• Ironically, Parler itself has now been removed

    Most people suspect there’s something not quite right about social media companies like Facebook and Twitter, but they can’t put their finger on what it is.

    That’s why you’ve always seen a lot of new social media platforms springing up, each trying to offer their own point of differentiation to the traditional platforms.

    Years ago, all the rage was Snapchat. They believed the problem with Facebook and Twitter was the way that content stayed there forever. Snapchat was different because each post to Snapchat would self-destruct after a short time being published.

    But, most of these new social media platforms end up self-destructing too.

    You certainly don’t hear much about Snapchat anymore, and Parler has perhaps self-destructed in an even more spectacular way.

    Parler believed the problem with Facebook and Twitter was that they throttle free speech by removing unpopular content. Parler was different because it promised to be a platform that would not remove anyone’s content.

    Ironically, Parler itself has now been removed by Amazon, Apple and Google.

    That doesn’t mean that Facebook and Twitter are laughing. The free speech concept that defined Parler is an extremely uncomfortable line to tread for the other social media platforms.

    If I host a website myself, I have total freedom over what I choose to publish there. I can ask you to contribute some of the content, but I can always say no to your content if I don’t think it will help me make money from my website.

    Facebook is no different. They CAN choose to say no to anything at all, and sometimes they have good reason to.

    Think of the video of the New Zealand massacre. Facebook practically has no choice other than to take down content like this. If they didn’t, not only would it make Facebook extremely unpopular with the public, but it basically invites Facebook’s worst enemy. The R-word.

    REGULATION.

    If Facebook voluntarily takes down the worst of the worst content, the urgency for governments to regulate Facebook is slightly dampened. That’s, of course, what Facebook wants. Regulation is likely to cause big damage to Facebook’s bottom line.

    But, there is potential for small damage too. If my content is drop-dead boring, and it makes my followers want to switch off from Facebook, then it represents an opportunity cost for Facebook. If Facebook replaces my content with someone else’s more engaging content, people will stay longer and more ads will get clicked.

    Not all content is equal. Some content is very valuable to Facebook, while other content is an opportunity cost or even a liability. And, they are always going to prioritise the more valuable kind in their algorithms.

    But, they don’t want it to LOOK that way. They want it to look like all content is welcome. That Facebook is a place for “free speech.”

    Why? Because the more they prove they are NOT a place of “free speech,” the more people will start to switch on to the fact that Facebook is simply after the most valuable content that makes the most money.

    And, if your content is valuable and has the potential to make money, doesn’t it make sense that you should get compensated for it?

    Facebook doesn’t want people to think in this way. They don’t want to have to pay people for their content. That’s why they try to find a balance between “free speech” and editorial control, but the balance is becoming harder to find in the current climate.

    Hopefully, one day Facebook will be cornered, and people like you and I will be able to make money by posting to Facebook.

    In the meantime, there are smaller social media platforms that do pay you for whatever your content is worth. You can find out about them by joining The Online Economy and taking the 10-steps of training included within.

    If you haven’t joined The Online Economy yet, go to: https://theonlineeconomy.com


  • Online publishing can be compared to book publishing

    Book authors know there are two ways to publish books: traditional publishing and self-publishing.

    When self-publishing, it’s your job to arrange all the tasks of printing, editing, distribution, etc, and take on all the associated costs. You also get to keep the full revenue from your book sales.

    In the past, the publishing process was more difficult than it is now, so book authors didn’t do it themselves. Instead, they let specialised companies take care of the publishing process for them.

    These companies are the traditional publishers. Their business model is to seek out good authors, take on all the costs of publishing their books, and pay them royalties for their book sales.

    In other words, if you’re a book author who is working with a traditional publisher, you don’t have to pay a cent for printing, editing, distribution etc. You get all those services for free. The catch? You don’t get to keep the full revenue from your book sales. You just get a percentage royalty. There is also a loss of control on your part, where you may be overruled by the publisher on creative or business decisions.

    Online publishing can be compared to book publishing.

    You can self-publish a blog. In this case, you have to arrange the hosting, the design, etc, and take on all the associated costs.

    Or, you can publish your “blog” updates through a social media platform. They take on all the costs of hosting, design, etc, and you don’t have to worry about anything but your content.

    This is like working with a traditional publisher, with one clear exception.

    If you publish to online social media, you are expected to let your “traditional publisher” keep the entire advertising revenue that your content generates, and receive zero royalties for yourself.

    Is it any wonder that online social media companies are so profitable, when they simply don’t pay the costs that other media companies do?

    Publishing your own website is one way to take back control, but it’s not for everyone. Are there any options for people who’d prefer to have someone else handle the online publishing process, while they focus on their content and get paid a fair royalty?

    There are now.

    When you become a member of The Online Economy, you’ll get access to 10-steps of training that will show you some NEW social media platforms that pay you a fair royalty when the content you contribute generates revenue.

    If you haven’t joined The Online Economy yet, go to: https://theonlineeconomy.com


  • You may have seen this quotation from 2015…

    You may have seen this quotation from 2015:

    “Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world’s most popular media owner, creates no content. Alibaba, the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate.”

    The author was Tom Goodwin, and he was clearly trying to make a point about Facebook (and other companies) being “disruptive” in their industries. But, if you ask me, “Facebook creates no content” is really quite a meaningless statement when you compare to the rest of the media industry.

    Rupert Murdoch obviously does not personally create any of the content for his print media, nor do any of the other News Corp shareholders, so you might as well say the same for News Corp.

    Of course, News Corp has full-time employees who DO create content, while Facebook doesn’t.

    But then what about an outdoor media company like JCDecaux? Neither do they have any full-time employees creating content.

    What is a content creator, anyway? It’s someone who gathers the attention of an audience, ahead of that attention being sold to advertisers.

    In the case of an outdoor media company like JCDecaux, who plays the role of content creator?

    As just one example, think of a JCDecaux ad on the side of a bus. Without any bus operator, the bus would remain parked in storage, no one would ever see the ads, and advertisers would stop spending.

    In this case, the bus operator is the content creator.

    How does JCDecaux access the bus operator’s “content,” to be able to sell advertising?

    They have to PAY the bus operator. They can’t just go ahead and stick ads onto the buses, without permission from the operator, and start generating advertising revenue for themselves.

    Yet, this is similar to what Facebook does. It sticks ads onto people’s content, keeps all the revenue, and doesn’t compensate the content creators who were responsible for gathering the attention.

    Remember, without any posts on Facebook, no one would visit, there’d be no one to see the ads, and advertisers would stop spending.

    Facebook doesn’t differ from other media companies because it “creates no content.” It differs from other media companies because it PAYS for no content.

    If you were a bus operator, you wouldn’t let JCDecaux stick their ads onto your buses for free. So, if you create content online, why should you let Facebook stick its ads onto your content for free?

    That’s why there is now a NEW kind of social media. Ironically, it resembles OLD media, before Facebook came along and decided not to play by the rules.

    Just like JCDecaux PAYS the bus operators for the rights to stick ads on the buses, this NEW kind of social media pays YOU and me for the rights to stick ads onto our content.

    That’s the way it used to work, and that’s the way it’ll work again, once people become switched-on to the greed of Facebook.

    If you want to be one of the first to start publishing content to this new kind of social media, The Online Economy is a 10-step system of training to help you start doing exactly that.

    If you haven’t joined The Online Economy yet, go to: https://theonlineeconomy.com


  • Is Google a social media platform?

    Is Google a social media platform?

    I say yes, because Google’s business model is exactly the same as Facebook’s.

    They both sell advertising. Where there’s advertising, there’s content, and where do Google and Facebook source their content? By having content creators effectively “donate” it to them.

    (I say “donate” because Google and Facebook don’t pay for their content, they get it for free.)

    The difference is HOW content creators “donate” their content to Google vs. to Facebook.

    When you “donate” content to Facebook, you do it directly and knowingly. You access the app or the website, deliberately write a post for Facebook and you hit Publish.

    The way to “donate” content to Google is indirect and can happen without the content creator’s knowledge. They have to create their own website, and then Google automatically scrapes that website for content, which will then re-appear in Google along with ads.

    If someone doesn’t want to contribute content to Facebook, it’s simple. Just don’t do it.

    If someone doesn’t want to contribute content to Google (and they have their own website,) it’s not quite so simple. You have to deliberately let Google know you don’t want to be included. If you do nothing, Google will assume you’re fine with them scraping your content. They don’t even notify you.

    I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t sit well with me.

    What if someone doesn’t know about how Google works? What if they are unaware that their content is being scraped and used to generate ad revenue that is not being shared with them? What if they don’t know that they need to opt-out?

    In this case, it’s actually less like people DONATING content to Google, and more like Google STEALING their content.

    This is why I’m of the opinion that Google is far worse than Facebook.

    We don’t need to “donate” content to Google or Facebook anymore, because there’s a NEW kind of social media on the scene.

    When you post to this new kind of social media, the platform doesn’t get your content for free. They PAY you for it, in proportion to the amount of ad revenue that it generates.

    If you’re interested in being one of the first to post to this new kind of social media, (and get paid a commission whenever an ad is sold against your content) you should join The Online Economy.

    It’s a 10-step system of training, for monetising your time and content online through this NEW kind of social media.

    If you haven’t joined The Online Economy yet, go to: https://theonlineeconomy.com


  • If you have a Facebook business page, you should read this

    If you have a Facebook business page, you should read this. It could save you a lot of money.

    I’ve sometimes seen marketing coaches talk about the “likes” on your Facebook business page being a modern-day equivalent of your customer email list.

    The truth is, this is merely what Facebook WANTS you to think.

    It’s NOT remotely true, and believing it can actually be quite dangerous for your business.

    It is true that you can often get better reach and engagement through Facebook than through email. There’s no reason not to use a Facebook business page for communication. But don’t be fooled into thinking it’s equivalent to your customer email list.

    Here are the ways it’s different.

    1) You can’t export your “likes.”

    If you have a list of customer email addresses in your CRM, you can export them into another CRM if you ever decide to switch. You can even import those leads into Facebook as a “custom audience” that you can target with your Facebook ads.

    Can you go the other way, and bulk-import your Facebook “likes” into your CRM? No.

    When you gain a Facebook “like,” the only way you’re EVER going to be able to reach that lead is through Facebook. (And no, Instagram doesn’t count!)

    2) It will ALWAYS be more expensive.

    I don’t care how expensive your CRM is. Basic economics has it that Facebook will ALWAYS be more expensive than contacting customers through email/SMS/etc.

    Here’s why.

    It costs you the same to email someone who gets thousands of emails a day, as it costs you to email someone who gets a handful of emails a day.

    But with Facebook, every spot where YOUR post appears is a spot where someone else’s post is NOT appearing. That represents an opportunity cost for Facebook, which drives up the price for your paid ads (and drives down your organic reach.)

    3) You’re practically DONATING to your competitors.

    Let me repeat. When you send out a post to your Facebook “likes,” you practically DONATE those “likes” to your competitors.

    Facebook lets your competitors target the “likes” on YOUR page with THEIR paid ads.

    In other words, when one of your “likes” gets a post from your business in their Facebook news feed, they might get an ad from your competitor immediately alongside it.

    And there’s nothing you can do to stop it!

    Can you imagine sending out an email to your customer list, being FORCED to include ads for your competitors inside that email, and not even getting paid for them?

    If every business owner were to put their foot down and refuse to donate to their competitors like this, Facebook would lose most of its content, users and revenue.

    Most business owners don’t realise (or don’t have a choice), so Facebook gets away with it.

    But, when you become a member of The Online Economy, you’ll get access to 10-steps of training for promoting your business through a NEW kind of social media.

    That is, social media that PAYS you a share of the ad fees that your content is generating.

    Because, if your competitors are accessing YOUR audience, you should get fairly compensated for it.

    If you haven’t joined The Online Economy yet, go to: https://theonlineeconomy.com


  • The Nerve Centre of Affiliate Marketing

    Let’s conclude this month’s mini-series with a recap.

    I’ve been doing affiliate marketing for most of the decade just finished. Throughout this series, I’ve shared FOUR of my most elite and most secret methods for eclipsing the competition.

    In part 1 of “Affiliate Marketing Superstars,” I explained how the online marketplace approach to affiliate marketing enables you to manage hundreds of affiliate offers without being chaotic and disorganised.

    In part 2, I explained how to earn follow-up commissions on your affiliate offers by recruiting your vendors into affiliate networks of your choice.

    In part 3, I explained how changing the billing model of affiliate marketing can grant you EXCLUSIVITY over other affiliates. That is, you can have your vendors buy an exclusive ad spot with YOU and you only, rather than open up their offer to thousands of affiliates.

    My final method is even more exclusive still.

    How so? If you sell your own exclusive ad spot, it doesn’t stop other affiliates from selling their own exclusive ad spots and competing with you for advertisers.

    The way to stop that is to move competing affiliates under your own influence and have them join your OWN affiliate network.

    The choice of billing models still applies. You can charge per sale and be selling your vendors a whole network of affiliates, or per click and be selling them ad spots on a whole network of sites.

    When you have your own network, you can of course do anything at all. The catch is YOU are the one who is responsible for recruiting affiliates and motivating them to promote (or sell their own exclusive ad spots under your network.)

    The simplest way to do this is gather up your advertisers and let them join your affiliate network.

    If you want your advertisers to turn into affiliates, then you need to provide them coaching and account managers to help them grow their own audiences. This is because you’re effectively selling advertising to those audiences and you have a vested interest in those audiences to exist and be high quality.

    This method is one that very few will apply, but it represents the final step in building an online media empire.

    Remember, the affiliate network is the NERVE CENTRE of affiliate marketing.

    That means that the success of everyone else in the picture rests on the shoulders of whoever manages the affiliate network. How the network is set up (technology wise) determines a lot about whether affiliates will be interested in joining, what they are able to do once they join and how successful they can be.

    Like the previous parts of this series have shown you, affiliates want:

    1. to be able to set up hundreds of offers easily
    2. to get follow-up commissions
    3. to be able to sell exclusive ad spots.

    Anyone who sets up an affiliate network should set up one that provides these three benefits through the right technology.

    If the right technology (and the benefits) are not present, affiliates will choose not to join that network. They’ll instead join a network that DOES provide these benefits!

    The book I am currently writing showcases how this technology works from the affiliate’s perspective, and how it can be installed and set up by affiliate network owners who want their affiliates to access the three benefits.

    So far, I’m thinking the title of this book will probably be “How to Create an Online Marketplace.”

    Please send me a message or comment below if you’re interested in this book. If you contact me before the end of FEBRUARY 2020, you will get the whole book for FREE and I’ll share the content with you as I write it.

    Anyone who misses this window will have to pay a small price for this book when it launches.

    To avoid missing more discounts and offers like this one, like this page right now (or send to a friend who might like) or join our group.


1 2 3 5
Next Page »