REVEALED: An Unlikely Reason Why Many Online Marketing Campaigns Fail

DON'T DO SEARCH ENGINE OR SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING AGAIN UNTIL YOU HAVE DONE THIS

Do you feel the amount of resources you've been spending on the web based marketing of your business has paid off in terms of conversions? A little research I conducted recently showed 63.17% of online marketing campaigns in 2015 may have performed below expectation. 24.03% were described as 'satisfactory' and only 11% were considered 'exceptional'. Now, let me tell you what has up to 80% chances of being behind such a failure of resources: trust level. You needed to know that online prospects are becoming more and more wary than ever. Because of countless sore experiences in the hands of different shades of online scam artists, prospects are now extra careful even with free offers. So, they have learned to perform a background check on every online business before taking a required action.
One of the most common background checks prospects now do - as I discovered - is to search for the keywords "XYZ scam" or "XYZ review" or suchlike on the search engines, where XYZ stands for an online business name under consideration. They want to know if it is a scam and how other people see the business. They are looking for third party endorsements (TPEs). So, I advise you to try and get your satisfied customers to write reviews for your business on review websites such as ScamAnalyze, Alexa, Norton Safeweb and more.
But the bandwagon spirit sometimes keep customers from writing reviews freely. They wait to see that someone else has already endorsed the offer or brand before they can do so themselves. So, if you needed to have someone write such reviews for you for as low as $5 for up to 10 reviews on PR6 and above review pages, let me help you do so in very beautiful language customers can't resist.

WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY AND TERRORISM?

No matter how dearly you hold your views, you'd always be wiser to hear the other party. Otherwise, you'd be justifying it when the other party does not listen to your dearly held viewpoint. High level reasoning demands that we always give a little room of possibility that we are wrong and the other party is right in every area of life including religion, morals, politics, sports teams and more. Based on this, I am opening up a window of interactive field research for us to probe into the bold existence both of homosexuality and terrorism in our world today.

But, Why Associating Terrorism With Homosexuality?

So far, personally, I am able to relate with anyone's viewpoint (I at least try to understand why the person may hold that - to me - strange viewpoint). However, there are yet two points of view I am yet unable to tolerate even in the deepest part of me: they are terrorism and homosexuality. Yet, do I know there are real individuals who hold these - again, to me - strange worldviews so strongly that they can even give their lives to further them. This makes me think, may be, there are reasons, may be even good enough reasons people not only hold these views but also practice them. Being unable to resolve this on my own, I have come here to present my argument and to seek your own absolutely clear and honest views on them.

My Points of Departure

I began to really wonder if there could be understandable reason(s) real humans become terrorist after reading a media report of a lady (yes, a lady) raised as a Christian (yes, a Christian) in the middle of the Great Britain (yes, Britain of all places) suddenly turning a radical islamist to the point of swapping 'her comfortable life in Britain...for the horror of Syria', suddenly turning a staunch member of ISIS, diligently and creatively indoctrinating her own six-year-old son to become a child soldier for ISIS, proudly photographing the child in military fatigues and wielding AK47 for ISIS as recently reported by Daily Mail of UK. The report goes ahead to quote the lady in question, Grace Khadija Dare, as bragging that she would be the first woman to kill a westerner taken hostage by ISIS. Then, she goes ahead to urge other muslims all over the world to 'stop being so selfish...focusing on your families or studies' and implores them to join her in Syria and join the holy war. If this report reveals how dearly the lady holds this view, the following photos might reveal even more, how very comfortable and happy she seems to be - together with her son - in her new life (Photo credits all go to Daily Mail Online):

Isa Dare (dubbed "Jihadi John Junior"), Grace Khadija Dare's 6-year-old ISIS child soldier in a military fatigue

"Jihadi John Junior" photographed by his own mother proudly and happily brandishing an AK47

"Jihadi John Junior" paying a glowing tribute to ISIS

Grace Khadija Dare is quoted to have urged other Muslims to 'stop being so selfish...focusing on your families or studies' and implores them to join her in Syria and join the holy war'

Grace Khadija Dare caught in a video footage out there in an ISIS enclave in Syria seriously preparing to make good her promise of being the first woman to kill a Westerner taken hostage by ISIS.

Then, I also began to wonder if there could be valid reasons for the existence of homosexuality when it was reported recently that Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa - one of those whose views on issues I often find myself agreeing with - obviously in approval - attended a lesbian wedding of his daughter, a reverend (!), Reverend Mpho Tutu in Netherlands. If the report was revealing, the photos, even more (Photo credit all go to Lindaikejisblog):

The father and daughter Tutus seem particularly fulfilled on this lesbian wedding picture

Is that the husband or the wife in the lesbian wedding having a tete-a-tete with the radical South African Archbishop, Desmond Mpilo Tutu: totally a new specie of in-laws?

Obviously happily wedded or just a cover-up?

My Argument Against Terrorism and Homosexuality.

What is terrorism? "There is neither an academic nor an accurate legal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism" says a Wikipedia article. Neither am I going to give a one-size-fits-all definition of terrorism here. Instead, I'd describe terrorism in accordance to how it affects us all generally on the Planet today. In this light therefore, I know terrorism to be the human principle and practice of using unauthorized violence against other human beings as an expression of an unknown or almost unknown grievance against them. Terrorists seem all out to attack, maim, kill and displace anyone whatsoever - babies, pregnant mothers, governments, anyone including even themselves (when they go on suicide missions) - without obvious provocation.

Then, according to the Merriam Webster's English Dictionary, homosexuality is "the quality or state of being homosexual" and homosexual is defined as "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex".

My first point of argument against terrorism as well as homosexuality is from nature which we are all members of. Unlike religions and political parties or professions where we are all free to choose where to belong, we are all equally members of Mother Nature as some people call this pan-existence membership system. The instinct of self-preservation is a built-in software every living thing comes packaged with. Naturally, no life wants to be lost. No human being was ever born wanting to die or to kill. Both murder and suicide are tendencies that human beings acquire only later on in life. Moreover, neither killing without obvious reason (such as for food or for self-protection) and/or provocation or self-killing is manifested by any other life that do not have the will to decide to steer themselves against the natural current. Only human beings endowed with the power of will, decide to use this power against its giver (Nature). This is clearly a case of rebellion which has to be followed with dire consequences for the rebellious will in question. So, no matter the religious doctrine that may be used as a prop for murder or suicide, it should be wiser to consider something more objective than that which is the position of Nature, of which everyone was a member from the womb - far before anyone became a member of a religion. O yes, we are primarily, members of Nature, and only secondarily members of society, aspects of which are religion, politics, profession and more. So, it would be totally contradictory to let any of our positions in these, override the apparent position of Nature. As Henry Wadsworth Longfellow would say, "the best thing we can do when it's raining is to let it rain" referring to the fundamental obligation we have to comply with what Nature requires of us. But since humans, of all nature, is endowed with the power of will - allowing him to choose to agree or disagree with Nature's positions - they may choose to comply or not with Nature with commensurate inalienable consequences. It is like knowing that gasoline by nature would turn a flame into a blaze and you still go ahead to pour gasoline on yourself and strike a match. Of course, we all know what the commensurate and inalienable consequence would be here. Thus, the American scientist E. O. Wilson would write that "nature holds the key to our aesthetic, intellectual, cognitive and even spiritual satisfaction". To think you could be fulfilled on the Earth living against the positions of Nature is like thinking you could be comfortable in the US living against the provisions of the United States Constitution.

As the above argument applies in relation to terrorism, it applies in relation to homosexuality also. We can be sure that homosexuality is anti-Nature from this: The basic natural function of sexuality - the function that serves Nature itself - is for the preservation of the specie. Pleasure, as greatly important as it may be, is only a secondary function of sexuality - the function that favors the individual members of a specie (a kind of an incentive Nature gives us to encourage us to serve its interest). But homosexuality clearly stands things on their head by emphasizing the secondary over the primary function of sexuality. It adds up to being unfair to Nature by selfishly taking the part that favors us while disregarding the part that favors Nature itself. To further show how anti-Nature homosexuality must be deemed to be, we can observe uncensored Nature: no other life - besides humans - is known to practice homosexuality.

My second point of argument against terrorism and homosexuality is basic philosophy of fairness. In his theory of Categorical Imperative, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant makes a simple proposition to guide everyone's life: before you do anything, ask yourself "if everyone was doing this, would the world be better off or worse off?" If your answer is "better off" go ahead. If "worse off" you don't have to go ahead as your very life becomes a contradiction. So, I ask the terrorists and their sympathizers first: you are ever ready to destroy, kill and maim everyone for not immediately agreeing with you, what happens if everyone decides to kill everyone who does not immediately agree with them. Let's suppose you are right, so what do you think could have happened if someone killed you before you had the opportunity of realizing the truth? Now, how fair would it be for you now to kill others before they have an opportunity of coming to know your brand of truth?

To the homosexuals I say: imagine that tomorrow, we all decide - in word and indeed - that you are right and the rest of us wrong, and that we are all becoming homosexuals with you, would you be comfortable with that? And, what if the world had come to this consensus before you ever had the opportunity of being born? Could you have been born? These are rhetorical questions.

Tentative Conclusion

As I noted at the beginning, I don't mean to hand out lectures here. Instead, I mean to go into a profound interactive research on possible valid reasons behind these - it has to be admitted - unpopular ways of certain humanity. So, come up with your honest views. Make them as comment below.

I'd be right back.

REVEALED: Nigeria's Goodluck Jonathan May Soon Go to Jail and Later Executed by Buhari

After having observed the look of things on the political landscape of the West African country of Nigeria, we at Mondia Analysis, believe former President, Goodluck Jonathan is most likely to be jailed and later executed by the present APC-led Administration of Muhammadu Buhari. Although many we have shared this belief with tended to immediately dismiss the possibility, below is our basis for this prediction:

It is to be recalled that a National Security Adviser (NSA) under the Goodluck Jonathan-led former PDP administration, Colonel Sambo Dasuki was arrested by Nigeria's State Security Service (SSS) on December 1, 2015 for allegedly stealing $2.1 billion and awarding questionable contracts related to the purchase of 12 helicopters, four fighter jets and ammunition meant for Nigeria's military campaign against the Boko Haram militants in the country. The former NSA has been standing trial since then, and the world media has been awash with endless revelation of unhearable (even unbearable) fraudulent transactions connected to the $2 billion in question.

As this article is being published, the latest item in the list of these revelations is that a former People's Democratic Party (PDP) Board of Trustees (BoT) chair, Tony Anenih has written Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) explaining how he disbursed a sum of US$1,306,206.2 (290 million Nigerian Naira) paid into his bank account from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) during Colonel Dasuki's tenure saying he shared the money "following instructions" as reported by the Nigeria-based The Nation Newspaper owned by an APC Chieftain, Ahmed Bola Tinubu. Anenih is also reported to have revealed that he transferred the sum of USD316,503.81 (63 million Nigerian Naira) of the 1.3 million USD to an obviously informal group co-ordinated by a former special assistant to Nigeria's former President Shehu Shagari in the person of Alhaji Tanko Yakassai reportedly "for the 2015 presidential election".

Now, let us all remember that the sum of money based on which all these transactions are allegedly made relates to the fund meant for combating militant terrorism which has claimed 20,000 lives and displaced 2.3 million people from their homes according to a Wikipedia entry. Now, if it turns out true that the money was diverted to fund the Presidential elections of Goodluck Jonathan "following instructions" while thousands were dying and millions were being made homeless, then the judiciary might interpret it to mean that whoever gave the instructions in question, was by implication responsible for the death of those thousands. The next question would be "who gave the instruction?" Whoever's name that becomes the answer to this question would therefore be charged guilty not only of murder but of mass murder. And whom do you think would have given the instruction? Your guess is as good as mine.

The only just punishment for murder is execution and the law is no respecter of persons. Now, is it Mr. Muhammadu Buhari who is so strong against graft that he would even disobey court orders  to release people charged with criminal offenses that will now have the full backing of the law and would not act against his arch political enemy? Well, the former president may end up not being executed but this is what we can bet on: the Muhammadu Buhari-led Administration will at least attempt it.

Nigeria's President Buhari defending why he disobeyed court directives concerning criminal suspects on December 30, 2015/Coutesy: Premium Times

You May Also Like to Read: WHAT COULD HAVE CAUSED THE NEW YEAR EVE'S HOTEL FIRE IN DUBAI IS A LESSON FOR ALL OF US especially if you own or patronize hotels anywhere in the world.
Also read: STRONG REASONS WHY AND HOW EVERY NIGERIAN MUST EARN A LIVING OVERSEAS IN 2016 from The Naira Mathemagic.

WHAT COULD HAVE CAUSED THE NEW YEAR EVE'S HOTEL FIRE IN DUBAI IS A LESSON FOR ALL OF US

Courtesy: Leadership Newspapers

Courtesy: CNN

Around 9:30 on Thursday December 31 2015, a fire started in a 63-floor luxury hotel in a Dubai neighborhoods called the Address Downtown and eventually engulfed the high-end facility which housed many of the VIP tourists that came to watch the now-famous Burj Khalifa New Year Eves' fireworks display. The tragedy is now story for another day and the authorities as usual are digging into the cause. But while they are yet digging, we can dig too; can't we? So here's my take on the fire incident and what we can all learn from it for our common good:

No waste of time and space: Although Dubai Police Chief, General Khamis Mattar Al-Muzema is quoted as saying the fire likely resulted from an accident - while it was still raging on Thursday - I believe the fire was a terrorist's product. Why?

1. Dubai has attracted a global fame for many things, many of these are 'non-Muslim-looking' or 'anti-Islam' as an extremist Muslim might tag them.

2. One of these 'anti-Islam' image makers of UAE (and Dubai in particular) is tourism that tends to attract too many 'infidels' to such a Muslim domain (Doha in Qatar and Kano in Nigeria are some of the other cities committing this 'sin').

3. One of the greatest - if not the greatest - tourist attractions of UAE and of Dubai has become the New Year Eve's celebrations centered around the world's tallest building Burj Khalifa with fire-work displays. The gutted hotel is adjacent the Burj Khalifa and close to another Dubai fame making monument, the imposing Dubai Mall.

So, the neighborhoods (on New Year Eve of all times) should have been expected to be an easy terrorist target. If my suspicion is right, then the terrorists must be somewhere now celebrating their success in embarrassing not only the teeming tourists in the city of Dubai that night and the entire citizenry and authorities of UAE, but also the entire world.

I realize that terrorists usually begin to attack a target (whether a people or a place or both) little by little and, if unchecked, they tend to get to bigger things. For example, the simultaneous bombings of the United States foreign missions in Tanzania and Nairobi on August 7 1998 in which about 200 people were reported killed, happened 3 years before the simultaneous attacks on September 11 2001 targeted at the three most important US landmarks inside the US - the economic landmark, the World Trade Centre; the symbol of military might, the Pentagon and the center of policy making, the White House (which most fortunately failed). Look at the trend: from targeting TWO US properties in far away under-developed nations to targeting THREE most important landmarks inside the US!

There are many more such trends in terrorist attacks but I think the above brings it out most clearly by using the most obvious set of global examples. So now, let me apply these to the present case in point: the Dubai Hotel Fire, as I believe it will soon be known in the media world (compared to 9/11 Attacks): It should be recalled that - against what Dubai was ever known for - the city is fast becoming famous for mystery fires in her major land marks. Only in February 2015, it was widely reported in the global media that another of Dubai's high-rise edifices, the 79-floor Torch Tower - one of the world's biggest residential buildings in Marina, mostly populated by expatriates - was engulfed by fire, raising serious questions about Dubai's safety standards among world watchers, amidst the city's fast development into a major global commercial and tourist hub.

Before the February fire at the Torch Tower, it should also be recalled that a similar fire in 2012 had gutted the Tamweel Tower, a 34-floor structure in an upscale part of Dubai, the Jumeira Lakes Towers.

The Tamweel Tower fires on Sunday November 18, 2012/Courtesy: Daily Mail Online.

There are many lessons we stand to learn from all these. One of them which I consider principal, goes to hoteliers: they needed to rethink security and safety. Because hotels play host to many strangers, they could easily be used to perpetrate some of the most heinous high profile crimes such as terrorism. Hotels, and especially high-end ones, should take access control very seriously and with the aid of the latest ICT wares available. One of the highest spends in hotels yearly budgets should be on security and safety - since this, of course, should be of paramount importance to prospective customers. Customer's should demand this of the hotels they patronize. 

And this should go far beyond just access control to include top-notch intelligence gathering. Hotel owners associations of every city should come together to sponsor researches around the security and safety considerations of their respective cities. This is because, while strangers with evil intentions could be relatively easy to identify in other places than hotels - being that hotels typically house strangers - the lives of law abiding in-mates of hotels are easily put at a risk if security/safety is treated with a lower than optimum emphasis. It therefore makes no sense when a hotel would employ a half-illiterate gate man that is most ridiculously branded a 'security man'. One really wonders what sort of security man that is!

A major safety consideration by hotels, developers and all of us should concern the kind of technology we employ in building. With epochal evolution taking place in civil engineering today, hotels should be constructed in such a way that a fire occurring in one place can't easily spread to other areas. This should no longer be a story we can be hearing in the 21st Century.

Electronic Cigarrete Intro - All You Need to Know About eCig (In One Place)

Since its invention in 2004 according to Wikipedia (or 2003 according to Yahoo Health) so much has been said about this new technology called electronic cigarette (or e-cigarette/eCig). Having studied the various opinions and the controversies surrounding such topics as the side effects or possible health risks of electronic cigarette and indeed so many other issues such as the diversity in brands and prices among manufacturers, I have decided to present an analysis based on a wide range of sources. I will also be comparing several electronic cigarette reviews across the web. Then, I will come up with my own evaluation of all the sources, placing the cards on the table to help anyone who has interest in this technology to decide for him/herself.

Electronic Cigarette? Why Should This Deserve Our Attention Now?

Why I deem this project very necessary is that we all know the claimed health hazards of smoking. The question now is, could it be that electronic cigarette is a healthy enough technology invented as a worthy alternative to smoking to save our embattled environment from the harmful effects of smoking and some myopic people are trying to stifle it without enough evidence? Or, are electronic cigarettes really as harmful as their tobacco/smoky counterparts but manufacturers and marketers are claiming otherwise for selfish gains? Or that electronic cigarettes are actually harmful but not as harmful as the smokies (you understand what I mean) and so should be tolerated as a realistic alternative to smoking cigarettes (a case of choosing the lesser evil, that is) for better environmental health. Or may be the single term 'electronic cigarettes' actually apply to widely differing realities so that one brand might pass an environmental test where another fails. If this were to be the case, we shall endeavor to separate the wheat from the chaff among electronic cigarette brands and manufacturers - of course with valid and made-obvious reasons. Because this concerns health, we cannot afford to get to anything less than the very truth of the matter.

A Few Explanations
As the name implies, an electronic cigarette is a battery-powered device that you can put into your mouth and you have the feeling of smoking cigarette. It is equipped with a heating element which atomizes a substance known as e-liquid or vaporizer which happens by you pressing a button or by any other mechanism that may be installed by a given manufacturer. A vaporizer when ignited looks and smells like real cigarette smoke although it is actually neither tobacco nor smoke. Generally, vaporizers consist mainly of a substance called aerosol which produces the cigarette-smoke-like appearance and effect. Now since a real smoke is not involved, instead of saying you are 'smoking' we say you are 'vaping' (from vapour or vaporizer).

Most electronic cigarettes now appear like the conventional cigarettes and are reusable. We still have them in so many other variable shapes and sizes and some still in disposable forms.

Henceforth we shall be looking at this topic under the following subheadings:

a. What the authorities say about electronic cigarette.
b. Comparing the conventional cigarettes and electronic cigarettes based on health considerations,
c. Electronic Cigarette Top Brands/Price Review
d. What the future may hold for electronic cigarette
e. My View (based on the analyses) About electronic cigarettes
f. Other Matters that Might Arise Along the Line About Electronic Cigarettes.

Analysis of What the Authorities Say About Electronic Cigarettes

Before we go ahead, it worth noting - as indeed it is obvious - that the predominant authoritative attitude to electronic cigarettes so far has been restrictive. Yet, let us henceforth, take them one on one by their words.

"In July 2014" says Wikipedia, "a report produced by the World Health Organization (WHO) found there was not enough evidence to determine if electronic cigarettes could help people quit smoking, suggesting smokers be encouraged to use approved methods for help with quitting. The same report also notes expert opinion which suggests e-cigarettes have a role in helping those who have failed to quit by other means. Smokers will get the maximum health benefit if they completely quit all nicotine use. The World Lung Foundation has applauded the WHO report's recommendation of tighter regulation due to safety concerns and the risk of increased nicotine or tobacco addiction among youth."

So amidst scanty conclusive research-based evidence as to the health implications of e-cigarettes, the concern of the World's principal health authority, the World Health Organization concerning e-cigarettes use, is not its health implication per se but the possible role e-cigarettes could play in curbing the use of conventional cigarettes. This is like the police arresting a youth and - while it's not yet proved the youth is a criminal - he is being held in custody while the police is debating the role the youth could or could not play in curbing crime in the society. This is not yet the whole picture: If the World Health Organization report quoted above "notes expert opinion which suggests e-cigarettes have a role in helping those who have failed to quit by other means" again, this is like saying a police chief believes the youth in our analogy - far from being a criminal - has been helping to curb criminality in a way no no anti-crime agency has been able to. What then is the justification for holding the young man in police custody? We shall return to this.

"In a 2015 joint statement" continues Wikipedia,"Public Health England and other UK medical bodies concluded "e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than smoking." In 2015, the Public Health England released a report stating that e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than smoking, and said that "PHE looks forward to the arrival on the market of a choice of medicinally regulated products that can be made available to smokers by the NHS on prescription." The UK National Health Service followed with the statement that e-cigarettes have approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes, while also concluding that there won't be a complete understanding of their safety for many years. As of 2014 there are clinical trials in progress to test the quality, safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes, but until these are complete the NHS maintains that the government could not give any advice on them or to recommend their use."

But in a sharp contrast to the above authoritative views from principal global and UK health bodies, the American health authorities sound more restrictive on the use of electronic cigarettes. Again we have a recourse to Wikipedia:

In October 2015, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against e-cigarettes for quitting smoking and stated among adolescents, e-cigarette use is related with reduced quitting smoking. In August 2014, the American Heart Association released a policy statement in which they support "effective FDA regulation of e-cigarettes that addresses marketing, youth access, labeling, quality control over manufacturing, free sampling, and standards for contaminants." In 2015 the California Department of Public Health issued a report that stated the "aerosol has been found to contain at least ten chemicals that are on California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm." In 2014, the US FDA said "E-cigarettes have not been fully studied, so consumers currently don't know: the potential risks of e-cigarettes when used as intended, how much nicotine or other potentially harmful chemicals are being inhaled during use, or whether there are any benefits associated with using these products. Additionally, it is not known whether e-cigarettes may lead young people to try other tobacco products, including conventional cigarettes, which are known to cause disease and lead to premature death."

The question then is, which of these opposing authoritative stand-points should we accept? Or could it be they are both acceptable in some sense? We shall find out for ourselves shortly. Although I will conclude this analysis by giving my own view on the matter, my job is not to tell YOU what to believe. Instead, I am here to expose the situation so clearly and succinctly that you can take a fully informed decision regarding electronic cigarette use.

{This presentation is still growing as research is on-going. Meanwhile, kindly let me know how you feel by making a comment below}