My really expensive course should I can it

by 54 replies
64
A few who read some of my past posts will know that I have joined a REC a really expensive course on social media mastery. 1800 pounds expensive. Me and about 150 others signed up to this course at a recent seminar in UK, the guy selling it was a good talker. I won't divulge who this is here; at least not yet.

The course basically covers building a blog in a niche and sending traffic to it through social media. It is delivered by webinars and videos covering everything from how to open a gmail account to how to sign up to twitter and facebook and use them to drive traffic.

Value for money issues apart, my biggest concern about this course is how they advise you to write the blog or rather more appropriately how not to write the blog. Their premise is you just pick a niche, any selling niche, and start posting about it on the blog with opt in. Knowledge is no barrier because all you need to do is copy content from elsewhere on the internet.

They advise that as along as there is sharing buttons you can just copy any article into your blog and leave an attributing link to the original and you are legally covered. In the training and I have this on record they state they have checked this with Google specifically and Google say it is ok.

To spruce things up a bit they advise copying a few "royalty free" articles into the posts. They don't seem to know that royalty free does not mean the same as creative commons.

This is the training advice they are giving to many people who are brand new to IM. I find it quite sad in what they are doing as through following their advice they are leading people on a fools errand and leaving them exposed to potential legal action through copyright. Or I am a wrong and they do have a viable system.

Free gifts for opt in are to be created by copying a few selected ezine articles in a PDF and bobs your uncle. They say don't worry about the content because 90% of books that are bought aren't read anyway and yours won't be read either. All you want is the email address to build your list and the free gift is only bait.

I have not reached the part in the course and the end game of what to do with the list.

I have raised my concerns to the owners of the course directly and they think I am being a perfectionist and insist their course works.

Grateful for people's thoughts on this.
#main internet marketing discussion forum #expensive
  • Stephen, it's already been discussed in at least one other thread how the creators of this course are providing incorrect information. The techniques you now say are being taught are not only useless for their intended purpose, but blatantly flout the ToS of existing web properties and encourage copyright theft.

    It's no longer a case of bad value for money. The course, as you've described it, is plainly fraudulent.

    • [ 5 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Hi I didn't mean to repeat anything just give a more complete picture. This is quite a big issue for me having spent 1800 pounds, but I also feel something needs to be done to warn other people.


      From their twitter followers I have tracked down about 30 blogs following their "formula". I need to think what to do.
      • [1] reply
  • My advice? Take Frank's advice.

    Tom
    • [1] reply
    • Here's what you said 2 days ago:

      I'm not going to join others in saying there's something wrong with using blogger on your own domain - I've known marketers who have done that for years with good results. I don't think it's "favored" by google but years ago that was the rumor going around.

      I don't know if what they teach about content is exactly as you've described it or not. I don't know it this course is advocating copyright violations - or curating content - and I'm not sure you know either.

      You are having buyer's remorse - you bought on emotion - you haven't been through the course yet - you are trying to get others to tell you about it - but those others haven't been through the course! Does that make sense? Nope.

      What would you "do"? Don't try to be a crusader. It doesn't end well. I doubt you know enough about this program to fully pass judgment - let other people make their own decisions.

      You made a decision to buy - you changed your mind when you saw what you had purchased - get a refund and move on.

      kay
      • [1] reply
  • demand a refund?
    regardless of whether you get the refund, let everybody in the world know who they are and how they are scammers
  • I remember you mentioned this course in one of your other threads recently, saying they recommend using Blogger, which was quite a shocker...

    Now when you've also mentioned that they tell you to COPY other articles online and post them on your blog with a source.....I just can't believe this.

    Yes, a lot of people used to do that back in 2007-2008, but last time I checked it was 2015 outside?

    As I've already said, get your money back if you can, and then just spend some time reading threads on this forum. There's TONS of info in here - the only problem is finding what you need. Ask if you have any questions, but spending money on courses that promise you the world won't get you far...
  • There's really nothing to discuss here...you got scammed into buying a crap course. Demand a refund and move on.

    There is another topic that fascinates me; you said that you've bought multiple courses and you haven't even started most of them yet. So I have to ask- what are you expecting to find in one course that the others don't have?

    The "scam course" pretty much laid it all out for you (even though some of it was wrong)- pick a niche, write a blog, build a list, sell stuff.

    Do you know why it was wrong? Because people are looking for methods where they can make money online with almost zero effort. And whoever made that course decided that even though Google would penalize the heck out of your site for "borrowing" content, it was still worth it to be able to say you didn't have to do anything to be up and running. So they lied since that's what people want to hear.

    But if you knew this was a bad tactic, then why are you still buying courses in the first place? Especially one at that price-point...
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • When I bought the course in March I hadn't heard of IM. I had been attending seminars and joining different courses to see what I can make work. I am actually a Chartered Civil Engineer with many years experience working overseas. However, I am now back in UK for family reasons and where working as a Civil Engineer is no more than being a slave.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • There was a recent webinar on the system that you're talking about. I've heard about the sites for a couple months and saw an email for it the other day so I watched it.

    It's the same type of sites that you're talking about, and the guys are going to big lengths to push it. JVZoo just had a notice that they did over 1.3 million on launch day.

    Unless we're not? Then disregard this all lol

    I forgot to mention, the focus was on generating money through AdSense with email collecting being a secondary avenue.

    I wouldn't personally use other people's articles as a lead magnet, but when you're talking to spammers -- they don't care. They're going to rake it in with the method until it burns to the ground.

    I think it's the modern day autoblogging.
    • [1] reply
  • I just gave you a new angle to take with the course you bought, then.

    If you regret buying this one, and don't regret the money you've spent on other expensive courses, you should probably just get a refund.
    • [1] reply
    • No I only regret I have is growing realisation that if I follow what they say it A. it will not work and B I will have a chance to land with a law suit.

      These guys are big and even other own site they are copying images. Not articles as they have a team of writers.

      Is it the case that nobody actually gets sued over copyright?
  • This isn't legal advice, so take it for what it's worth.

    I didn't worry about copyrights when I did autoblogging. I linked to the sites, but the purpose was to spam as many pages as I could.

    I don't have experience with it, but most times -- and I'm not a lawyer, your own testicular fortitude determines what you do with it -- they send an email asking you to take it down, then contact your web host.

    If that happens, do what they say and move on.

    I haven't ever gotten a notice about copyright infringement, though.

    I haven't made a habit of doing it for a few years so things may have changed, but I haven't heard of many people (other than ones swiping from Getty images <- link) getting nailed with a lawsuit first.

    As long as you're linking to the site that owns the picture, and you're not trying to blatantly steal it the only issue I see them having with you is the fact that you're advertising on the site.

    People do it all the time, though. Look at big news sites.

    I think it's all in your intention and how you present yourself.
    • [1] reply
    • I really think there is something missed in this discussion. I know the course, I don't own the course. Nor do I sell the course. The reality is the course does work. In general we have this concept of traffic coming from search engines. In doing so you need good solid original content. But that is NOT what this program is about. this is about how you can take traffic from social sources and convert and make money.

      Many of us here do follow the model of social to site, and then converting. SEO - Google Bing or whatever other search related source is not included in this model. Realistically as long as the content is good then it matters not where it comes from - If you are not listed Google it will NOT effect your "business".

      Before underwear and panties get all tied up in a wad... I do not suggest that the content model provided in this course is a good one. We all know that "copying" someone else's work and placing it on your site with a "Citation" is just short of silly.

      The interesting aspect of this whole discussion is not once has anyone said "Hey you cant share that on Social media its not yours. you cant share that image its not yours. We flat out do it all the time... its part of Social. It is a part of social that at some point in history will be some what to its demise. YouTube already has had a run in with the music industry. - just to point out the validity in this opinion.

      So you have this $1800 program.. You know what they are suggesting in terms of content is on the wrong side of right. You have morals. wonderful.

      The reality is you can still make the program work. just substitute your own original content with the crap they suggest and follow through with the rest of the program.

      The program does have some value. once you get passed the content issue, the program more than likely will work. but you are to busy thinking like a grandma to protect the others not as strong as you - even tho with the glaring presents of this in their presentation you bought anyways. you have missed the value in what was offered.

      Its not the content source that has value, its how to use "A" content source and make things happen using social media as the source of traffic.

      Basically in a nutshell... put in the work and make it work.. or shut up and consider it a lesson and move on. Im sure there is another slick talker in your future that will sell you something and you will find a hang up to hold you back from success. just like this time around.
      • [1] reply
  • Hang on, you paid them $1800?
    • [1] reply
    • To be technical, that would be $2748.15 USD at trading rates current as of 10pm -5 UTC 06-07-2015
      • [1] reply
  • Sounds like money was better spent on an automatic scraper, since this is basically about scraping other's content.

    It is immoral and will probably not get you indexed in Google, but it might work for social media.

    Chances of being fully sued and court time are probably next to none at all so long as you take down offending articles once the writers takes offense.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • What were you thinking when you purchased the course for such a big amount? Didn't you at least do some preliminary research or read reviews about it or ask on forums? Didn't you find cheaper courses dealing with the same topic and maybe had similar or much better information than it?
    • [1] reply
    • The devil is in the detail of the course not in the concept that was sold. The amount is relative and I have spent a lot more on other programs with no complaints about them.
  • McKinney, Texas, police officer who pulled gun on unarmed teenagers at pool party placed on leave

    There's 40 instances of that in Google.

    Obamacare Enrollees Anxiously Await Supreme Court Decision That Threatens Their Coverage

    750 results for that one.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/wo...T.nav=top-news

    The NY Times jacked that one from Istanbul news sites.

    It happens every day and nobody bats an eye.

    Rare "Sea Serpent" Washes Up Dead On California Beach | IFLScience

    That picture is on 8 different sites, including the original that isn't IFLScience.com

    http://tineye.com/search/d057811e8f4...8e53185f52193/

    It's indexed in Google, too.

    SpyFu Keyword Spy Tool for Keyword Research | SEO Software &amp; AdWords Tools

    They're doing great as far as search traffic goes.

    It shoots all these "theories" down. All those sites are raking it in. You couldn't shovel fast enough.

    Well, except for Yahoo News.

    Scott might be right about the scraper. Check out autoblogging and scrapers and see if it doesn't do the same. For a lot cheaper.

    Populate the blog with draft content then format it for your site and post it.
    • [1] reply
    • This may be the worst advice I've ever seen on this forum. News sites are different for a number of reasons-

      1) They report breaking stories that are highly time-sensitive
      2) They report dozens of original articles daily
      3) They receive millions of visitors daily
      4) They HAVE PERMISSION to re-print the news

      For a regular site that's not listed on Google News and not pumping out tons of unique content with a steady flow of DIRECT visitors, these syndication tactics are Google suicide and it will hurt far more than it helps. This was a fabrication started long ago by snake-oil salesmen calling themselves Internet Marketers, and it is an absolute lie.

      Taking other people's content without permission is theft...regardless whether you give attrition or not. You are not allowed to publish anything that you didn't write without express permission from the author, and it is an excellent way to get sued and banned from the search engines.
      • [1] reply
  • IFLScience isn't in Google news. They don't pay to use the content, either.

    How is it not the same thing?

    IFLScience is using copyrighted images and copying other people's work. And making money from it.

    It works on all types of sites. That's my point.

    It's not only OK for news sites to do it.

    As long as you're not saying you created the image, or trying to pass off the content like you created it, you're just syndicating it, too.

    I think it's some of the best advice given in a long time. You don't see people actually offering actionable advice on here anymore.

    Syndicate content -> Pay for cheap ads -> Collect advertising money

    That's a model even the laziest of people can follow.
  • No words...
    Before do a course search if the course is good and people are authoritative.
    unfortunately in some cases is hard to understand. I think you should get a refund together with oder partecipants
    • [1] reply
    • IFLScience is a combination of curated content, partnerships with sites like The Science Channel...and unique content and viewpoints by staff writers of the site.

      It's a great site but do you really believe it has grown to what it is now by stealing whatever it wants to use online? Of course not. Curation, feeds, syndicates, in house writers, partnerships....

      From an ad for a staff writer -
      "The IFLScience writers are expected to showcase the most unique, interesting and fascinating science-related content and photos from the world's leading universities and research organizations in a fresh, humorous, and informative way. The perfect candidate would have a degree in either journalism or science, and experience in writing science stories for a popular audience."

      It's risky for an average IMer to compare his site with a huge authority site. Those big sites have access to syndicates, partnerships, ads, etc the average site owner knows nothing about.

      It only works on sites with the proper agreements and legal protections in place...that's MY point.


      • [1] reply
  • Right there sums up everything!

    You are the fish on their hook, and they propose you do the same thing.

    Bad karma abounds in that system...

    Switch the theory to providing value on the blog, in your emails, in your marketing, and in your products, and then you have something...
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • I see you're dropping a link to siphon subscribers. And you're slinging 16 year old outdated methods, at that? Literally.

    I didn't buy it. I'm one of the people that sees something and tests it for myself.

    I've been around long enough to not have to buy products.

    Once I see the strategy it's easy enough to dissect it -- especially when they broke out live case studies on the webinar and I've seen similar sites making a big appearance the last 6 months.

    I saw it and ran with it. It's already made $28 in 4 days and I've spent $6. All it takes is scaling.

    2 of the posts are mine, 9 of them are syndicated from other sites with a 100 word blurb.

    It's gotten 41 shares on FB so far. I'm going to milk it for all I can.

    I'm not selling anything, either. I've already said I don't think it can last.

    I'd prefer people stay afraid of it. I lived through keyword sniping and then niche blogging.

    It's going to get oversaturated (maybe not, considering this thread) and like all good things, go by the wayside.

    Or, it might not. And a lot of people who did test it may be holding onto a bunch of advertising machines ready to be flipped for buku.

    Who knows?

    If someone told you that offering up a course for $1 to get them off a freebie list didn't work, or was immoral, I'd like to think you would do the same thing, though.

    My apologies if I've offended anyone, I thought we were having an intelligent discussion about not jumping onto gurus -- whether they're good or bad -- without seeing what's going on first.

    And trashing strategies that are working without thinking about the advice being given. People are basing their businesses around the stuff they read here.

    If they're concerned with copyrights they'll avoid it, but they'll have their eyes opened to how to actually make money without being sold to.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • That's where the difference is. For those of us who have launched loads of sites or written reams of "content"...it's not hard to look through a 'system' - pull out the nuggets and toss the rest.

      But someone with experience often has a sense of how far they can go....new marketers often haven't developed that yet.
  • Banned
    They complained you're being a perfectionist? So they take their work okay letting things slip through? I'd demand my money back on that statement alone.

    They're saying, "your quality demands our too high for us"... if THEY are charging that much their course better be fu*king perfect in every way before they ever present it!

    I would like to email these people myself to tell them what idiots they are.

    They can't be very good marketers if they would tell you they themselves demand less than perfection, don't take responsibility for the quality of their programs, and expect you to just except it when YOU are the paying customer that they should be doing everything to satisfy.
  • I tend to forget what it means to be an actual beginner. I'll try to tailor my advice to keep from confusing people.

    I already knew how to program in 12 languages before I got into making money online. I'm not saying that to brag, I just haven't been where most people are so I guess I don't get it.

    Looking back over the thread, though, I think my advice is good for beginners and people looking for something to sink their teeth into.

    The strategy works, though. For how long who knows. If you do it right, it could last forever.

    Spam is what took down keyword sniping and niche blogging. Killer niche blogs still exist and it's a great method but it's a lot harder to do now.

    Cheap FB traffic could go the same way.
  • I don't agree with copying content, but to say it doesn't work is false.

    I just wrote a fairly long post a few days ago that run along these lines. Basically, I built a blog with original content, but had it translated into spanish. I've been driving traffic to it through facebook ads. Since spanish traffic is so cheap, I'm able to get 1/10th of a cent clicks. That's 10 clicks per cent. Coupled with 9-10 page views and I'm in the black using adsense alone.

    In April we hit 30 million page views(Monthly) - that's all from facebook. When you're at that level, you start seeing a ton of organic as well. We stopped advertising completely and we're still hovering around 300k+ visitors with no SEO what so ever.

    Social works wonders if you know what your doing. This was my first venture into content sites, but not using fb ads. If you want the stats and more info on the site, take a look -

    Connecting Site...

    If you have any questions, feel free to reach out, I'm extremely open about everything I do.
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Not exactly copied it was your own but translated, so different readership and no legal issues. While you are not relying on SEO do you think google will check for translated copied content.
  • Stephen, I think it's their next stop. Foreign algorithms are behind the US algo.

    People are getting away with 5 year old tricks in foreign results. Google already has the code in place to fix it in the US, though, so it's only a matter of time until it rolls out and clears out the spam overseas.

    Look at the recent Egyptian outranking Google.com for the keyword 'Google'. They don't quite have it together yet.

    That being said, if you do it right it's not spam. Even if Google considers it spam, it doesn't really matter.

    As far as the laws go. Testicular fortitude again.
    • [1] reply
    • After a 3 day ban for posting "wrong subjects" on "wrong parts of the forum" I have been off finding a product which looks hugely promising.

      A quick update on above, I had some discussions with the really expensive course provider. They were not initially not keen to refund me and stalled and refused for about two weeks but they have finally seen sense and agreed, when they realised I had learned enough IM skills to cause them bother.
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed

  • 64

    My really expensive course should I can it

    A few who read some of my past posts will know that I have joined a REC a really expensive course on social media mastery. 1800 pounds expensive. Me and about 150 others signed up to this course at a recent seminar in UK, the guy selling it was a good talker. I won't divulge who this is here; at least not yet. The course basically covers building a blog in a niche and sending traffic to it through social media. It is delivered by webinars and videos covering everything from how to open a gmail account to how to sign up to twitter and facebook and use them to drive traffic.