Awesome! It was even eye opening for me. Every time I get outside of my zone and try something new I learn new things. And really seeing how much mental muscle it took to force tiny changes was interesting. 

What I love about what you said above is that you have built a system that works. It may not be optimized yet but you went and built some sites, got them to rank, and they are converting at a (while low) reasonable level. That's really awesome. Few stay focused enough to pull it off. And heck 20 subs a month on autopilot is not to be sneezed at. I've done tours that got me less names on my mailing list, and they were a LOT harder to pull off. So good job. Now you just need to optimize the page, like you mentioned. Great job.

Awesome, really glad you liked it. Thanks for saying so. It really helped open my eyes to a few things as well.

Hey Mike,

Nice to see that your averages are improving. 19.4% is pretty decent. It can be higher, but you're in range of "good", so well done on sticking with it.

I'm not totally clear what I'm looking at though... I'm checking on my PC so I am being redirected to the regular page by the look of it, accept the regular page looks sort of like a mobile page as well, with a lot more going on.

Is the attachment what I am supposed to be seeing/critiquing?

There we go. Thanks. And yes, that .html is very important

So, looking at this, I think it looks pretty good, so take my points as me looking for out points or at least things worth testing. Not as actual criticism...

1. The image isn't the most rock star image of seen of yours. You look more like a regular guy. That may be what is working, or it could just be what is getting the click over from FB. Because images are so impact I might start by just testing that and seeing if changing the image doesn't bump the numbers. You might even try a few tests with a few images. But the thinking that you should be matching the image in your ad with the image on your page is not off base. So it's hard to know which way things will fall. It's very personal and that's good.

2. As I read the copy the resistance in my mind was along the lines of, "okay, so you have had a bunch of associations with famous musicians, but what is special about your music". The Counting Crows connection starts of strong for me, but when it's followed up with just the people you have toured with, you lose me a bit. I think the concept of "here's a band with one of the members of the Counting Crows that is being called XYZ by "some respectable magazine" sound more appealing. That's just my two cents, and again, that's just me looking for out points. I think what you have is good, and it's entirely possible that dropping the celebrity references will hurt rather than help.

Again, great to see that you've been pushing so hard towards those conversion numbers. Really well done.

Cool. Definitly jumps out at you, in a good way. Only thing that struck me this time was the single name testimonials. I gather they are social media fans and get why you would just put the first name, but it sort of read odd. Like, who is "Ned"? I wonder if you could add last names and mention the source? Like: Ned Thompson (Facebook). To my mind that seems more official some how. Maybe it's just me? Eager to hear how you do.