Now I am doing some double checking, because some parts in your comment sounded like criticise on something in my post what you believed to be criticisms from part in some way. If that is the case then we should stop right there, because there is point in arguing about something that begin with a wrong premise.

Just some things in short to reinforce what I just said.

a) two, correction, four of the comments at Vinny's blog are mine..

b) "It's a bit early in the year for link-baiting games, but I believe that this one happened unintentionally."

c) I don't call something "scam" that I am okay with

d) "quantity" is the thing RJ is bedding on. I don't think they or he goes for the high ROI. Based on the cost per click and value of the customer over time that does actually convert, is a conversion rate only something to start worrying about for RJ if it down to the ten's of one percent.

He is doing just fine with CR's that have a single digit which is not zero either directly before or directly after the digital point.

Cheers,

Carsten

"If the RJ scam works I don't know, but it made a very good link-bait for somebody else. So now, why did PartnerCentric drop Rich Jerk the Advertiser again? I kind of got lost at that part. "

But that sort of thinking still has a firm grasp on the hearts and minds of online (and offline) marketers.

And that's sad.

It's not about the number of comments, or the amount of conversation that you create with an offer or a program.

It's not about the higher Alexa rankings you get when you attract attention to yourself or your program.

And it's not about link-baiting. There's no such thing. We're all "marketers" here and yet we keep throwing around the "linkbait" slur like it's a curse. We all want more page views and we'll throw large amounts of money and unethical tactics at the wall to see if we can get a little alexa splatter.

But it's not about the pageviews and the quantity (anymore). I'd argue that it never was about the quantity.

Thinking that "well, we're all talking about it, so it must have worked" is a logical fallacy that doesn't hold up. We do need to point out the sorts of things that RickJerk is doing, or an unscrupulous email marketer is doing, or an AdSense farmer is doing in order to shine the lights on the cockroaches of our industry.

Arguing that any exposure will help their program or validates less-than-cheeky methods based on the number of comments or page views weakens the point of our online community.

Crap like this has been allowed to exist for too long in the industry b/c we are afraid to talk about the scum due to the illogical and silly fear that by shining a flashlight into the closet we might see the boogey man.

We need 75 comments on this type of thing. Let's talk about it, analyze it, understand it and get to the inevitable conclusion that tactics like this don't work.