JJ: One topic brought up on the scam.com site was how the the dymanics of the Surf’s Up and other related forums were impeccable examples of “Groupthink”. It’s been an interesting last couple of weeks watching it collapse as their members began to challenge the group’s assumptions and the moderators struggled to maintain the dynamic.

The “groupthink” discussions were indeed thought-provoking. And the prosecutors recognized the cult-like behavior in their “followers” and “flock” assertions.

Some of the Surf’s Up advocates are scared out of their wits right now because they’re mostly out there alone. They advocated from the rooftops, policed the board to enforce rigid thinking, formed ASDMI, launched attack after attack against the prosecutors.

And the prosecutors are still standing after all of it and have reduced ASD to rubble. The ringleaders have nothing to show for their efforts, unless one wants to count favored treatment in AdViewGlobal.But that’s a mirage, too.

Thanks for your note.

Patrick

The biggest difficulties that I see with attracting corporate advertisers are these

-1f they can get the same rebates LEGALLY as the rest of the members, why wouldnt they want rebates? And if they couldnt do this legally (i.e. by not beingpaid by new members purchases) – they wouldnt be interested

- even assuming they wouldnt want rebates – how much would a corporation pay for 15 second views on a members only website with a membership less than a million? fractions of a cent?

-100,000 members for a Statewide site might be interesting for a low cost advertisement for a company operating a one state

- the only service of interest that these companies give, is surfing to get back money – even targetted, it does not have the same advertising value as an advert on a site with content.

I think that Entertained’s conclusion that the model could only work WITHOT generating large sums is regretfully the right one

Without enormous amounts of capital to start off a scheme like this, it is not possible to build up the membership first with a rebate scheme already in place and THEN add the external income afterwards. That has to be provided simultaneously to the payment of any rebates.

There are lots of ways to make these types of businesses legal. The recipe is simple. Lots of external revenue as you have alluded (that’s the Black Box sustainability angle). No preferential payback to old members from new members’ money (that’s the Ponzi angle). I’ve posted a dozen legal variantions of the ASD model elsewhere. None of them will ever create “thousands of millionaires.” None of them are high rate of return programs. None of them will ever be mistaken for the current dozens of “get rich quick” schemes that are out there now (including AVG) that are knockoffs of ASD, which in turn is a variation of older autosurf Ponzi schemes.

For me, I’ll continue to earn my income the old-fashioned way — hard work in a field that someone places value on.

jimmy b: My thoughts are only this, if someone gets this surf business right in all aspects is going to be very wealth and not on the F.B.I.s most wanted list.As a former believer in the ASD model it did make a lot of sense.1) pay people to view advertising of the group2) grow the group to untold numbers3) offer the groups services to large corp advertisers(the clincher)4) buy services of the group and roll profits back to the advertising company to sustain rebates.The above makes sense and makes to world go round.The thing ASD missed is having the advertisers roll a percentage of profits generated as a dircet result of advertising back into the company to sustain the revenues, this would produce hundreds of thousands of income streams. i.e. no ponzi.The person who figures out how to make it trackable and enforceable to get the profits back to the company is going to be bigger than Bill Gates.Anyone think I got it right? contact me at bodatheman@gmail.com with your thoughts and we can start our own legal advertising company. I for one have had enough of the lies.J

I think it’s SO important that you’ve developed and are maintaining this website, with contributions from Gregg and Lynn and other experts, on how scams like this flourish. No one who chooses to participate in AVG or a similar scam will be able to use the “I performed due diligence and found nothing negative” argument. Your site and others are also provoking AVG to create a written record replete with material misstatements intended to deceive potential investors about the safety of sending their funds to Uruguay. I especially like the whopper they told about hidden ownership being a standard operational tactic with private corporations. There are private corporations whose ownership isn’t public, but it’s a rare privately held corporation that tries to entice public investors while concealing the information about who they’re trusting with their money.

As a former believer in the ASD model it did make a lot of sense.

1) pay people to view advertising of the group
2) grow the group to untold numbers
3) offer the groups services to large corp advertisers
(the clincher)
4) buy services of the group and roll profits back to the advertising company to sustain rebates.

The above makes sense and makes to world go round.

The thing ASD missed is having the advertisers roll a percentage of profits generated as a dircet result of advertising back into the company to sustain the revenues, this would produce hundreds of thousands of income streams. i.e. no ponzi.

The person who figures out how to make it trackable and enforceable to get the profits back to the company is going to be bigger than Bill Gates.

Anyone think I got it right? contact me at bodatheman@gmail.com with your thoughts and we can start our own legal advertising company. I for one have had enough of the lies.

J

Brenda: later when they started their campaigns like the kool-aid to Bill O’Reilly I had second thoughts.. as time progressed people were not so happy or trusting of Andy and ASD but seemed like every time someone put a negative comment in they were called a Troll…lol… I didnt even know what a troll was either I do now but I think a Troll is better than the kool-aid drinking cheerleaders who continue to try and brainwash people into thinking any of these Ponzi scams will make you money and that ASD will be back..

Yes, the O’Reilly Kool-Aid campaign backfired because it brought the madness front-and-center, creating the condition otherwise rational people needed to confront their severe doubts. People almost always will suspend their disbelief briefly. What often happens, though, is that other people will cause them to acknowledge the little birdie inside that has been telling them, “This isn’t me. Why am I a part of this?”

Kool-Aid campaigns? Letters to politicians (during an election year) asking them to tarnish their reputations by becoming a public advocate for Ponzi schemes? Complaints to the Inspector General to bring the prosecutors up on charges for enforcing money-laundering laws?

What the advocates refused to acknowledge is that, very often in this case, “troll” equaled “truth.”

Regards,

Patrick

Mark kreiling: Boy,the girls loved me for the first 4 months on “surf up” when I was a koolaid drinking believer. but after the first lose in court and taking my head out of the sand and opening up my eyes, I found out how stupid I was,and how illegal this auto-surfing business is. I will not have any pity on the members who know going in,that what ther are doing is illegal.

Seems as though your Kool-Aid days were brief had no long-term effect on you. Some people won’t be so lucky.

Take care.

Patrick