as it may seem, but oh so true.
I didn’t arrive online in the early 90′s to strictly participate in the Google money market, even though I did join the AdSense program after Google called me directly. Imagine, the big Google calling little old me by telephone to explain how their program worked and convince me to join it!
Although, I had no trouble cashing those $100+ Google checks, I wasn’t interested in boosting it to make millions by hunkering down and crafting thousands of websites.
People need to realize, their websites can pull in the Google money simply by doing what they do best, serve up good content that is in line with the keywords placed inside their Meta tags. That’s all I did, that’s all that’s necessary.
My site pulled in $100, $200, and $300 monthly checks from Google. Read that – one website. Did it ever occur to me that I could produce other sites like it? Yes it did, but it wasn’t the money model I wanted.
Truthfully, if you want to increase the money you earn from Google AdSense, simply increase your website traffic! That’s a whole lot easier to accomplish than to go out and create 100+ different niche websites to cash in on.
Frankly, why would anyone want to increase their workload by 100 times (just to earn 100 times the profit) if you can accomplish the same goal with only one website and simply increasing your traffic to 100 times the capacity it currently attracts?
Now mind you, this is just my humble opinion!
Sincerely,
- Bonnie
great opinion!!
Bonnie -
I totally agree with you on that: my plan was to make more money with fewer sites, and I have – but not from AdSense, rather from affiliate marketing. You’ve pretty much summed up why I don’t really do AdSense:
“So if 1 site can make you $10 a month, how many more would you need to make $3,000, $5,000 or $10,000?”
Answer:
“Count me out, are you nuts?!”
LOL
Go Girl!!
I’m surprised you’re still taking the Neggie-Norah’s seriously Tiff.
Are they really worth your time?? You’re above all that –
Forums seem to attract them like Bees-to-Honey – (Not your ‘Honey’ of course – though I suspect they’d get a nasty nip from her if they did come close
)
Cheers – Pete.
lol Well I wasn’t trolling but someone sent me there. lol And yes, I respond as I shouldn’t!
Hi Tiffany,
Just started studying your PLR ATM course, and it is wonderful! I am learning so much from you.
Thank you for being so generous with your skills and knowledge.
Blessings,
Tracy
Tiffany -
Really sorry to hear about losing the battle with AdSense. I’ll tip my hand here and say I just read this post here and don’t know of all the details, don’t need to, really – but I’m wondering what your views are of AdSense in general going forward?
You mention it’s not really your thing, at least that’s my interpretation of what you’ve said about trying the 100K program – do you have a clearer understanding or theory of why this happened?
I’m mostly an affiliate marketer, getting paid in passive income from affiliate products (and my recent book ‘launch’), AdSense isn’t really my thing anymore – and largely due to stories like yours.
But there are others like Lisa Parmley or Cary Bergeron, for example, who kill it with AdSense. Do you think there’s enough of a difference between their approach and the 100K approach that warrants a look?
I haven’t personally seen any of these products, but I did get started making money w/AdSense. Before re-including it, I’m curious what the lessons learned are. Thanks, and sorry again for the headaches!
I’ll use it on my passion sites as a little side income but it’s nothing I’d cry over losing. It’s not my bread and butter
It’s just not fun making sites with that purpose. I much prefer teaching and making money via products and affiliate money.
You and I think alike, then – there’s a lot more money in aff products or your own. (I have a lot of catching up to do w/you in the product regard!)