A Disturbing Trend in Internet Marketing
Posted on 30. Aug, 2010 by Michel Fortin in affiliate, behavior, Blog, commentator, competition, controversy, failure, fake, focus, FTC, guru, Joel Comm, Opinions, pressure, question, racketeering, ray edwards, responsibility, Ryan Healy, scam, scarcity, Small Business Internet Marketing, Small Business Marketing, success, training, transparency
A recent blog post has stirred quite a lot of controversy. It specifically made some stark accusations about a certain number of marketers who appear to be colluding.
Some call it unethical. Others call it smart business. And a few go as far as calling it an illegal cartel that should be charged with breaking racketeering and anti-trust laws.
I don’t know if it’s true or not, so I won’t comment on it directly. And I’m not a lawyer by any stretch.
But I can comment on what we observe. And we can certainly observe a few things that are rather obvious. For example, if you’re subscribed to several of these marketers’ lists, even if only a handful, then I’m confident you’ve noticed some recurring trends.
(Let’s call them “musical-chair product launches.” Oh, and let’s not forget the once pricey product you paid a marketer just a few weeks ago now being given away for free as a bonus to buying from their affiliate link during someone else’s product launch.)
Personally, I don’t think it’s wrong for competitors to partner up as to time their product releases separately. (I’ll come back to the term “competition” later, as it is important.) To a certain degree, this is definitely smart business.
The question is, at which point can this specific situation be deemed illegal or not? The answer is arguable — and by arguable, I mean in a court of law. But blogger Antone Roundy said it best, when he shared the following insight, which I agree with…
“But if they’re promoting each other regardless of product quality or value for the price, that’s unethical at best. And if they’re agreeing to a pricing scheme or taking products off the market during other peoples’ launch periods to reduce competition, I’d expect the FTC to be breathing down their necks really soon.”
This is what seems to be happening here. We can debate the legality of it. But illegal or not, it’s definitely unethical. Even if it is legal, the appearance of impropriety alone is enough to leave a bad taste in people’s mouths. It certainly does in mine.
After my wife’s controversial report, Internet Marketing Sins, which she released over two years ago, you can say that a line in the sand has been drawn. Since then, a number of marketers have expressed on which side of that they now stand.
To name a few — I’m linking to their specific posts wherever possible — there are people like Joel Comm, Ryan Healy, Ray Edwards, Dan Gallapoo, and many more. (Funny how many of them are copywriters, eh?) The numbers seem to be steadily growing, too.
(If you have 45 minutes, listen to this podcast by Randy Cantrell.)
We’ve also seen the emergence of a growing number of consumer advocacy and personal opinion blogs that are entirely dedicated to being critical of unethical marketing practices, and exposing deceptive and dishonest business activities.
Aside from The Salty Droid mentioned at the beginning, others include Patrick Pretty, Lost Ball In High Weeds, Dont Step In The Poop, and many, many others.
Do I like them? To be candid, some blogs — and especially some of the commentators on these blogs — are caustic, jarring, and vile. Some are a bit too toxic for my taste.
But while I may not like them, I don’t necessarily blame them. After all, they didn’t just appear out of nowhere with the sole intent to make marketers’ lives miserable. Many of these types of anti-scam blogs were created as a result of a personal, bad experience.
Plus, they can easily polarize people.
Many disgruntled consumers who are attracted to these blogs have grown highly cynical, suspicious, and resentful. So it’s only natural they voice their grievances on them.
But what frightens me is that the voice of genuine scam victims are muffled by a small yet vocal minority of anti-marketing extremists who spew their venom senselessly.
These pitchfork-wielding protesters seem hellbent on destroying any levelheaded discussion. They flame anyone who voices any opposing views, and rabidly pounce on anyone who might want to take a stab at having an intelligent, sensible argument.
I’ve seen some bigoted commentators bash others in an attempt to manipulate, irritate, and denigrate. This is childish behavior, and it defeats the purpose. They should focus on the issues, and not on whether someone is overweight, effeminate, or disabled.
Focus on what they do, not who they are.
Nevertheless, I often want to join in on the conversation myself, but I stop short of doing so because I fear what I say will fall on deaf ears — if not get drowned by a handful of witch-hunting McCarthyists who trawl around for any faint smell of blood.
Now, this doesn’t mean the other side is innocent, either.
Namecalling and ad hominem attacks occur on both sides.
I’ve seen a lot of venom spewed from proponents of these marketers. Genuine scam victims continue to be victimized through what appears to be concerted efforts of another vocal minority who feel that some of the marketers singled out are beyond reproach.
Some have gone to the extent of saying that scam victims are really the ones to blame. They say things like “caveat emptor (buyer beware),” “they’re jealous or envious of those who make money,” “they need to take responsibility for their actions,” etc.
Sure. Just like women wearing provocative clothing are looking to get raped, right? Ugh.
Granted, the market should bear some of the responsibility. Plus, I definitely agree there are trolls out there who just want someone to blame for their failures and inadequacies.
But caveat emptor is a weak argument when it seems to be used as a means to exclude the responsibility of others. Counter-blaming your customers should never nullify your actions when you blatantly prey on the market’s relentless dream for the magic pill.
Caveat emptor is not some loophole to take advantage of the vulnerable.
Just because you robbed a bank that had no alarm system doesn’t mean the bank is in the wrong because they lacked security. A robbery is still a robbery.
And it’s still wrong.
The question is, where does the vicious circle stop?
If the blame should be split 50/50, then so should the solution be split 50/50, too. Marketers should stop selling magic-pill solutions to a market who’s desperate for help. And the market should stop chasing the dream by buying into magic-pill solutions.
As we know, there is no such thing as a magic pill. If they keep chasing it, they will murder any chances of achieving true success. And sometimes, that can be quite literal.
As long as there will be a market for magic-pill solutions, there will always be marketers willing to provide it to them. So aside from more laws and regulations, which I’m not a fan of, achieving a compromise is a challenge, particularly when both sides are greedy.
So another and perhaps more effective solution is: education.
Educate the market on what to look out for and avoid, as well as educate those who are learning how to market and may think of modeling such unethical practices.
In my estimation, too many marketing products out there are just snake oil. Period.
I understand and appreciate that buyers should beware, that they should do their due diligence, that they should take their time and investigate before jumping in. Agreed.
But fake scarcity ploys during high-pressure product launches remove any chance for the market to appreciate what exactly is being sold. It reduces their ability to think critically, investigate the offer adequately, and make an intelligent buying decision.
So education is powerful. And these blogs, while harsh in some cases, are vital.
Let me end with this. Antone Roundy’s comment about gathering with other marketers to time product releases being a smart business practice is right. After all, that’s why many associations exist. But I agree this works only up to a point.
I’m far from being a lawyer, but if it is unacceptable when products are taken off the market, as Antone said, then that’s exactly what seems to be happening here. In fact, these are not “product releases.” They are not even product launches, for that matter.
They are simply close-ended sales events.
But let’s take a closer look at what constitutes “competition,” and how it applies, here. Defined, competition is: “the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms.”
Whether the people in this group of marketers are acting independently is debatable. The question is, are they truly competing against one and other? In other words, are these guys truly competitors? This is something I think any court will need to define.
But here’s my take. They sell information, true. And it can be argued that information is not really competitive. For example, just because I bought a Stephen King novel doesn’t preclude me from buying an Anne Rice novel at the same time.
One can sell information on, say, affiliate marketing while the other on, say, traffic generation. So they are not quite “competitors.” But herein lies the problem…
Marketers are not authors selling their information. They are more like publishing houses selling information products. Yes, products. And as publishing houses — and again, I’m no lawyer — they seem to be colluding to some degree.
Even the term “information products” is debatable, too. Because the “products” most gurus sell today aren’t really information. In actuality, what they’re selling are business opportunities packaged as information and sold under the guise of training systems.
Again, this is just my opinion. I always want to look at both sides of an issue before I form an opinion. And in this case, after everything I’ve seen, all I can say is that the whole musical-chair product launch game just doesn’t smell right to me.
A Disturbing Trend in Internet Marketing originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.
The Need For Long Copy and Other Stupid Myths
Posted on 21. May, 2010 by Michel Fortin in abuse, armand morin, audience, Blog, buyer, FTC, marketer, myth, nick usborne, offer, Opinions, product, selling, service, Small Business Internet Marketing, Small Business Marketing, video
Recently, Terry Dean wrote an awesome article, entitled “Copy is King and Other Common Lies.” The article boils down to the fact that the market and the offer come first.
Copy is still important. Design plays an important role, too.
But copy is not king. The market is. And I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, after reading the article it made me think of something I’ve been meaning to share with you for a while.
And I’m warning you, this might ruffle a few feathers.
Three years ago, I wrote a white paper called “The Death of The Salesletter.” It was controversial because a lot of it was contrary to popular belief, particularly since it was coming from someone whose career revolved around writing salesletters.
Long-scrolling salesletters, that is.
Long-form web salesletters are dead. Or better said, they are evolving. But the changes we are seeing are more than what you think. And I’m not talking about video…
Ostensibly, the impetus for this change is largely influenced by the introduction and adoption of multimedia. That’s because the Internet is different. Some say the Internet is just another medium. It is, but it is still different. It’s visual, auditory, and kinesthetic.
Better said, the way people consume information on the Internet is different.
But there are a couple of things I wanted to share with you that I didn’t cover in the report. The reason is, since then we’ve seen a lot of other changes, too.
After three years, we’ve gone through a recession, a series of societal pressures forcing us to change, and new or updated governmental regulations to comply with.
We’ve had the FTC’s new disclosure, affiliate marketing, and blogging rules. We’ve had the Google slap, Facebook slap, Visa slap, MasterCard slap, AdWords slap, and more.
(Reminds me of old Catholic school days where teachers, who were mostly nuns, walked around with wooden paddles ready to swat you if you were ever out of line.)
After all this, I have become a firmer believer that long salesletter copy is often not needed. And when it is used, it is largely misused. Sure, long copy has its place. It will always have a place. We need long copy when there’s a level of education needed.
For instance, in a previous blog post I wrote about my OATH formula. This formula is based on knowing the level of buyer awareness of your market.
In my marketing management class in college, I taught the stages of awareness new products go through, often called the “product adoption curve” or “diffusion process.”
(Famous copywriter Gene Schwartz discusses something similar in his book, Breakthrough Advertising, and how copy is different for each stage.)
My formula is simple. OATH is an acronym to define each awareness stage.
“O” stands for “Oblivious.” Your market doesn’t know about the problem. They aren’t aware they have it. Next is “A,” which means “Apathetic.” They know they have a problem but they don’t care. Solving it is not important to them for whatever reason.
Then, there’s “T,” which is “Thinking.” They know they have a problem and can solve it, but they’re thinking about it. Maybe they’re not convinced or they’re shopping around. And finally, “H” is for “Hurting.” They want to solve it now. They’re desperate.
When you look at the OATH formula and how copy fits in each stage, it stands to reason that the more oblivious they are, the more you need to educate them. And conversely, the more desperate they are, the less copy is required.
Makes sense?
(This doesn’t include the product type. The four product types are “convenience,” “shopping,” “specialty,” and “unsought” products. The more commoditized the product, the less copy it needs. The more specialized it is, the greater the need for copy.)
Now, here’s the thing.
Internet marketing is not just about Internet marketing. There are tons of markets, products, and solutions being marketed on the Internet. But the most conspicuous is the Internet marketing industry. In other words, the “how to market on the Internet” market.
Which boils down to the making-money market. The bizop crowd.
(Not entirely, of course, but in large part.)
Let me ask you, where do people in the make-money market stand in the OATH formula? If you guessed “hurting,” if not at least “thinking,” then I would say you’re right.
(In terms of product type, most how-to-make-money products are commoditized. Or they are not as specialized as they used to be — unless it’s software, of course. But much of what you find in $5,000 infoproducts can be easily found in $30 books.)
So let me ask you, if that’s the case, then why are most Internet marketing products still being sold online with long-copy salesletters? Particularly hard-hitting ones?
And that includes long video sales pitches, too. Remember, multimedia salesletters are still using long copy — they’re just delivering it differently.
And I’m also not referring to actual training followed by an offer of some kind. (In other words, educational content unrelated or indirectly related to the pitch at the end.)
I’m talking about overzealous, aggressive, superlative-laced, hypnosis-inducing, carnival-barking, smooth-talking, slick-sliding-from-headline-to-P.S. sales pitches.
Whether it’s on video or in text.
Today, I still see long sales copy, with hard-hitting sales pitches, pushing Internet marketing products onto the marketplace. Why is that? Why would you need long copy to push something that’s seemingly targeted to a hurting market?
The reason is simple. There are actually 10 of them.
Here they are, in reverse order (David Letterman style)…
10. The market is skeptical and cynical (probably because of the rest of this list).
9. The product is overpriced.
8. The value or benefits are small, insignificant, or non-existent.
7. The product is unneeded or irrelevant.
6. The solution is temporary in nature.
5. The product is just snake oil.
4. The product is scammy.
3. The order process is scammy (e.g., forced continuity, upsell hell, fake scarcity, etc).
2. The market is naive (i.e., being hurt opens you up to abuse and manipulation).
… And finally, number one is (drum roll, please)…
1. The product is crap.
There.
I said it.
This is nothing new. I remember copywriter Nick Usborne saying this many years ago in my copywriters forum. It caused quite a stir. And since my clients were mostly Internet marketers at the time, I was apologetic whilst defending my clients. And my livelihood.
But today, I have come to the conclusion that most (not all, but most) Internet marketers who still use long copy, especially long copy that screams like a Monster Truck Rally announcer, is for a product that sucks. Period.
Now, not all of them are that obvious. Some of them are slick. Very slick. Copy injected with great storytelling, believability, personality, and testimonials that make you salivate.
When someone says about an Internet marketer that “he’s so good at selling, he can sell ice to an Eskimo” — being Canadian, I would have preferred to call them Inuit, but I digress — the question is, why would you? Think about that, for a moment.
Really. I’m serious.
Would you feel good about yourself if you sold something utterly useless to someone who doesn’t need it? Plus, I bet you that when you tried to sell your “ice,” you had to use a pretty long sales pitch, too. Either that or manipulate your client somehow.
Obviously, that’s nonsense. It’s downright abusive, too.
Ultimately, the lesson I want to deliver here is this…
Great products sell themselves. Just as educated markets, particularly hurting markets, buy themselves. They prefer to buy than to be sold. They don’t need much help. They just need direction. And that, my friends, is what direct marketing should be.
It should direct the market as well as be direct.
(As my friend Armand Morin always says, “Just sell the darn thing!”)
No need for long, drawn-out, credibility-pumping, testimonial-oozing, adjective-laden, trance-inducing, endlessly-scrolling copy. Especially audience-manipulating copy.
Some people might respond with, “But Michael, you’re full of crap! Long copy works, I tell you. My sales numbers prove it!” Of course, it does. No argument there. Heck, that’s why it still exists and is being used all the time. Spam still exists, too. Right?
But because something works doesn’t make it right. It’s no different than saying, “Hey, if you need to make money, go rob a bank. Why? Because it works!”
So unless your market is oblivious, and uneducated about your problem and its solution, you don’t need long copy. Unless, of course, your product is crap, your business is shady, your reputation is shot, or your market has been abused in the past.
So I’ll end by repeating something I said earlier, because it’s important. Great products sell themselves, just as great markets buy themselves. Your job is simple…
… You just need to find them and match them up.
The Need For Long Copy and Other Stupid Myths originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.
Are Product Launches Peddling For Profits?
Posted on 09. Apr, 2010 by Michel Fortin in authority, awareness, Blog, distribution, FTC, manufacturer, marketer, Opinions, positioning, proof, psychology, relationship, salesletter, selling, Small Business Internet Marketing, Small Business Marketing, success, urgency, value
After participating in a recent product launch (something I very rarely do), our Platinum Group was discussing the issue and I wanted to share those insights with you.
Considering the recent hysteria behind the massive Apple iPad launch, it got me thinking about how most Internet marketers conduct their product launches.
Most of them work because they’re based on basic human psychology. But I believe people who do use it do it poorly.
In fact, I think they do so because the strategy, particularly as it applies to Internet marketing and digital products specifically, is inherently flawed. What I mean is, in order for it to work — and work well — it must rely on three major factors:
- Anticipation
- Social proof
- Scarcity/urgency
Granted, you can manufacture these. And when you sell Internet, digital, or information products, you have to. Why? Because these products are, or are seen as, limitless.
And therein lies the rub…
The best and most profitable launches in history didn’t rely on any of these. At least, not in a direct way. Sure, these factors do play a huge role in most successful launches. But they occur almost as natural byproducts. They are not manufactured.
And that’s exactly what iPad did for their launch day. They used #1 (anticipation) and #2 (social proof). But they didn’t use #3. In other words, they launched without the need to create or promote any kind of manufactured scarcity.
Why? Because they didn’t need to.
Obviously, iPad is a physical product, which is naturally limited. That scarcity was made even greater on launch day because of #1 and #2. In other words, they didn’t have to “close their doors” and reopen them at some later date to create scarcity.
Granted, Apple may have limited their in-store stocks on launch day to create more demand. I don’t know. And they did a lot more. Seth Godin shares a few others. But I’m referring to the product launch strategy’s three major factors specifically.
My point here is, natural scarcity or creating a genuine sense of urgency — better said, possessing or projecting one — will trump a manufactured one. Every time.
Manufactured scarcity appears self-centered, questionable, and suspicious. When you look at how the FTC, Visa/MasterCard, Google, and now Facebook — with its recent slap — frown upon generated scarcity, you know people are lashing out against the practice.
When Jobs introduced the upcoming iPad, it created a ton of anticipation. With the iPhone being as popular as it was, news generated inherent social proof since people already had experiences with the iPhone.
But there’s more to it than that.
Apple created genuine scarcity because they have strong brand recognition, are well positioned, and have a history of delivering solid products with great value. They didn’t have to poach other people’s lists, create sales contests, or use high-pressure tactics.
Now, I’m not saying joint ventures, sales contests, and manufactured scarcity are wrong. But if you keep using them, product launch after product launch, then chances are you will be be seen as nothing more than a salesman. A slick, smarmy, snake-oil peddler.
(That’s not just my opinion, either.)
Apple didn’t create demand, which is why they didn’t need to manufacture scarcity. Whether the product was a physical one didn’t matter. To paraphrase Gene Schwartz in Breakthrough Advertising, “They didn’t create demand, they merely channeled it.”
Speaking of channeling demand, let’s look at some of the differences.
When I used to teach marketing management in college, there are two schools of thought in marketing. One is called the pull strategy, and the other the push strategy.
What do they mean? With the push marketing strategy, you are pushing the product through distribution channels. A “channel” can be, for instance:
Manufacturer
Distributor
In Internet Marketing and with downloadable products, the channel looks more like this:
Seller/Vendor
The push strategy is the one most often used by salespeople, infomercials, direct response advertisers, and direct marketers. And, obviously, Internet marketers, too.
The pull strategy, on the other hand, is where reputation and recognition generate awareness and demand. And that demand pulls the product through the distribution channel — thus requiring a lot less legwork, and a lot less need to sell. For example:
Consumer
Store
Now, let me put this in a better perspective for you.
Ostensibly, a push strategy can make a lot of money. There’s no denying that. That’s how many marketers make their “millions,” particularly via these massive product launch parades. Problem is, you have to constantly push products to stay afloat.
Sadly, this constant need to push products creates that unflattering “salesman” stigma, where most Internet marketers are largely seen as peddlers and not businesses.
In order to stay alive — or to maintain their standard of living — most Internet marketers need to constantly create new products, make new offers, and seek new “addicts” to push their products onto. (Sounds dangerously close to drug dealers, doesn’t it?)
That’s why most of them churn and burn their lists.
If they stop pushing more products, there is no business.
That’s why Sylvie and I call them “serial drive-by marketers.”
If you use a pull strategy, or complement your existing push strategy with a strong pull strategy, you will work a lot less. The rest will almost take care of itself. The business will keep going, no matter what. And above all, there will be less of that peddler stigma.
What constitutes a strong pull strategy?
Aside from offering in-demand products and solid value, there’s positioning, brand recognition, business identity, good customer service, a loyal fan base, authority in your field, and strong relationships with your customers and prospects. Just to name a few.
(Sure, there are more than that. But how many Internet marketers use any of them? Very little. For example, how many online salesletters have you seen with a logo? ‘Nuff said.)
Think of it this way: there’s a difference between the pawn-shop mentality and the retail store mentality. The former constantly needs products on its shelves to sell to stay alive. But the latter doesn’t need new products to sell. (And by “new” I mean “more.”)
Rather, retail stores need traffic. Consumers. Markets. People with needs. You simply create products to fill needs, not create needs (such as using fake scarcity) so you can shove your products down people’s throats during some big, limited product launch.
In other words, we need to think more like a retail store than like a pawn shop.
Now, I’m not saying we need to become like Wal-Mart or some other big box store. And we don’t need to focus on branding alone, or to advertise via some upscale, big budget, Madison Avenue advertising firm like many big brand stores do. No, not at all.
But we need to think like Wal-Mart.
We need to think like an Internet marketing business instead of like a peddler.
How would you feel if, upon entering your local Wal-Mart, they only had one product available at any given time? Or they had limited quantities of a product you know well and good wasn’t limited? Or they used high-pressure, time-sensitive tactics to sell you?
Sadly, most Internet marketers conduct their business like pawn shops. I’m not saying we should stop using direct response. Direct marketing, particularly for small businesses, is essential. But it should complement a good business strategy. Not replace it.
How great would it be if you sold products like crazy simply because people asked? How great would it be if you never had to sell or use any kind of manufactured scarcity to sell? And how much more money would you make, especially over the long term?
Bottom line, start focusing on creating long-term, solid businesses rather making serialized promotions for subpar products with time-limited, over-the-top product launches that at best merely provide short-term cash injections.
Something to think about.
By the way, if you’re interested in how to become a recognized authority, and position yourself and your business in a way that generates authentic demand and scarcity, then I encourage you to come to next week’s Authority Event in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Are Product Launches Peddling For Profits? originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.
Connect With Us Here:
