Here, it's not just his SEO tip that's flawed, but also the scientific method used to reach this conclusion. Let me explain!
Cartoon character with a skeptical look and a stopping hand outstretched.
Patel's thinking is that he himself spends most of his resources promoting what he publishes in his SEO agency, but he still enjoys great success. What he says is true, but the fact that lower quality palestinian territories email list content can achieve success with good promotion in his case does not mean that this is always the case in all situations. It may be that there is a connection. What he is doing is creating a universal law, "content is not king", based on the fact that he himself can sell without having the best content.
In scientific parlance, this is called anecdotal evidence, which is the least credible form of evidence in science. This type of evidence is only used by scientists to present hypotheses, never to draw conclusions.
For large companies with a large apparatus and hundreds of thousands or millions of followers, Patel's technique will work. But then the question is: why will it work? Is it because content doesn't matter? Or is it because millions of people will be exposed to what he creates and therefore the chances of sales and interaction are higher?