The Get Google Ads Free Site is a Complete Scam!
I found this site – getgoogleadsfree dot con, sorry dot com, in the adsense on the right of this page. Obviously, as I’m not allowed to click on my own ads, I entered the URL direct, but guess what I found. The ad itself looked scammy, so I thought I’d check it out…
Absolutely, the biggest crock I’ve read in a long time. This site has it all:
- the ridiculous testimonials, using stock photos and pseudo-street-talk to make them look and sound real e.g. “cuz its great!” etc.
- It’s really, really, really long;
- They have a couple of tiny legal notices pertaining to the fact that you will not actually get anything for your money other than a piece of advice (more on this later);
- Plenty of ways to sign up for the “newsletter”;
- Plenty of ways to go to pay (with no mention of price);
- More bumf, huff and puff than any marketer could shake a stick at. Its the hard sell. Big time. It shouldn’t happen to old Gill. But it has. He’s selling pyramid schemes.
So, why do I say its a scam?
Because, and I read this from some chump who actually paid for this “system” and STILL THINKS IT IS AN OK IDEA “if you have lots of cash.” This is what get google ads free will actually give you:
- An ebook
That’s it. Ok, so what is in the ebook? Great advice on how to get millions of pounds (dollars) worth of Google Adsense advertising for nothing? No. Here’s the system:
- You select as many popular keywords as you like;
- You bid the highest possible price for all of them (getting you to number 1 foreach of them);
- You fill that website with advertising and affiliate links which will make you money.
That is the “system”.
Forgive my ignorance, but surely that is not free! In fact, that is the whole premise – they aren’t actually FREE, you pay for them, but they are as good as free because of all the lovely cash you’ll be earning. What bollocks. What about all the countless people who click onto your site, and sooner or later, realise that it is just full of shit that they don’t need or want to read. They go elsewhere, yet you’ve spent $2 for them to visit.
A completely backwards and ridiculous pyramid style scheme. Where’s the pyramid? Well, because the genius who invented this foolproof scheme to sink all your money tells you that a great way to boost the income of your site (and hence increase the freeness of your adverts???!!!?) is to promote the Get Google Ads Free site yourself, for a huge commission.
That would be right. I pay TOP DOLLAR for all competitive keywords, and get YOUR INSANE WEBSITE more dupes to part with their money. Do you see the pyramid developing here??? Then, if any of those nutcases signs up, they do the same. Advertising your crazy site all over the place.
Lets put an end to this stupid scheme, by doing the following things:
- Report this site to Google (the site is getgoogleadsfree.com) and say that it is a scam, by describing the above;
- If you use Adsense, block all similar sites;
- Stick a link up to this page titled “get google ads free scam” or similar, so that anyone else who may be considering this stupid scheme will see that it is crazy.
RSS
Myspace
LinkedIn
Twitter
Subscribe by Email
24hourtrading.co.uk24hourtrading.co.uk24hourtrading.co.ukJ Levin, Esq | Attorney at Law
Email all correspondence to me at:
Webmaster@GetGoogleAdsFree.com
Marked: Attn: J Levin | Legal Mail
ATTN: Rob Scott
Mr Scott,
The article you have posted at:
http://www.24hourtrading.co.uk/blog/2007/05/01/the-get-google-ads-free-site-is-a-complete-scam/
Is a gross and deliberate misrepresentation of our Client’s intellectual product.
Further, it seeks additionally to defame and possibly direct people in a collective felonious attempt to deliberately destroy a business; and which is very much AGAINST THE LAW (a bounty of evidentiary case law in support therefof!)
>>>
Unless this article is immediately REMOVED, I will file accordingly, and in the correct and applicable jurisdiction of law; naming both YOU and the site’s provider as DEFENDANTS.
>>>
It should be obvious to you as to why your post is ILLEGAL; but if you require a further articulate analysis, I will gladly provide you one — but be prepared to defend yourself accordingly in an aggressive legal action against you, sir.
Most sincerely & awaiting your reply/action,
J Levin, Esq
PS — And UNLIKE your claims otherwise regarding our Client’s virtual property, I am in fact a very real attorney, and will actually have you promptly and expeditiously served, and when you see me, I will hardly be a “stock photo” in court.
Thank you for your letter, Mr Levin, Esq.
Unfortunately, the law on libel only applies if one makes claims which are untrue, everything I say can be corroborated, and I stand by the accuracy of those claims wholeheartedly.
Furthermore, unless you can say directly that your site provides free (by this I mean actually free, for the avoidance of doubt, this means AT NO MONETARY COST – whether this is considered before or after any future incoming revenue accrues: expenditure in this instance means your ‘service’ cannot possibly be described as free), then I shall continue to contend that the site is not free, which is true, and therefore, not ‘illegal’.
Oh, by the way, you got served.
Robin Scott LLB
I like ‘intellectual product’. A real oxymoron, when one considers the product in question.
It is interesting to see how worried you are about what I have said. Were it not true, you could simply have stated “that is not true” in the comments. However, because it is accurate, you are clearly more interested in removing them.
Is this because you want to hide this truthful piece, when you have clearly tried very hard to promote the “it is a greaaat idea (sic)” messages around the internet?
As far as attempts to “destroy a business”, that IS a gross misrepresentation, at no time do I induce anyone to “destroy a business.” However, I do point out to everyman (you know, the ordinary person – the one in your case books who usually wins in a 50-50 battle against a company) that the vague and convoluted messages on a particular website do not, in actual FACT, provide the FREE service, which may be inferred by the reader, having traversed a large amount of text, in which the word ‘FREE’ is written 60+ times.
Furthermore, I ask people who share my belief to point out to Google that a site is breaking their terms and conditions, in the hope that they will stop advertising on our sites (i.e. those who use Adsense). Nobody wishes for their web visitors to be subjected to advertising which they feel is immoral, if not illegal, and that is the view I wish to put forward.
All I want is for sites such as that in question, which I feel (and many others will share this view) may be considered misleading – whether this be intentional or otherwise – to be checked over by Google to see if they comply with Google’s strict terms & conditions. If they do, then there is no problem for them. If they don’t (and this may destroy your business as a result, though that is not my intention, further this alone cannot be considered the likely outcome of a site being banned from paid advertising with one search provider) then that is the fault of the business in question for operating outside of the very clear terms and conditions to which Google’s advertisers must adhere.
If you are still sure you’d like to commence an action, I’ll send you my name and address, but be prepared for your outrageous, and very public, assertions to be vigorously defended, and, this achieved, to be called to account for defaming me by publicly stating that I have committed a felony, when I have not.
I’m curious as to why this doesn’t sound at all like a lawyer? Is it the typos or the sheer unprofessionalism of the threats and unexpanded allusions to a legal basis for his argument?
An actual lawyer would have no need to make such threats using CAPITAL LETTERS everywhere, they would simply state the legal case, give an option for early mediation and then name their company or legal qualifications (American equivalent to LLB) as proof of their credentials.
The more this guy shouts; “I’m a lawyer, you’ll see”, shaking his virutal fist, the less I am inclined to believe him.
In addition, Mr Levin’s comment has no authority at all, given that he has provided no means at all with which to verify his claim to be a lawyer acting for GetGoogleAdsFree.com There are several J Levins listed on the American Bar Association “lawyer locator” -how are we supposed to treat this message as genuine with no letterhead equivalent?
First, I am a woman (that’s “Ms J Levin”). And yes, regardless of your or anyone’s “skepticisms” I am in fact an attoney.
It is very easy to feel a false sense of security when one can hide easily and mostly anonymously from behind their computer(s); but such soon will not be the case.
I have said what I have; I have made a reasonable demand on my Client’s behalf; and now the only thing left to do is to file as promised.
The reason I requested you do so here is because the courts will naturally ask if “we” attempted resolution “informerly” before proceeding with a “formal claim/filing;” as to fail to do so can get a federal magistrate to dismiss an otherwise sound claim outright (which we have as I’m sure that neither of the above parties are as legally well-versed as they would have readers believe).
We have (i.e., made a genuine effort to do this); and as evidenced herein.
As for a case hinging merely on libel, such is not the center of our complaint.
You attempted to go beyond any public service by attempting to destroy a business based purely on a malicious and unwarranted ambition.
This can be easily shown as there exists more than an abundance of legal precedent to support same.
As for the Product in question, there exists ample evidence demonstrating its effectiveness as a very useful instructional work; and this too can be offered as an exhibit to counter what you call a libelous statement.
Enough said; your words are seemingly brave; however, your courtroom appearance I’m sure will demonstrate otherwise.
I will file naming you as a defendant, have you compelled to make an appearance in New York County Court, and then follow through with a Motion for Discovery to begin pronto.
Ms J Levin (“Ms” for clarification purposes)
PS … You will have ample opportunity to witness firsthand that I am in fact a lawyer; and also not “shooting blanks.”
You require nothing more from me at this online location.
Mr/Ms – it is difficult to ascertain without the provision of a first name, however, taking ‘,Esq’ as my only reference point, I made the quite logical presumption that you are a male, given that this title, in England, is historically only applied to males (incidentally, this is usually done by other people, and it is considered quite the social faux pas to use in reference to oneself – but I do appreciate that many American attorneys at law use this to show the world that they are a lawyer, and have stripped the gender specific nature).
It is interesting that you cite hiding behind anonymity.
Why, therefore, does the company or individual which runs getgoogleadsfree.com feel it is necessary to “hide” their domain registration details behind a proxy service – namely Domains by Proxy?
I’m not talking about the products effectiveness as “a very useful instructional work” I am saying that it is – by NO means – free.
Your adsense advertisement clearly stated “get Google ads free.” Moreover, the website uses the word “free” over 60 times in reference to Google Adwords advertising.
As one must pay to receive your ‘product’ and the adverts which are subsequently purchased by following the same are not free either, I take issue with your description. To call something free which is not is, in my view, a scam, and I’ve labeled it as such.
Further to that, however, it is also against US law to advertise in this way. I shall cite an actual law here, unlike your above “bounty of evidentiary case law” – have a quick glimpse through the Lanham Act. The FTC – Federal Trade Commission – also would have several issues with the use of the word free. Their advice is to “operate extreme caution” when describing a product as free, to avoid falling foul of the Lanham Act. I do not think that your client has in any way done this.
But, of course, you know all this.
“neither of the above parties are as legally well-versed as they would have readers believe”
That’s a good one. Really it is.
What do you consider I have spent the past three years doing? Or my father? Or his father before him? You state quite clearly that you have no idea who I am, yet you make a wild guess at my prior knowledge. Please refrain from going off half cocked, it really isn’t becoming.
And one more question: are you paying for my plane ticket, or shall I expense it and add it to your costs?
My dad was a milkman. Does this help?
First, Google paused all initial advertising efforts upon our release, did a 36-hour review by their approval team (not just an AdWords clearance), requested a copy of the Work in question, then upon completing same “APPROVED” our electronic publication of the Work.
If you have any legal knowledge, then you should know at least that by responding to your “thread” herein, a trier of fact could potentially find that I “exacerbated” an existing action run afoul; simply put, my further participation herein may be construed as an effort on my part to do something either akin or analogous to “entrapment.”
I.e., a judge (or if a jury under a set of instructions may be asked) did Ms Levin’s interaction cause the DEFENDANT(S) to further add to their alleged offense(s)?
And I believe you already know this.
And because of this, I must abstain further in responding as I want only to serve in my best capacity in the event a formal complaint is required.
I have requested that you withdraw your damaging statement(s); I have done so, and well within that required by most conventions of law; you have refused; so the only relief we can seek at this point would naturally be:
1. An immediate injunction requiring you to remove your statement(s) pending an outcome/decision
2. a declaration cert
3. puni’s
4. compensatory damages
Obviously we have on file people who stated definitively that:
“I was going to order but Rob & Linda told me to stay away…”
– and in large numbers; so any “burden” should not prove difficult for the immediate injunction sought; nor any awared damages to follow.
I’m not sure why you are so willing to get yourselves into such trouble(s) and at such risks over your mere opinion (and which is a very poor opinion not well thought out; nor is it genuinely qualified).
The rule you reference in accordance with FTC “interpretation” is NOT a rigorous test, and is to be taken with only a ‘casual application’ at best [hence "proceed with caution"], as it’s well established to be one of the most vague citations ever (and I’m shocked with your supposed legal skills after such an arduous 3 full years to your credit that you even tried to use it in any kind of argument under jurisprudence).
If this ‘citation’ applied to a harsher standard then no one could ever say such claims in marketing as:
“Make money in real estate no money down”
“Buy 4 get a 5th free”
– and the like.
Your reasoning is “childish” at best!
To me at least personally (and this is not a professional assault on either of you, nor is it a strict and careful determination based off some legal/clinicl test) but I feel you two (2) represent the typical online spectator(s) who merely watch others succeed, and then attempt to trash those person’s characters and reputations out of “self-dislike” and “personal failure” (all too common online).
Dr Cohen has excelled by contrast over a lifetime of nearly 80 years; and has done pro bono medical service in Africa helping primitive peoples in hygiene and basic healthcare in order to reduce illness and disease (from 1979-1981); he has also utilized his own system to make a very sizeable personal fortune; and has helped others from Microsoft, Amazon, and the like to do so equally; not to even begin to mention several hundred (100′s) students from Fortune 500/1000 firms do so as well.
Additionally, he has given countless sums in financial assistance to charities, and to research for the furtherance for developing cures or treatments for AIDS patients, Cancer sufferers, as well as more conditions than perhaps either of you are even aware exist.
Yet you two (2) want nothing more than to trash such a true gentleman of such great accomplishment and reduce him to some type of “huckster.”
He also has many members of the Senate as close personal friends, as well as other political ties similarly.
So, again I simply ask you this one final time:
***
Is your horrible and deliberate effort at misleading the masses or anyone who really even cares to listen to what the two of you “think,” and even attempting to cause them to participate in a collective (even mob-mentality) felonious campaign against my Client, truly worth getting yourselves into such great and irreversible troubles over?
***
We need very little to substantiate to support a complaint at this point.
And again, do either of you (i.e., “Rob & Linda”) really believe that you would have no problem whatsoever standing before a court to answer to such charges/allegations? (Because honestly at this point you are just throwing gasoline on an already very aggravated fire)…?
I ask because you could simply go find someone else (less financially-fortified and legally-fully-stocked as my Client) to talk in a defaming manner about.
J Levin
*Attorney at Law*
(Wouldn’t want to sound ‘un-American’)
Will you stop leaving irrelevant comments. I do no wish to make any comments which may prejudice a case which I may or may not be in the process of serving against your client and/or your client’s proxy domain registrant and/or your clients web host.
Thanks for your post. I had considered purchasing this, but thanks to the person claiming to be a lawyer, I will keep my money safely in my pocket.
Everything I have read here, I have read many other places as well (so your claims are not unique and thus would not be any more defamatory than the dozens of other web sites detailing the same scam alert). Of course, someone mysteriously tried to write the same “positive review” with links with the ebook as well. However, you are correct. What is being proposed may not be a direct violation of Google’s policies, but it comes very close.
Anyway, I think I might waste some time now and simply click on that guy’s ads over and over and over again until the value of the ad equals the cost of just one book. Consider this therapeutic for nearly falling for his scam. And of course, I will check what the cost of such key words I will use in this therapy are in advance so I know when to stop!
Interestingly, Rob & Linda, we now have documented evidence whereby several persons stating such comments as:
“It figures these dirty Jews made all this money!”
And…
“A name like Cohen or Levin are obviously just more fucking Jew bastards out to rob everybody!”
And…
“Go fuck yourselves Jews … Hitler was right to try and kill all you skumbags and money loving whores!”
– and these same individuals are stating to us that they derrived their collective hatred as a result of reading your comments herein (and I suppose even my defense of our true good name; which you continually contest at every turn).
They even added such statements as:
“Hell fuck yeah! Get these sick Jew devils, Rob”
“It’s nice to see that there are still good Jew-haters out there who think like the rest of us!”
Rob and Linda, it appears on the face of it that you two certainly have quite a following!!
Well, we certainly don’t appreciate these antisemitic remarks; nor do we support your right to conjure such hate-filled voices.
Again, we have quite an abundance of evidence building up in support of our claim (now more so “claims”); you should perhaps take a few moments to re-review your own thread starting at the top, examine for contradiction as previously you represented a much more head strong stance against our Client; but in subsequent additions you began to dilute and belie yourself quite rapidly.
Also, despite your argument that if you learned Google itself found nothing objectionable in our Client’s materials you would declare “fine!” you have again belied yourself and failed before your audience to do so.
You even admitted that you never read or for that matter tested our Client’s materials to see if its application would negate the costs of ones AdWords advertising (and thereby causing ones advertising to become free); yet you passed a hate-filled and malicious judgment upon this work; and even attempted to rouse others to join your illegal cause; which by the way has only generated much in the way of very inflamed racist tempers to now show themselves.
You and Linda have quite a lot of power; perhaps you should simply start a racial cult instead of doing us all a favor by reporting falsly online against products you envy.
While we support “free speech” we don’t believe in the abuse of responsibility every intelligent person has in making a statement they can’t realistically stand by.
You have contradicted yourself now; and you have grossly generated inappropriate hate-mongering; nested in large part from your thread as its origin.
Enough from the two of you…I suppose we will be required to “reach across the pond” and make an example of at least two pompous Brits (shall we?)
J Levin/Atty
Now you’re just being ridiculous. In fact, as I have logged your IP address on each and every occasion you have left a comment, I will be making the proper steps to prevent you from creating such vile diatribe again. What you have said, in an effort to undermine us, is not only reprehensible, it is also illegal, despite your fictitious quotation marks.
I fail to grasp quite which pond you speak of at the end of your highly inaccurate last post. In all of your extensive research, it would not have been difficult to ascertain what part of the world we are actually living in, given that I write about it most of the time.
Unfortunately for you, you have made a huge error in accusing us of antisemitism. This idea is entirely false, can easily be disproved, and makes you, and the organization you ‘represent,’ appear extremely vindictive in addition to the other complaints which can be leveled at you. Any comments which are found to be racially aggravating and/or antisemitic can and will be investigated to ascertain their true source. I hope, for your sake, that in your continued efforts to hush me, you were not foolish enough to make them yourself.
Your repeated, increasingly frantic and now spectacularly inaccurate comments are showing you in a far worse light than anything I have said.
Right. Whatever you say, Rob (and Linda).
Make yourself look good to your “audience.”
We have on file DAILY no less lots of contact submissions; complete with IP identifiers.
And we have a number of antisemitic remarks aimed at us (none of which are at my or anyone else’s within our organization’s authorship) aimed against us; and citing YOUR thread as their origin.
You can do whatever you like legally; as we are so well fortified both financially and from a legal standpoint it will make your head(s) spin!
Best of luck.
And we couldn’t care less who you are (or think you are).
J Levin/Atty
PS — “Blocking” my further correspondence with you only serves to show what true cowards you all are…
Wow! I see you are a liar once again, Rob (I thought you “blocked” me)…
J Levin
Looking forward to seeing your in court (Mr “Solicitor”)…
I did not say I was going to block you. I said I would prevent you from making such baseless comments in future. By this I meant I would report you to the relevant authorities for your abusive and despicable behaviour.
What you said earlier was done (in my opinion) in an attempt to incite racial, or religious, hatred, which is a criminal offence in many countries, carrying a severe punishment.
After making statements to the effect that you do not like derogatory comments to be made about one particular cultural group, you then massively contradict yourself by insulting us, not simply as people, but as “Brits”. Clearly you are not as tolerant of other cultures as you would have us all believe.
The idea that we are in any way responsible for the crude racially offensive remarks you have made in your comment is beneath contempt. It is a notion, I am sure, that will appear ridiculous to anyone who either knows us, or has read anything I have written in the past, which you so clearly, have not.
What a meanie
This is what teachers want to ban as “cyber-bullying” -now who’s being childish? I don’t mind being sued. I do mind the unprofessional attitude of this alleged lawyer. Where is need in the insults and personal attacks except to avoid the courtroom?
Lawyers I have met so far are widely perceived as professionals in the same way as doctors. A cool, formal demeanour is demanded as a useful tool for allowing the proper course of justice or medicine to flow. In serious and highly-charged cases, emotive and insulting opinions are usually detrimental to effective resolutions. So why the attitude, Levin?
I was led to believe that the above comment about not wanting to prejudice future proceedings heralded the end of this slightly surreal exchange, but it seems that that this entity desperately seeks to have the last word. Unfortunately, what could have been a polite warning on a legal point, has become a torrent of needless abuse.
By the way “informerly” is actually spelt “informally” unless you want to use an adverb describing the quality of behaving like an informer (e.g. police informer).
It doesn’t matter whether we have kept business away from the site in mention, only that our statements are truthful.
Previous requests for the means to verify the credentials of this threatening and unsavoury character have fallen on deaf ears. Therefore, we will not be commenting further on this subject without provision of a full identifying statement.
Haaaaa! Haaaaaa!
I surf like a ghost…you’ll never find me…but I will find you…Haaaa!…Haaaaaaaa!
Hello Rob,
Can you please give me an update to this interesting blog? I appreciate your opinion.
Thanks,
Ray
There isn’t much to tell really. I made a few reports here and there to relevant authorities; the person who posted the above comments tried to make more comments which contained links to animal pornography and other indecent stuff. I closed the comments on this post for a few months as a result.
Nothing happened.
A few months on.
Still nothing. No writ. No head-spinning legal stuff. Nothing.
I think the final comment which made it through my spam guard sums up the nature of this character: a chancer who made spurious threats in order to perpetuate a myth (i.e. that it is possible to get Google adwords ads ‘free’) – and taking money in the process – who, when questioned, quickly revealed his or her childlike nature.
THANKS Rob for the update.
Rob, in my opinion well done !!
Funnily enough, daily, many people are searching google for “free google ads scam” – note that THEY are searching for this as a “scam” – and landing here. In an attempt to have my gentle warning to those who might click on Adsense ads removed, this person has created far more adverse publicity than I could ever have hoped to have myself.
I really hope that this person is not an attorney: a worse advert for the legal profession I could not imagine possible.
I also would like to believe that the source of these comments were nothing to do with the Getgoogleadsfree website itself.
I do know two things for certain: the same entity made all of the above comments (using the same IP identifiers on each occasion), and that this entity wished for me to remove the above “scam warning” and would go to many lengths to achieve this.
It is precisely these type of people who make the internet a poorer place; make consumers less likely to make sales online; and ultimately are responsible for the erosion of consumer confidence in web sales.
In short, people like this reduce my ability to make a living, so perhaps it should be I building a legal case.
Thankyou for saving me from making yet another purchase guaranteeing me to make money online but not following through. Thank god for sites like yours that give honest opinions without this we would surely be “scammed” a hell of a lot more. Thanks again
Great advice, thanks for saving me from wasting cash.
all the best
David.
I charged back on this product.
It was for the “product” you are discussing now. GetGoogleAdsFree.con
Load of trash, free ads my ass, just Cohen telling everyone if you charge back you are an idiot.
Guess i’m an idiot then.
well done rob – you are correct. type in ‘google ads free scam’ points direct to here! must say it all makes entertaining reading and I aint buying the product either! Nice one!
I own an online store that sells handcrafted jewelry, and it can be a real pain to get traffic to your site. as soon as I heard about this “free adwords” thing, I knew it was going to be ripe with nonsense and the very first search I ran on it I included the word “scam”. I always check up on businesses i consider buying from, and the more outrageous the claims the deeper I’ll dig. I didn’t have to dig deep at all to get the skinny on this one. You are providing a great service and I feel you are right on the money (no pun intended). As for the um…attorney – well, I believe any lawyer worth their salt sends a private email or letter first. If they are unable to make contact, then they post a neutral and non-revealing message to you and request contact. If they can’t reach you that way, then they go through your provider or webhost. They have to get all kinds of warrants for that. As for the act of engaging in verbal sparring via a message board, slinging about threats, and name-calling, no decent lawyer is that daft. Posts like that are wide open, leaves room for public opinion as well as a very public record of what i feel is blatant bullying and usually deteriorates into slander. In short, all of what happened up above, in my opinion, is pure nonsense and the behavior of ‘lawyer’ is reminiscent of kindergarten politics. I have seen 2 year olds with more maturity. You handled this well Rob and kudos to you for standing your ground!
Rob,
Many thanks for this blog, as others have stated the prospect of free advertising was immensely appealing. I thank God that I typed “google adwords free spam” into google.
The site in question just looked exactly the same as the “make your fortune internet gambling” or casino systems that are everywhere on the net.
Thanks again for saving me money that I might have spent on a useless product.
Thanks Rob!
I was ready to purchase “Get Google Adwords Free” until I read your blog,especially the ongoing exchange with the supposed “attorney” J. Levin. He/she,in my opinion, made a total ass out themselves and further damaged Cohens’ reputation with their astounding unprofessional conduct.
Keep up the good work!
Frankly, It seems to me that all of you have a selfish agenda, Rob, Linda and the lawyer. My opinion is FREE, you all sound like a bunch of school kids that have nothing better to do but sling rocks. In the end, you all look silly and get hurt!
John
Okay, John, you are welcome to your views.
What “selfish agenda,” on my part, could you possibly have gleaned from reading the above?
As far as slinging rocks, that is fair criticism, however, were I to do nothing in the face of such obviously scandalous behaviour, it would go against the grain of my personality: I cannot let it rest when someone is perpetrating such clearly false advertising – and using my websites (through Google) to do so. If this makes me a “childish rockslinger,” then so be it.
I’d far rather be slinging rocks in the schoolyard, than dishonestly misappropriating money.
All our views and opinions are a dime a dozen. We all have one, but as I said, in the end, you (all) looked silly and hurt yourselves! Just my observation. Good luck with your blog.
John
i was just about to order until i thought to myself let me just check if there under a scam and look what i find!!!
so there is no money to made here, is there any legit money making jobs on the internet!!
Well Done Rob, you showed that ar87 h013! Brilliant stuff. I totally agree that those heavy handed threats were inapproriate and should have been done privately. You have much support and soared in the search rankings! Use it to your benefit and promote a product you believe in!
Brilliant stuff.
All the Best
Darren
Hello. Just wanted to throw in my thanks for saving me $47. I was all set and ready to buy, until I searched getgoogleadsfree.com scam and came here, like the others.
I did however begin to sense something was amiss when below the crossed off $200 and bolded $47 there was a ‘you only have 23 hours 56 minutes and 21 seconds’ left for this sale! It was the exact amount of time I’d been reading the site. Hm.
Anyway, thanks again!
That’s hilarious Josh!
This page is now – almost – as long as the page in question with all these like minded comments (as well as the strange lawyer chat which seems to have gone quiet nowadays).
I love this medium. Find xxx that is obviously a scam, search for “xxx scam”, and here we are.
Google do need a swift kick if they are willingly letting ads for this nonsense proliferate. Of course, THEY are the ones getting the resultant revenue…
Thanks for taking the trouble (and I do wonder what John is smoking??!)
Mate, It troubles me that you keep misspelling “ridiculous” but I found this thread quite entertaining. You didn’t really think this idiot an attorney did you? A real attorney would have done a WHOIS and sent you (or your proxy domain registry) a registered letter, for starters. And a real attorney wouldn’t show his hand the way this fool has.
Another one to watch out for is http://www.worldprofit.com (con) – hila
(hit the post button by mistake)…hilarious bunch of middle-aged losers sitting by their computers “live” in a webcast and trying to snare any unwary fish that float by. This lot are basically flogging websites to beginners and operating a pyramid scheme as well. Same deal as here – if you enter “worldprofit.com scam” into your browser you can read all about it. Run by a Canadian “Doctor” with a “PHD from Harvard” and a “ex-TopGun from the Canadian Airforce”. And still people fall for this bullshit and sign up for money to be taken from their credit card each month. à bientôt, Lambe, Paris.
Verry interesting! I just happened upon this post while generally moochin’ about the www.
I think anyone with half a brain would have to realise this is a scam – surely?!
Fact: You can’t get Google adwords ads for free. No ifs, no buts, you just can’t. Period.
Fact: The internet marketing wannabe world is FULL of idiots that think you can get somethin’ for nothin’. They spend fortunes on their quest for free money.
They’re all desperately looking for the next ‘magic pill’ to enable them to sit back and relax while the MONEY FLOODS IN!!
Guys, there’s no such thing as money for nothing. Stop dreaming and start working.
You can get all the info you need to be successful online for FREE. Just get off your arses, get on the net and do a bit of WORK to find it. Then go to work and make it work.
Simple enough?
Two things:
1. Rob your a hero. It would have been all too easy to have just taken down your post, but you stuck by yours guns. Well done. You have probably saved folks a lot of money
2. The only way to get free money: Dont get caught up in these scams, and the money you dont spend on them put it in a bank. You will then earn interest on it, and you get your original money back (you never spent it). Making the interst you earn “free” money.
Rob,
This made for great reading this morning. I have been receiving emails from this company and thought I should do my research and landed on this page. I read through all of the posts. WOW! As a small business owner I am always looking to expand my reach and was looking into Google Adwords. This sounded to good when you first read it, but if you read it over a couple of times you can start to see it coming apart. FREE is used way to many times.
Thanks for the review.
Hey
I put the site up as a money maker on my blog and then began looking at it closer. Guess what it lead me here.
Because of this, I am removing it from my site immediately. I originally got the link from Clickbank. Perhaps they need to take a look at the stuff people are peddling through their site.
Thanks for the heads up.
The Mad Ape
http://www.tatumba.com
Hi Rob & Linda (and to all the readers)
First off, I would like to congratulate you, Rob & Linda, for an excellent blog that makes for a great read! Love it!!
I came across this “claim” of getting free adwords a couple of months ago and I must say, I was really tempted. (Unfortunately I am one of those highly gullible people who wants to believe everything and everyone). This is why blogs such as yours are a breath of fresh air which, I am positive, is appreciated by all non-consters (if there’s even such a word, haha) on the net.
By the way, if you want to test the theory of the 24hour “Hurry and buy now to save $30″ scam… go to http://www.getgoogleadsfree.com/grab_it_now.kuyt6he5343hj.html
I love it… you can go there any day of the week and still “only” have 24hours left! Brilliant!
One last thing – For anyone interested in actually reading this “best-seller”, point your browser to http://www.mediafire.com/?frmzn3kjntm and download it for free. Just a cautionary word: Don’t waste your time!
Incredible Blog guys!
Have a fantastic day!
Ruoall Chapman
South Africa
This is in response to “Mad Ape’s” comment above:
You mentioned that you advertised this program on your blog but took it down after reading this thread.
Perhaps you should only make recommendations on products that you personally use or can truly recommend. It seems that, all too often, people find a product and promote it before doing proper research.
Now, I’m not saying that this product is a scam. This ebook could, potentially, give someone an idea…that if implemented, could indeed help them in their marketing efforts.
College students pay for text books that cost much more than that just to earn a degree. They never really “direcly” earn money from the book that they purchased but they did gain some knowledge.
I am not an affiliate, nor did I purchase the program so I don’t stand any financial gain to make any comments or recommendations to buy the product.
With that being said, here is what I recommend:
If you are interested in the product to learn something, buy it.
If you are looking for a magic wand…don’t buy ANY report on the internet. If it is an ebook of any kind, it only contains information.
The ONLY way to get a magic pill is if there is a service that you pay for. For example, if you want something done whether it’s a website, content, PPC submission, basically anything…pay to get it done and it will get done.
On the other hand, you could buy a book on “how to” get these things done for yourself and learn how to do it.
See where I’m going here?
What is being sold is a “how to” manual. Simple as that.
For a fee, the creator is sharing information. What you do with that information is up to you.
The sales letter (in my opinion) is awesome. It really tugs at your emotions and makes you want to buy. All good sales letters do this.
Will it deliver?
Take this as food for thought…
Well, maybe. If you pay $67 for the report to gain some knowledge, will you recover that cost by taking that knowledge and applying some of the techniques in your marketing efforts?
If so…great. It was a good investment (scam or not). It’s the knowledge you receive that should be measured.
Here’s a money making tip:
Buy products like this that have great sales copy. Study them and make your own report based on the knowledge you attained. Make your OWN product and sell it for less. You can even go so far as telling where you got the information.
For example. You could write a report on “Get Google Ads Free” and outline what you learned in the report. Show people what you bought (but tell them not to purchase). Then go on to say that you have all the answers in YOUR report but sell it for less.
It’s not plagiarism, nor is it unethical if you truly make a unique info product.
So. Should you buy it? Yes. If you want to and you are willing to invest some time into figuring out how to monetize what you learn.
When I say this I don’t mean following every step in the product and hoping that it will work for you What I’m talking about is taking this knowledge that you purchase and making it work for you in many other ways.
Back to the college student analogy. Buy this product only if you are willing to be a student of internet marketing and Google Adwords. Apply what you learn in a smart way and monetize your purchase.
Personally, I’m not buying the product because I already have too many projects on my hands. It’s not because I think the product is junk or because there are some “bad reviews”…I just know that my time will be better spent on what I’m working on now.
So, to answer your question on should you buy or not…
Yes, if you want to learn and build off what you learn.
No, if you buying this as the one and only savior to your PPC business.
Better yet (And this is directed at the “Mad Ape’s” comments). If you endorse it, explain why. It’s ok to advertise on your blog but to endorse it is another thing.
Here’s what I mean. If you have a blog and monitize it with Adwords or some other ad rotator system…that’s ok. Just let people know that your site has ads to products that you haven’t reviewed. Even go so far as pointing out that fact. This could save your reputation greatly and still give you the ability to advertise 3rd party products on your site.
I’m very impressed by the integrity of Rob Scott in exposing this scam. Obviously, adding an income source like adsense to your landing page and making money from perpetuating the hoax by reselling the websiter after you buy a Google adword is not FREE.
thanks for posting this.
i can’t believe they are still live & operational.
the FTC should really take these guys down. they will, one day.
Just want to say thanks very much to Rob for your fantastic work.
If it were not for you then I feel sure I would have been duped yet again which is something that I nor my children can afford to let happen…
As for the “lawyer” HA! what a joke seems like he/she got out when it got too hot, kudos to you… Thanks again!
Hi Rob,
Wow, I am quite new to internet marketing myself and was browsing through Clickbank to promote products. I saw this product, it is offering a high commision and has a great sales gravity.
So I took a look at it, and wow, it would be an internet marketers dream come true! I mean, free Google Ads!! The sales page is also quite tempting, so I did a search first and found this page.
Now, I am not one to usually post comments, but I just have to say “Brilliant!” Most people would have been scared off by the fake lawyer, but you held your ground and knew your stuff.
Looking at the “small print” on the bottom of their ‘sales page’, it basically says that it’s not what it’s making out to be.
These guys make it harder for honest marketers to sell decent products and should be banned from Clickbank and Google.
Saying that, shame on Google, they disable adwords ads for any little mistake, how these guys are getting away with it I just don’t understand.
Well Done!
Mark Acutt
Excellent stuff, I new that this programme had to be a scam and this blog confirmed it for me.
I’ve encountered GetGoogleAdsFree for about a month now. I’ve considered it but was still looking at it very closely until I read all these. I always tell myself that when something “sounds to good to be true, it isn’t true. The above blogs were very informative. Thanks to Rob, Linda & all and goodbye to GetGoogleAdsFree but isn’t free.
Gio
U.S.A.
Hi
Thanks. Since January 2007 (and even earlier), I have from time to time bought such products. I was about to buy it.
All one is actually doing is buying information. Value depends on if you knew it before (assuming it is not just a scam…)
I think I will pass on this one. Thanks for the info.
I suppose there is an art to internet based ebook selling and as always it is the buyer who should beware.
Thanks again…
Thanks Rob,
I was about signing up with Adwords when I came across the book, i read everything and knew there had to be something fishy, same storyline with Google Payloads, so i googled the name of the book with scam and landed here.
I’m keeping my hard earned money to buy cogent keywords.
Thanks Rob, now i’m a regular viewer of your board, you can mark that.
Great thread/post. Keep it going! Thanks for saving me money.
This may be the best thread I’ve read, EVER. I do wish that the “attoney” returns again with a formal or “informerl” phrase! Just love her typos. I really cant imagine a lawyer acting out that way! She’s a legend!
Incredible Job! The “Attorney” (ehherm…)
starts off as sounding quite credible and rapidly transforms into the crazed rantings of a ‘guest’ at a secure unit for the mentally ill!
Well done Rob & Linda Рgreat expos̩! I will be sure to link to it Рand hopefully save a few others from falling for the scam!
Good Luck y’all! X
I’ve read this entire thread up and down hoping for at least a tad value, but came up empty.
I’m not the “lawyer” above, so please no false accusations.
Rob the hero of this blog admits to never even reading the guy’s ebook, but he’s still an expert according to himself and other “fans.”
All the supportive comebacks, insults, and assertions above don’t really say much for their posters except butt-kissing flattery designed to make Rob feel great about himself, I suppose.
Also, ‘Made Ape’s’ negative comments are somewhat surprising when you see at his link he leaves for us to visit that he’s actually selling off some ad space on his webpage (just like the author instructs).
The link below that by “Ruoall” instructs everyone to get a free copy of the ebook in question (which is illegal BTW), but if you download anything from that page you get adware/spyware on your laptop or PC. (Nice trick! I’m sure Rob’s proud.)
Again, this entire thread seems too much “artificial” to be genuine.
Most likely Rob did what the Rich Jerk did with that blog with RJ fencing back and forth with some old lady, only the old lady was actually RJ too (just one person creating controversy to sell even more).
The company’s been around a year now, is No.1 on the web, and seems to be raking in money.
Rob here on the otherhand seems to just be asking for donations for law school, and has no good products to offer anyone.
Oh well, I doubt all my words will ever make it posted here, and if not it will tell me everything I need to know about the genuiness of this blog.
If I made a typo or two, I suppose I must be the “lawyer,” right.
I swear, the reasoning (or rather the lack thereof) by ‘Rob fans’ is quite unsettling to say the least, namely cuz these same people may operate heavy or dangerous machinery at times.
This Rob guy is a kid (23 I think he said) and must get the last word in I suppose (just sort of comes with his age I guess).
Anyway, all you above, don’t by any means do something logical by ordering the guy’s ebook, stay broke like poor Rob instead, and demand donations for your worthless contribution to society. (Great role model!)
Also, please keep complaining here and other places as I see how well it’s working to destroy, assault, or “whatever” someone else’s legitimate business.
Do any of you NOT still live with your parents???
Anyway, just my 2 pennies.
Good job well done Rob…
Levin is obviously a complete idiot!
Another thing we say in England is ‘only in america… !!!’ Often also applied to all the ridiculous personal court claims you all have there (we see them on our UK TV and spend half our time laughing.
However – this isn’t very funny at all is it?
I hate people making silly money out of people that are obviously desperate enough to try.
By the way Levin… can people get their money back if they feel its simply not what they thought – without a fight? I doubt it. But you see, in England, you can!
Rob – congratulations on showing them for what they are. This IS a rip off as far as I can see, and why? Because it quite simply does not say two things in my opinion. Firstly, it does not say ‘You do not actually get free Google ads’ – because you don’t, do you? And, none of the so-called example people have links to their websites do they? Why not add these two things? Well, we know why.
If they was charging say $2 for this – we’d probably all say, fine… it’s obviously just a bit of a system idea that is obvious once you get it and not effective for most retailers (you see Levin.. most retailers don’t fill their sites with adwords). The point is, your charging the same amount for this as sensible piece of software or system would cost you to download. And that is where it startes to become an issue.
Also – In the UK you are allowed an opinion without being cited to court every time you open your mouth – thats because we are a proper democracy.
Anyway Rob – I’m sure this is all a bit boring for you now, but thanks again for pointing this out… and just to let you know, I found the ad for this before I found your write-up… I was researching helpful information regarding Google etc for links for my new site customers.
Regards
Faye
Richard,
1. I can assure you this thread is genuine.
2. Do I ask for any donations? Or was that a joke? Perhaps irony is lost on you, though despite my childish age, I do have a sense of humour.
3. Its good that you have left such an extensive comment. That helps Google to keep spidering this page, and aids my SERPS.
Thank you Richard.
Hi Rob,
I do appreciate your willingness to allow my two cents worth. And I even more than respect the value of meaningful debate.
And personally, I am not offended if someone requests donations for a good cause (although you point out it was intended more as a joke).
My only concern was in applying some meaningful contrast. Please allow me to explain:
You see, I didn’t order Dr Jon’s materials, rather I have a good friend who saw this gentleman ‘live’ in Times Square in NYC several years ago.
He charged about $5,000 for a 4 day event, and attendees got lots of helpful stuff they could take home and use.
It’s my understanding that that material was somewhat contracted to its smaller version which is the course in question.
Now, some of the people that attended that seminar were some pretty big names in the who’s-who world of large web media.
People from Yahoo, Alexa, the whole show were there, including some of the webbie gurus who get so much attention.
My friend merely let me in on all this, and when we saw that the gentleman released on on either disc or as an ebook for something like $50 bucks we were surprised and followed all the rage going round.
When he spoke at events for $5,000 no one complained, but when charging everybody else $50 for the same stuff, and some of those people got into an uproar, we honestly thought that maybe the majority just didn’t deserve to be let in on it.
My friend who’s a nobody online BTW does still use what he learned, and I’m familiar now enough with it to see Alexa using the strategy along with just about every big giant online.
This technique just makes it possible for some nobody to catch up with all these big guys, that’s all.
And the product is offered with a moneyback guarantee in 8 weeks or something. It even says this at the button at the site where someone orders so they know what they are getting into beforehand.
This morning just to be a silly-willy, I emailed the comapny which isn’t hard to do as their contact page is publicly available and I just had to ask if they even had an attoney named Levin, Levine, Leveine, etc, and do you know what they told me? NO. They don’t even have any lawyer by that name on the parole.
They asked me if I had a legal claim and were willing to refer me to their company lawyers, but I said ‘no I didn’t just asking’ and told them why.
They said they were familiar with your thread here, but that it was obviously someone just messing with everyone and that it never even originated with them.
And when you go back up to that section and carefully read it, it sounds more like some youngster with perhaps a bit of clever word play, just not armed with real facts or skills.
And his final words just seem like a little kid having eaten too much sugar before bedtime.
And I would really think that you, Rob, and pretty much everyone else would recognize this.
But of even more importance is this: I think by leaving something up like that which even you all seem to have caught on to somewhat may be a reckless thing to do because many people here are saying they didn’t order because of the lawyer’s comments, which isn’t even the firm’s lawyer to begin with.
Yeah, of course people should be allowed to voice opinions, but that doesn’t include outright recklessness, right.
But this thread is kind of fun and gives people a chance to talk, and maybe it’s really just harmless in the end.
But I did email a Cindy B. at the company and asked if this was hurting their sales, and she said almost cheerfully no it wasn’t, in fact quite the opposite.
Alexa shows the product company lighting up, and they said when some other forum talked even worse stuff than here they made someting like $45,000 in a single day.
Maybe I should come up with something everyone hates and get rich too.
So I just wanted to point that out as I’m not even sure at this point what the purpose of this opposing thread is.
I mean it certainly isn’t putting a dent in their popularity, and many people are saying presently elsewhere that the material has worked well for them. (Which if that type of thing continues everyone here begins to look more and more absurd and less credible.)
They even use the Etology.com system which offsets all adwords costs for most everyone if used properly, and which is what the gentleman’s course tells someone how to do right so they don’t mess it up.
But maybe this is really just about wording something that ticked a few people off.
They do say you can get ads for free at google, but so do a lot of seo courses, but you still have to pay for those courses and do a few things that may cause you some out of pocket expenses. (So it’s never really free, although the later result may be.)
Also in real estate you do know that tycoons like Trump brag they made billions using no money in land acquisitions, but everybody knows somebody had to put up the money, even though it probably wasn’t Donald.
But few get roused at them or these seo guru guys. Why not?
I think the site is just a clever sales message designed to spark a fever on the part of the visitor, and to make them buy, and perhaps learn something new in the process.
And if someone hates the material afterwards they can simply click a button and get ther money back. But if they like it and get something out of it, then their investment was a good one.
I mean, simple enough, and wouldn’t you agree?
And why the objection to the adsense stuff on your site, as every time someone clicks YOU get something?
Again, people can get their moneyback if they hate it, so where’s the real harm, and where’s the real reason to get worked up?
And BTW, I asked Cindy at the firm why no urls in the testimonials, and she said because it would demonstrate the technique without people having to buy it first.
Very reasonable if you’re the seller, I would think.
Anyway, now it’s more like my 5 pennies worth or something.
Listen, my point was this, let me be very explicit, though it is simple enough to glean from the original article: it is simply not possible to get Google advertising for free.
The system that is sold is simply what is known as ‘arbitrage.’
Of course, that is what everyone who advertises is attempting to do – to spend less on advertising than they make in sales. I would have no problem with the product, were it not for the entirely misleading sales page (which, I might add, has been relatively scaled back since I first viewed it – notably with fewer references to the word ‘free’).
I do make many online sales personally, from a plethora of websites – at or around the levels that you describe – think about it, how did you find this page? I would not sell something which requires a disclaimer – a personal choice – however, this site crossed a line for me, and in my opinion, was, and is being mis-sold.
Change the sales page, change the name of the website, and the name of the e-book, omitting the word ‘free’ and I would have no problem whatsoever with the product in question, or how it is sold.
There have been a few comparisons to “buy one get one free” and other such messages which suggest this technique is purely acceptable advertising idiom. It is not. It crosses a clear and distinct line – ‘buy one get one free’ clearly indicates that you will have to spend some money. “get google ads free” suggests that there is some way to get Google advertising for nothing. There isn’t.
No disrespect Richard
– but your points are not at all valid because the bottom line is that it looks like a scam earning a lot of money for something that does not exist. That simple!
And honestly… I don’t believe a word you say – sorry, just my pennies-worth!
Richard, I make no comment on the content of your postings, but would just say gently that I think you meant “payroll”, i.e. the American term for staff, rather than “parole” which appeared in your latest comment.
Some readers might be confused – but then the soit-disant “Laywer” perhaps was on parole! as someone else in this thread implied, she (if indeed it be a she) sounded as if she were a guest from a home for the mentally challenged, or words to that effect.
I’m glad I’m retired or I probably couldn’t afford the time to respond here.
Before I comment however, I want you all to know I’m just a reasonably kind elderly gentleman, and even though I’m American, I am not perhaps of the character that someone made mention of when refering to Americans above (and yes, I agree that most of our court cases are ridiculous and many shouldn’t even be allowed the time of day).
Also, I’m not the best speller either, so please spare me an attack based on that alone (I just noticed in looking up how some of my letters are reversed in the worng order, and some words are clearly mispelled, but I think this thread is not a spelling-bee, or spelling-B, or spell’n-bea, etc; I’m just trying to type fast, and have not so good eyesight anymore).
Besides, many of you above have mispelled a ton of words, but I’m not judging any of you on that.
With all due respect to Faye above, you say I have NO points of validity.
This makes me sort of questions if you even read my posts.
Plus, to outright rule against them shows more an arbitrariness or prejudice rather than a reasonable consideration of merits.
Then you finailize with “I don’t believe anything you say anyway,” which really shows anyone the core of what’s really behind your response’s motivation.
I wrote about 40 paragraphs in my second post above alone, and made what I believe were about 22 separate and distinguishable points.
My points included everything from:
1. people’s right to free speech and expression of opinion
2. the use of marketing word usage and acceptability
3. all the way down to the value of meaningful dialogue (even if severely opposing views are presented)
And yet despite this Faye comes back with just one main pargraph, containing a point more subjective about the way something merely looks at first view, and without even the slightest inspection.
To Mumsie, there is only an attack of my poor spelling (which I already admit) and again the mention of the “lawyer” that as it turns out is not even the firm’s lawyer at all.
The only reasonable response is by Rob himself (thank you) which I have no real problem with as it demonstrates his reasoning (and whether valid logic or otherwise is correctly being applied in the most rigorous sense).
We could argue and debate this thing to death, but I doubt we’d get anywhere.
But I have a way of using other people’s reasoning back at them so as to test if they can withstand their own reasoning and logic.
Rob says above that he believes the site clearly misrepresents, which by some standard may be true, but by others may not be wrong-doing at all.
Rob suggests that the site should reveal pretty much what the entire ebook is about in order to sell it, which if given such would probably dissolve most of the company’s sales, and rob 1000′s from ever even experiencing it.
Again, it’s a very vaid point that if someone orders, is not satisfied, they have 8 weeks in which to return it, right?
Perhaps Faye would strongly disagree at this point simply because I have brown eyes and not green eyes, and she doesn’t like or believe anyone with brown eyes.
Or worse, maybe Mumsie would contest this because I would mispell “8 weaks” rather than as “8 weeks” so my point again is lacking in both their estimations as to what a valid objective point really is defined as.
I just checked and it appears I misspelled “mispell.”
Ooops, I’m sorry everyone, please still consider what I have to say.
There are now articles all over the web that mention this thread and the product in question.
They even point out that Google “approved” the product in question, which to me cries the FINAL word in the debate.
It seems that shortly after the firm’s release Google got concerned, paused the business’s ads there, and then even purchased the course, had their team of experts look it through and through.
Then a few days later contacted the company by phone and gave them the go-ahead.
Okay, so I’d like to know what Faye would say to this (especially in light of the fact that this company’s ads are everywhere, more at Google than perhaps anyplace else!)
Rob’s already made it clear that he merely objects to how they present the material (more a question of acceptable marketing semantics maybe).
Yet appplying even Rob’s reasoning back at his earlier and orginal written statement, saying “.con” instead of “.com” when Google itself “APPROVED” the product, and the company’s been around a year now, and has perhaps 1000′s of testimonials by now on file.
I’d think such wordings above could prove dangerous eventually, as how hard would it really be for the firm to take some type of action against him solely?
I mean, I actually read other meaningful posts through by Rob Scott, and I truly like just about everything else he has to say.
My only disappointment came when I thought even he jumped the gun a little when he attacked a business with false statements.
I mean this more in the strict legal sense, as it matters less what “people” think when writing bad things about a business publicly, but matters much more what someone really versed in law might conclude.
And I must mention at this point that I don’t buy for a minute the “lawyer” above as being any type of real legal professional, and I think everyone else has pretty much got that too by now.
Rather, I’m just wondering how long this will go on until one day someone actually DOES gets served some form of legal notice, and everyone (including some posters here) gets hauled into some court someplace?
If that does happen, I would think the company in question could simply show that it has a great number of success stories to back itself up, and maybe find some other examples of other businesses recently that have used clever marketing wordings likewise, yet they were allowed legally to do do.
But honestly, I can’t remember the last time I heard such a thing in the news, so maybe that is not even worth considering.
But reputations ARE at stake it seems, and the firm selling this is getting tons and tons of speed, momentum, and vast amounts of credibility.
Even the president of some big name company online (I think it was one of the social networking service sites like hi5 or myspace or something) said he applied the system in question, and has revenue streams built off its principles to the tune of many, many millions of dollars.
I just don’t see how a minority group here can come forward (now at least) and claim the rest of the world as being absolutely wrong when money is being made, advertising costs are being eliminated, etc. and all because of this old doctor’s technique.
But that’s now my dime’s worth.
But I won’t ever try to press anyone into seeing things my way.
I think it’s healthy for people to disagree (at least as long as no one gets hurt, or anyone gets into trouble).
Richard, don’t for one minute think I was criticising your spelling: it was a wrong word (and we can all mistype at any moment). I like you believe in healthy debate, which as a (genuine)lawyer’s wife, sister-in-law (twice), mother, I hear all the time in our family.
Dialectic is the only way we evolve and democracy is based on it: look at Parliament or Congress, all based on debate.
I also fully agree with your comments on no one getting hurt. Some of the postings on sites related to this one (see Shitopedia) are horrid in the extreme, as indeed were some of the early comments here.
Keep on commenting, here or wherever! Oldies rule, you know!! I’m no spring chicken, either.
Hello Richard,
I apologise if I’m wrong – but I suspected you and Levin are the same person… that’s what I meant by don’t believe a word you say.
Basically, it means that I recognise connections, or should I say similarities between your comments and Levins. So, what I said actually made sense – it’s just that I failed to add this point directly. I think there are certain readers would have understood this immediately.
You say:
>>>> This morning just to be a silly-willy, I emailed the comapny which isn’t hard to do as their contact page is publicly available and I just had to ask if they even had an attoney named Levin, Levine, Leveine, etc, and do you know what they told me? NO. They don’t even have any lawyer by that name on the parole.
<<<<<<<
I find it hard to believe that you went to the trouble of doing this – and to be fair, who would admit to those rantings anyway?
I’m sorry if I am wrong but I, (like you) am just saying what I think.
Please don’t rant on at me if I am wrong – that’s just one of the similarities. You have explained why you care so much and all your other points, I can assure you have been read. If they are simply your opinions and you always get this involved, then I am sure there are those readers that will both agree with you and disagree with you. After all, one of the points you make, in my opinion, is totally wrong:
You do not feel that the ad tries to ‘con’ anyone, and feel that even if it does, then you compare this to ‘the big boys’ like Google etc. and state if they can do it…. and so on.
Personally, I do not see any comparison whatsoever and care more about the small business man trying to make his way in a world full of big boys. Without any further consideration at all I totally dislike this kind of advertising – but your right about the fact that Google will allow this to continue as it is in their own interests to do so. Which I also believe is wrong.
In a perfect world, Google would syphon out this kind of ad and remove the page from both their natural listings and their adwords. But, they don’t, so on it goes.
Rob, who quite rightly has not resorted to flippency like I did (shame on me) is pointing out the reality of what is behind this ad – how can that be anything but right? And, although you merit his considerate response – you have still found it possible to argue with this basic fact.
If you wasn’t on here disagreeing with what I think the majority of people would have trouble seeing a fault in, then you would not be subject to people disagreeing with you.
On the subject of spelling – I would never point out a spelling error as some people are dyslexic, and others just make typo’s – either way, its the content that interests me.
I must end this by apologising if my thinking you and Levin the same person is incorrect.
I am going to leave this thread alone now as I am getting drawn into an argument – which I never ever do.
However – I mainatin:
Get Google Adwords For Free is a scam in anyone’s language.
Thank you Mumsie and Faye, as you both demonstrate clear civilized conduct, even if expressing differing opionions in contrast to my own.
I wish others were able to do so as well as you, as that would get us one giant leap towards your description of a “perfect” world. Thank you.
BTW, I am not whomever that was above claiming to be some sort of lawyer.
I maintain it was most likely just someone wanting to start a fight, or who had too much time on their hands.
As for contacting the company, it’s easy.
I just went here, that’s all:
http://www.getgoogleadsfree.com/contact.,php
It took them about an hour to get back to me.
But I must point out that I contacted them this way once before and didn’t get a response for nearly 2 days (so I guess sometimes they’re right there and other times they either aren’t, or they’re just busier than other times, who knows?)
As for their “legal representation,” I don’t think maybe it’s a good idea to say it here, but they named some prestigious-sounding Manhattan law firm in New York as their lawyers, and said very clearly to me that there had never been any “Levin” or similarly spelled name of an attorney with them ever.
So I was merely pointing this out, both how easy someone could find out on their own, as well as who their lawyers really are or aren’t.
I’ve since contacted them again and found out they are now offering personalized coaching, seeing someone through start to finish setting up their system for others who can’t seem to get their course easily.
I think that’s noble of them as it truly helps others not so talented with tech stuff (yours truly being almost a fool when it comes to the internet).
Again, I think this whole thing really is more about their choice of words used to sell something than anything else.
If you can actually eliminate your costs in advertising using what they give you, then they could argue, I’d reason to say, the use of the word “free” in order to sell their course.
I’ve read elsewhere that half the people LOVE this thing, and the other half don’t.
And that’s kind of weird when there doesn’t seem anyone in the middle anywhere.
This just tells me (and I’m a bit older than probably 95% of the people here) that a good number of people really get what they’re saying and agree that it’s appropriate language to call it a “free” method of advertising.
And the others feel a bit misled as they were probably just expecting some kind of “charity” from Google maybe (which I think a more reasonable person never would have thought that at all in the first place, and would not have risked ordering at all if that’s what they were looking for).
Another point I would like to present for your consideration is this:
If they did do as Rob suggested, they’d most likely sell at most maybe 10% as many copies of their course as they are now.
And even though some would say that’s great, it means that the other 90% would have missed out altogether.
And if HALF of everyone really gets what they are saying and agrees with them, that means 45% of the people whose lives may have been IMPROVED, may have forever missed out on something really great (but would never know).
Now, if I was someome struggling to make it online, and I missed out because someone watered down their promotional strategies, I’d really feel cheated then!
Let me give you a much better real life example that may help others really get my point:
I have a friend who’s 18 month old baby daughter has been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness.
He and his wife can’t afford the best treatment for her medically.
But if they were say very rich they could.
Now, what if they ordered this course because it sounded so amazing (the webpage not holding back, but instead really putting on quite a salespitch), they implememented its instructions, and then as a result became hugely successful, and their baby received her treatement and lived a much longer life as a result?
This is not so farfetched a scenario, as who knows the real reasons people have for being motivated to do what they do?
Now, let’s say that the webpage were diluted a good bit as Rob or some others suggested.
And this made the person nowhere nearly as likely to order.
So they didn’t, they never implememented its instructions, they couldn’t afford to make any big difference in their child’s life.
See where I’m going with this?
And let’s further assume that the parent did order, but didn’t like it. They are simply entitled to a refund, so no additional harm done.
But if the possibility could have existed where their lives (or at least their baby’s life) could have been improved, then it’s great and comforting to know that the firm presented their offer in such a way as to appeal to the most people to get the broadest possible positive results.
Again, if anyone doesn’t like it, a refund is maybe an email away, right?
My whole point is to allow them to sell their material how ever they wish as long as no one gets ripped off.
And a refund option after two months is more than reasonable.
Besides, I think the company stands the most likely party to get ripped off as some even admitted to ordering it, using it very successfully, but still got a refund anyway.
Now, who’s really being cheated here?
There’s just so many people coming forward now having used it and made great money that this fact can’t be ignored.
They even announced in some article somewhere that they are doing an entire TV show on this, and are inviting people to be in it.
Maybe I should try to get “my 15 minutes.”
So it’s just another way to make money online, big deal.
But with all the “recycled garbage” going around nowadays, this stuff is at least very refreshing and surprisingly unique.
Okay then Richard, the people behind this ebook are clearly thoroughly nice people, who merely wanted to help desperately ill and/or dying children.
Are we, therefore, to think of them as the ‘Robin Hood’ of the internet?
What else would explain all the secrecy? What other reason to hide behind proxy domain services? Why all the disclaimers?
I believe that getgoogleadsfree.com is a scam and there is no lawyer. I can’t believe though you even doubt it.
Thanks, Rob, for your reply (short and sweet).
However, it fails to counter all that I have presented here at all; other than some of the most easily inflamatory aspects that are easy to cause someone to rise.
No one is saying they are “Robin Hood,” yet that role you seem to equally occupy as well in your wanting to ‘cleanse’ the web of what you considered here as a “scam.” (And you never even ordered the guy’s course.)
That was only a scenario I put forth in an effort to demonstrate:
1. No one can get hurt by ordering this (i.e., refund option, cost is under $100, etc)
2. But someone may potentially lose out by NOT ordering it (i.e., could have shown 1000′s of others how to make money in a fresh new way, change of lifestyle for countless people, more money to pay expenses, save lives, etc)
I read in a forum that David Congreave (from UK) benefited a lot from this, and applied it, and proved it works easily.
He even thanks them in a video how much they’ve helped him succeed online.
He tells people that Dr Jon Cohen and the people at their site did more for him than any other web business including that Ewen Chia guy:
http://www.thenettle.com/-/LucidSEOCredits
He talks for 5 minutes on the subject!
So he’s much better off. Others could do the same or better. Those that don’t get a refunds. So what.
“Secrecy,” you yourself are shrouded in the same protections by domains proxy, as are 99% of the most serious and successful online entrepreneurs.
But for the company in question, their address is:
676A 9th Avenue 215
New York, NY 10036
It’s on their website where most addresses appear for most sites, and anyone including you could get it there as easily as I did.
And they responded to every single one of my emails in one to several days, so they’re very reachable.
So I don’t know why you feel this is an issue that discredits them at all.
I think the proxy thing is just a way of protecting their main or private business contact info, nothing more.
But the point is:
1. Anyone can contact them (I noticed no phone number, but with as much traffic as they seem to get, I doubt seriously if they want a milllion phone calls a day, do you?)
2. And if someone really needed to contact them I’m sure domains proxy would produce some connection there.
3. And if something legal were a concern they told me their lawyers to call if I or anyone had a claim.
So they are not really out of reach, not serving as Robin Hood, nor are they harming society, and they seem to do a lot more than 99% of other businesses online.
Did you ever even read that article about the gentleman you attacked? It’s here for everyone to read:
http://www.affiliatekb.com/articles/cohen-interview.html
The guy’s a real saint, to me at least. And I’m sure others feel the same way.
He did free service in africa, medically treated less fortunates, gives something like $10 million a year away to cancer charities, etc.
He’s regarded over here in the states at least as a real achiever and well connected fellow.
I know you’re considered in similar esteem, so why the conflict with someone you appear to be on the same page with? I just don’t get it.
This gentleman looks like he’s 90 years old for crying outloud, and he’s probably done more for people in a good way than anything you or I could ever do combined.
I just think that everything he seems to have ever done in his life is basically for the good of everyone, and for you to call him a scammer seems like you really jumped the gun without checking up on exactly who you were talking so harshly about in the first place, that’s all.
So what if he’s rich? Who cares.
In my life I’ve seen so many people hated if for no other reason than they were truly successful.
But maybe you’re right and we should hang him.
I don’t know, you tell me.
Richard, Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. I’m sure the analogy is entirely suitable given the alleged charitable activities.
I think it’s ‘un-suitable’ to use the words “stole” or “steal” in any instance or instances concerning this gentleman’s character and activities, past and present.
This includes refering to him either realistically or jokingly as a “Robin Hood.”
I believe a number of his contributions were made very public by the ACS and the American Lung Association over here in the early 1998-2001 period.
Maybe in the UK on the BBCs it’s just not mentioned as frequently, if at all.
I once visited the UK and watched the news and it was frightening because it said so many things were going on with the US that I had never even heard of (I honestly thought the world was coming apart!)
But when I got home everything seemed fine, back to normal. (So I never really trust any kind of media news.)
So the UK probably doesn’t get everything we do, and vice versa (and to both our loss).
I can only say one final time, I suppose, that I believe much in this thread is very unfair and misrepresentative of Dr Cohen, his work, his character, and his products, etc.
And I feel a sense of shame that some very intelligent people here may have spoken impulsively and without basis.
And this frightens me a little because the same process can be repeated in anything, anytime, anywhere, and against anyone.
There’s no telling how many people have been wrongly accused, wrongly viewed, wrongly punished, and wrongly ruled upon because of a true and genuine absence of more sound reasoning and careful application of justice.
I am one of the ‘chumps’ who bought this ebook and I am glad I did – worth every penny. Yes if you want ot split hairs, strictly speaking the google ads are not free since you have to actually do something, but I never thought for a minuute google would give advertising away.
I buy ebooks that seem to offer me information that I don’t already know – so long as there is a money back guarantee.
If I learn one thing to help in my Interent marketing acitivities then I regard it as money well spent. In this case I didn’t request a refund.
The reason I like this ebook is because I know the principles work and work well.
Before I started marketing online, about 1997, I used to do to conduct my business through mail order and direct mail.
One day I had a brilliant idea (turns out I wasn’t the first person to think of it but at the time I though I was).
Basically , it was the OFFLINE version of this method and it was the best idea I ever had.
I spent all night writing the sales letter with a passion as I knew I was on to a winner because it was a service I would have gladly paid for myself.
Next day I mailed out the sales letter to COLD prospects and was amazed at the response I got. Cash poured in and so did letters and phone calls from people saying what a great idea it was. People were begging me to let them join (I had stated on the sales letter that places were strictly limited).
This service is like bread to a starving man.
When I ended the service to concentrate on online marketing, again I got tons of letters and phone calls from people asking me to reconsider or to keep their name on file should I decide to start up the service again.
I had always intended to start up an online version of the system but had never found the time to set it up. This ebook was just what I was looking for, most of the work had been done for me.
I know from REAL EXPERIENCE that this method works and I am in the process of offering it to my list and I know the response will be phenominal. I used to get phenominal results using cold names so can’t wait to see the conversion rate from hot names.
By the way, I didn’t only achieve free offline advertising, I also made a hefty profit and never had one compliant from customers only praise.
The online market place for this method is far greater than offline and is growing every day.
I firmly believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion and the right to express it whether right or wrong, what gets me, is the way the sheep take it as gospel and don’t have a mind of their own.
But people like this are their own worst enemy and are probably looking for excuses to avoid actually doing anything – it’s easier that way. These are the people who ask “Is it really possible to make money online?” Probably not for them.
I like to make my own mind up about things not have other people and their opinions dedide my future.
I know this method works and works well – but you have to actually do something to make it happen as with all things in life.
Sorry if this post is a bit long-winded but I felt I had to impart my own experiences, it would be a shame if some people were put off something that could mske them successful
People who are scared to spend $67 on an ebook that has a full MONEY BACK GUARANTEE don’t stand much chance of making a living online. Every online project you undertake is a gamble with NO MONEY BACK GUARANTEE.
They should probably take up something safe like window cleaning.
The system won’t be for everybody or their capabilities but there’s nothing to lose in finding out. And you might just learn something you didn’t know.
As an afterthought, the one thing I definately DO NOT like about this ebook is that the author advocates selling leads.
I totally disagree with selling on peoples email addresses for profit. People join lists in good faith and it’s a betrayal of that good faith to sell or pass on their details.
I know that my newsletter subscribers certainly wouldn’t appreciate me passing on their details.
Graham – are the google ads free?
The sales letter; the name or the website: the whole system is deceitful. A con. A scam.
Does the person(s) responsible for producing this ebook and website make money from it? Do their affiliates? Will you make money from re-selling it? In all probability, yes, you will.
But does that make it ethical? Does the fact you make a lot of money (irrespective of whether or not you claim to give some or all of that to a charity, Richard) make your method of doing so honest, or legitimate? Does the fact that you offer a refund mean that you are entitled to lie in your sales letter, because anyone who exposes the lie can “get their money back”?
Have you ever heard of the South Sea Bubble?
Graham, I’m afraid to say, you are a complete charlatan. Get some class. That’s free.
Is the South Sea Bubble question aimed at me or the author?
As for me making money from reselling the ebook, I am not an affiliate and do I do not promote it, I don’t have a vested interest in it.
And for charlatan, I make my living from Internet marketing after much perseverance, failure and money loss so I do write from actual experience.
And in my post, I did say that the title could be misleading I don’t dispute that.
Hi Rob,
This is the funniest blog I have read for a long time.
Like most other people I have heard about this kind of product (Free Google Ads) for a while now, and have spent the day checking it out to see if it’s a product for me.
It’s pitched on some search engine / sites as being a free secret. Simply follow these questions and click here to find out more -blah blah! But like everything else, the more testimonies and sale guff that you are subjected to the more “hard selling” this site is actually doing to get you on board to inevitably buy it.
The most important thing is that the site, sales guff and so called testimonies are all misleading, and once that happens then yes people will put up their defences.
To be honest i’m actually not surprised at all that Ms J Levin is acting on behalf of the that site as she seems as dodgy as the website itself.
Good lawyers are professional and don’t type like they learnt their law from their “Legal talk for Dummies” book.
If something looks to good to be true then it generally is.
And for those reasons, i’m out!
P.s The guy who wrote this and the “distributing company” are from Sweden, so why would a yank be involved..!?
You all seem to be getting very heavy. Steady on, chaps. Think about what you are saying.
I’m glad to see someone with a voice other than my own.
Excellent, Graham.
Maybe it’s just me, but the only posts above seem to be from people who are:
1. buyers of the product or familiar with it
2. people who’ve applied it or know others
who have
All other posts seem to be from:
1. people who didn’t order it
2. know nothing about how it works
3. know NOTHING about marketing
4. people who like jumping the gun with
little to go on
5. fans of Rob
Just pointing that out, that’s all.
“Heavy” or otherwise, people over here are commtting acts of fraud by saying outright lies, lies, lies.
Yet, the site in question is refered to as a scam when Google itself APPROVED them.
I wish humanity had some “humanity.”
Exhausting!
I’ll save you any further exhaustion Richard, comments are again closed.
Every day I have the dubious pleasure of reading yet more irrelevant comment which shirks the original questions I raised, when calling the product in question a scam.
Does “Dr Jon Cohen” give money to charity? IRRELEVANT.
Does the product provide useful information? IRRELEVANT.
Do they give refunds? IRRELEVANT.
Can you get Google advertising for free? NO, categorically, NO, you cannot.
The rationale used to explain this one away by all of the people who have attempted to (many of whom, I’m sure, may be interested in the continued success of this product), is akin to this final analogy:
Imagine if I set up in business offering people “Free Ferrari’s”, only, once they have PAID me to join the “Free Ferrari Club” all I actually provide them with is a method to make money, which, coincidentally, also relies on the club member providing a not insubstantial sum of money in order to stand a chance of making any. The whole premise of my business would be reliant upon a falsehood.
[...] So we did some research on this controversial Ebook claiming you can get all of your Adwords PPC clicks for free. We can across this website, which I believe kinda sums it all up that this Ebook, actually is a Scam! If you read Rob’s Review and then scroll down the page and read ALL of the comments, it’s pretty apparent that the author of this ebook is actually a scammer I say that just based on the posts claiming to be the lawyer for the author of “Get Google Ads free” this website/Ebook is definetly a scam. Here is a link to the blog that I found this review at http://www.24hourtrading.co.uk/blog/the-get-google-ads-free-site-is-a-complete-scam-267/ [...]
[...] sollten, sich das Ebook zuzulegen, empfehle ich Ihnen dringend, vorher diesen erhellenden Blogbeitrag aus England einschließlich der Kommentare zu lesen! Diesen Artikel [...]
[...] an exerpt from a UK site that explodes Online Venture Attempt #4: Ok, so what is in the ebook? Great advice on how to get [...]