30 Nov
Posted by: Janey in: Search Engine Optimization
Since the dust has settled down to some degree about The Ultimate Ranking Loophole offering I have worked hard at finding the top review of The Ultimate Search Engine Loophole method. One thing that strikes me is odd is that I have stumbled onto a good number of well-done Ultimate Search Engine Loophole reviews that come with some bonuses that can be found for free.
Just why would an affiliate do that? Why would somebody go through substantial mental energy on a review just to offer bonuses that can be found all over the net for free or that have nothing to do with the reviewed method in any substantive way? It just doesn't make sense.
As you might guess, I found the ever-present non-reviews that don't offer anything of substance that that you can't easily find without even buying the product. They must be by newbies who don't understand exactly how relentless affiliate marketing for a well done product launch can become.
It will eventually dawn on them when they notice that they aren't generating much revenue. It may be the most important marketing lesson they ever learn.
I should mention that there's a different way of writing reviews that seems reasonable if it's organized by a person with substantial experience in the product area. The review type I'm talking about is Chris Rempel's Conduit-style review. It's a low risk method for building an info-packed product site that offers true value and that can produce a respectable amount of commissions. In fact, Chris Rempel created the system and as you doubtless know Rempel is one of the people behind The Ultimate Ranking Loophole offer.
The quality of Conduit Style information pages is primarily a product of the person that collects the data for the site. It definitely works best if you're a specialist in the areas that the product covers. However honestly that's not absolutely required to create income streams with the Conduit Method. But more often than not you'll end up with a higher value Conduit driven site.
Leave a reply