Get Rich With Jerry

08/30/2026

I think one of the easiest mistakes to make in online advertising is changing something simply because we’re tired of looking at it.

We see our own ad over and over.
We see our capture page every day.
We’ve read the headline 100 times.

So naturally, it starts feeling old.

But the people we’re advertising to haven’t necessarily seen it nearly as often as we have.

Sometimes the best thing you can do with an ad that’s working is...

leave it alone.

Your boredom isn’t the same thing as ad fatigue.

08/26/2026

143 attention clicks.

But nearly half of them came from just 20 people.

That was one of the more surprising things I found when I stopped looking at the click total and started looking at who was actually doing the clicking.

In my Safelist Attention Project:

94 different people clicked at least once.

74 clicked once.

20 clicked more than once.

Those 20 repeat clickers generated 69 of the 143 clicks — 48.3% of all the attention I recorded.

That changes the way I look at an engagement number.

A big click total might mean lots of people responded...
..or it might mean a much smaller group responded repeatedly.

I dug into what that means in my newest post:

👉

143 attention clicks looked impressive—until I found that just 20 repeat visitors generated nearly half of them.

08/25/2026

Here’s something I’ve been thinking about after my recent experiment...

When you promote the same offer repeatedly, do you keep using the same ad or capture page?

Or do you rotate several different ones because you’re afraid people will get tired of seeing the same thing?

I’ve usually thought variety was a good thing.

But I’m starting to wonder if changing the creative too often actually works against us.

Maybe seeing the same recognizable page several times is part of what eventually gets someone to stop and click.

What have you noticed?

08/21/2026

I think we give up on ads too quickly sometimes.

Someone sees an ad and doesn’t click, so we assume it didn’t work.

But “didn’t click” and “didn’t notice” aren’t necessarily the same thing.

They may have noticed it. They may even remember it.

They just weren’t curious enough to click yet.

That’s one reason I’m starting to think repeated exposure matters more than I used to.

The trick, of course, is getting seen again without becoming annoying. 😄

08/19/2026

Yesterday I mentioned that I was digging into what happens when someone sees an ad, doesn’t click, and then sees it again.

Now I have the numbers.

Most of the people who eventually clicked did it the first time they saw the page.

But 22 people didn’t.

They needed a second, third, fourth, fifth, or even sixth exposure before they finally clicked.

And the second exposure turned out to be especially interesting.

I broke down exactly what happened in the newest part of my Safelist Attention Project:

👉

I tracked repeat exposures to see how many times people saw the same ad before they clicked—and when repetition stopped helping.

08/18/2026

I’ve been digging into the next batch of data from my Safelist Attention Project, and this time I’m looking at something I’ve wondered about for years.

What happens when somebody sees your ad... and doesn’t click?

Is that opportunity gone?

Or does seeing the same ad again give it another chance to get their attention?

I can actually track that in this experiment, so that’s what I’m working on now.

There are a couple of numbers in there I wasn’t expecting.

More soon.

08/15/2026

One thing my latest experiment reminded me of:

The thing that gets attention doesn’t necessarily have to be the thing that explains the offer.

An image might make someone stop.

A headline might make them curious.

The rest of the page has to give them a reason to keep going.

I think we sometimes expect one part of an ad to do everything.

Maybe a better approach is to give each part of the ad one job — and make sure it does that job well.

Something I’ll definitely be thinking about the next time I create an ad.

08/12/2026

I thought the giant pair of eyes on my experiment page had clearly won.

Then I looked closer at the data.

Among 76 different respondents:

👀 The eyes: 22
🎨 The overall page design: 21
📝 The headline: 13

So the eyes did win...

Barely.

And I think what that tells us about getting attention is more interesting than simply saying “use a good image.”

Here’s what I found:

👉

08/10/2026

Made it back to St. Louis after a very long drive from Orlando.

I had hoped to get the next Safelist Attention Project post finished this weekend, but that obviously didn’t happen. 😄

I’m getting settled back in and should have the next part ready by Tuesday.

For tonight, I’m calling it a day.

08/06/2026

I went into my Safelist Attention Project expecting to find one clear winner.

Instead, I found four different answers.

One safelist sent the most traffic.

Another produced the highest attention rate.

Another reached the most different responsive people.

And another delivered the best response per mailing.

So which one was actually the best?

That depends on what you wanted it to do.

I break down the different winners in my latest post:

👉

There wasn’t one universal winner. Different safelists stood out for reach, attention rate, broad participation, and response per mailing.