4 ms·

For those who are not familiar with it, this is a well-known approach among affiliate marketers. 1) Give away something really valuable. Make people trust you

For those who are not familiar with it, this is a well-known approach among affiliate marketers. 1) Give away something really valuable. Make people trust you and love you for it. 2) Build a large list of email subscribers. 3) Offer a premium course for a very large amount of money ($495 in this case). A small percentage will inevitably buy it, leading to large profits.

eam 16y ago
I really loved the tutorials, learned a lot. However, I'm not rich enough to pay $495 :( Maybe if it was a little less I would pay for it. Yeah I know he has to pay his bills, but so do I. :(
- mhartl 16y ago
  Don't worry; the full screencast course will be a factor of 10 cheaper.
fdschoeneman 16y ago
I really doubt Michael will make a "large amount of money" for the amount of time he has put in, even at $495 a pop, though I hope I'm wrong. I suspect the real value comes later when he raises his consulting rates.
mhartl 16y ago
The strategy you outline seems to have a bad reputation in Hacker News circles, though I'm not sure why; as long as the product in Step 1 is valuable by itself, the strategy certainly isn't a bait-and-switch. In any case, that's not what the Rails Tutorial Vanguard is about. I'm trying to keep the Vanguard small (say 5–10 people), and several slots have already been filled at an earlier price, so the Vanguard is not designed primarily as a money-making operation. (I've spent the equivalent of six months full-time on the book, so even a $5000 return would be a pittance compared to the opportunity cost.) Instead, the relatively high price is a way of attracting Vanguard members who place a high value on small-group and individual mentoring. People who don't find such attention valuable should wait for the release of the (much cheaper) screencast series itself.
- acangiano 16y ago
  Sorry, I think my comment came across the wrong way. I wasn't criticizing your approach, but rather advocating that it's an effective and well-tested method to earn, potentially, good money. As long as the product is solid, like it is in your case, I really don't see an issue with what you are doing.
  - mhartl 16y ago
    OK, thanks for clarifying. :-)

eam 16y ago

I really loved the tutorials, learned a lot. However, I'm not rich enough to pay $495 :( Maybe if it was a little less I would pay for it. Yeah I know he has to pay his bills, but so do I. :(

mhartl 16y ago
Don't worry; the full screencast course will be a factor of 10 cheaper.

fdschoeneman 16y ago

I really doubt Michael will make a "large amount of money" for the amount of time he has put in, even at $495 a pop, though I hope I'm wrong. I suspect the real value comes later when he raises his consulting rates.

mhartl 16y ago

The strategy you outline seems to have a bad reputation in Hacker News circles, though I'm not sure why; as long as the product in Step 1 is valuable by itself, the strategy certainly isn't a bait-and-switch. In any case, that's not what the Rails Tutorial Vanguard is about. I'm trying to keep the Vanguard small (say 5–10 people), and several slots have already been filled at an earlier price, so the Vanguard is not designed primarily as a money-making operation. (I've spent the equivalent of six months full-time on the book, so even a $5000 return would be a pittance compared to the opportunity cost.) Instead, the relatively high price is a way of attracting Vanguard members who place a high value on small-group and individual mentoring. People who don't find such attention valuable should wait for the release of the (much cheaper) screencast series itself.

acangiano 16y ago
Sorry, I think my comment came across the wrong way. I wasn't criticizing your approach, but rather advocating that it's an effective and well-tested method to earn, potentially, good money. As long as the product is solid, like it is in your case, I really don't see an issue with what you are doing.
- mhartl 16y ago
  OK, thanks for clarifying. :-)