Going Undercover is Quite Revealing
Posted on 05. May, 2011 by Michel Fortin in answer, attitude, Blog, consulting, customer, helpdesk, Influence, interview, Opinions, people, problem, respect, Small Business Internet Marketing, Small Business Marketing, success, support, workaholics4hire
Sometimes, I answer helpdesks to help in special cases or on more technical issues. But when I do, I do it anonymously as our support staff works as a team.
(It’s the way my wife’s company works. It allows us to work interchangeably, such as replacing each other on vacations or providing collaborative input, without any interruptions.)
However, when I do, something interesting happens.
Some clients treat me like crap. They patronize me and show contempt towards me. They are terrible to deal with, not because of their request but because of their attitude.
They range from the miserable, “the-world-owes-me,” insatiable ingrate who sends tickets in rapidfire succession for every little itch they need to scratch, to the uppity, snarky snob who expects others to bow in the mere presence of their support ticket.
Now, don’t get me wrong.
I’m not talking about someone who’s genuinely pissed off because of some frustrating problem they need help on, but later becomes appreciative when their problem is solved. (I do sympathize with them when stuff like this happens. I’ve been there!)
No, I’m talking about people who lambaste subordinates just because… they can.
It is utterly amazing to me to see how clients treat me when they don’t know it’s me — the same person they revere, are friends with, and pay $500-$1,000 an hour for consulting.
Worse still, it’s terrible to see how people are downright condescending toward others in seemingly menial positions. It’s also surprising because I would have never expected it from some of them. They’re the kindest people I’ve met.
To quote Lynette Chandler who shared a similar story with me on Facebook:
“I was floored… I’ll never view her the same way again.”
Indeed.
The sad part is, many of these clients were people I’ve met at seminars, were friends of mine, and were supposedly some of my biggest fans. Needless to say, it also made me realize what my wife and her staff had to put up with for 15 years.
(Hats off to you, and you know who you are! 
)
Here’s the interesting thing about this.
How many do you think are like that?
10% (i.e., 90% are good and 10% are bad)?
20% (or 20-80)?
How about 30-70?
Nope. This happens in about 50% of cases. Yes, 50%! Close to half of all tickets come from clients who treat me horribly and browbeat me just because of the position I’m in.
Maybe it’s because they think I’m a woman? Or an Indian? Or a teenager? Or someone who just started in an entry-level position? In all of these cases, it doesn’t matter. It shouldn’t matter! And it would be downright insulting if any of these were true.
(I’m confident I’d embarrass the daylights out of them if they ever found out it was me!)
In addition to the show Undercover Boss, this also reminds me of an article I read once about a CEO who typically conducts job interviews at restaurants, just to see how the job candidate treats the wait staff — which greatly influences their decision to hire them.
It’s a great social experiment, that’s for sure. It’s also going to make me think twice when I’m the customer, on the other side, dealing with a cashier, nurse, order taker, wait person, counterperson, clerk, or whomever is serving me at that time.
Sure, I still expect them to do their jobs. After all, I’m the customer and I’m paying for it.
But they deserve to be treated the same way I expect to be treated…
… With respect.
Going Undercover is Quite Revealing originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.
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.
Declaring My Independence From Smoke
Posted on 05. Jul, 2010 by Michel Fortin in addiction, affiliate, Blog, cigarette, discount, electronic, habit, health, nicotine, Opinions, Small Business Internet Marketing, Small Business Marketing, smoking, steam
After 30 years, yesterday, which was Independence Day, I declared my own independence… from cigarette smoke.
If you’re a non-smoker, this may not be a big issue. But for me, it’s huge. And it’s all because of one ingenious little tool I would have never thought I’d like. Until now.
You see, during those 30 years, I’ve tried everything. From patches to pills. From chewing gums to chewing tobacco. From cold turkey to computer gadgets. From self-hypnosis to acupuncture. Nothing worked. At least, not permanently.
But finally, I found a solution. The reason it works is because it’s not a cessation tool but an alternative to smoking tobacco. And a lot healthier, too. No carcinogens, no carbon monoxide, no tar, no additives. Why? Because it’s not smoke. It’s “green smoke.”
Green Smoke is not even smoke. It’s plain ol’ steam. Yup, vapor.
No combustion. No burning. No fire. Therefore, no smoke.
It’s been two days now, and I feel good. I don’t have any withdrawals, including twitching or sweats. I don’t even feel the urge to smoke. Plus, I can use this alternative to “light up” in non-smoking areas, such as airplanes and restaurants, without breaking any laws.
Green Smoke is an electronic cigarette. Yes, that is my affiliate link, but I wouldn’t recommend it until I tried it myself. I’m a believer now, and I recommend this product.
Now, just to be clear, nicotine is addictive. But nicotine, in itself, is not bad. According to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, nicotine is about as harmful as caffeine.
What’s harmful is the smoke. And smoking.
Smoke carries carbon monoxide, tar, and chemicals. With Green Smoke, there’s no tar buildup in your lungs… no ingesting carcinogens and chemical additives… and most importantly, no fire hazards, such as potentially dropping a lit cigarette.
I also love the fact that I can “smoke” in bars and restaurants. The vapor dissipates almost immediately, so there’s no lingering smell or unpleasant odor. After all, it’s steam. But it feels like a cigarette, and inhaling steam feels like smoking — without the smoke.
Sure, it does feel a little different. But it’s darn close! And it’s certainly not for beginning smokers or kids — just like alchohol is not for kids. This is an alternative solution to committed, long-terms smokers like me who finally want to breathe again.
Health benefits aside, I really like the idea of being able to recharge the electronic cigarettes using their USB plug. I can plug it into the wall or into my computer. Best of all, the cost is about 10-15% of what I used to spend on cigarettes.
The money savings alone is huge!
I highly recommend this product. I bought mine last month and have been using it for several weeks. But it wasn’t until a few days ago I didn’t feel the need to smoke real cigarettes. In fact, I’ve never thought this was possible… until now. And I’m impressed.
Plus, click here to get an extra 10% off your purchase.
Declaring My Independence From Smoke 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.
Get in Touch With The Future
Posted on 07. Apr, 2010 by Michel Fortin in Blog, computer, engaging, john naisbitt, kinesthetic, market, Marshall McLuhan, Megatrends, message, Opinions, prediction, salesletter, Small Business Internet Marketing, Small Business Marketing, statistic, trend, video, Wii
An interesting thing is happening lately, and it’s giving me a lot of fodder. I wanted to share a few opinions with you.
First off, as you know I love predictions and making some of my own. For example, I wrote a controversial white paper several years ago, called “The Death of The Salesletter.”
In it, I predicted that more and more salesletters will become shorter, more dynamic, more targeted, and more engaging. The explosion in video salesletters being one of them.
And that was over three years ago!
Recently, I wrote about another big upcoming trend, and that’s the explosion in cloud computing and how it will change the future of online business. I even blogged about it here in a post entitled “The Future of The Internet is Cloudy.”
For example, I downloaded Xmarks, a nifty online-based bookmark synchronizer that also synchronizes my native bookmarks on IE, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari using the cloud. It even synchronizes passwords and form fills, although I use LastPass for that.
But recently, a new product hit the market that reminded me of something…
We’re seeing a huge change in the way we work with computers. In my white paper, I talked about “multisensorial salesletters” where salesletters will increasingly engage all three modalities of communication (i.e., visual, auditory, and kinesthetic).
For instance, print media is a tactile medium. It’s mostly kinesthetic. The radio is auditory, while the TV, which may be both auditory and visual, is predominantly visual.
The computer, on the other hand, with the help of your keyboard and mouse, are all three. They help engage more senses. They’re visual, auditory, and kinesthetic.
Therefore, it makes perfect sense that sales messages online should be multisensorial. Significant statistics prove that, the more senses you engage, the more sales you will make. Which is why I predicted that video salesletters would explode — as it has.
But one thing struck me.
While we use a mouse and a keyboard, the kinesthetic component is somewhat indirect. These tools enable some tactile interaction, but they are more or less guides. (The Wii video console is a better example of having a bit more direct tactile engagement.)
Now, enter the new iPad.
iPhone and iPad are definitely more direct forms of kinesthetic communication. Sure, touchscreens have been around for years. But Apple helped touchscreens to penetrate the mass-market by making them easy, practical, and of course cool.
When I first heard of the iPad, I thought to myself, “This is the future!” I thought that more and more computers will become like that — direct contact with the message.
(Marshall McLuhan was dead-on, if not pretty darn close.)
iPad is not just a larger iPhone. It’s much, much more than that. Better said, its introduction means a lot more than what most people care to give it credit for. Some people don’t like it. A lot of people say it’s just a bunch of hype. But I say it’s the future.
And now, I see this article in Mashable, which underlines exactly what I thought — in that research shows that all computers will be eventually touchscreen-based.
By the way, as I’m sure you have guessed, I love visionaries, futurists, and predictions. John Naisbitt’s “Megatrends” is one of my favorite books. I often mention “high-tech, high-touch” in my work. Faith Popcorn is another visionary I admire a lot.
Speaking of Marshall McLuhan, other than his most famous quote (i.e., “The medium is the message”) he is mostly known for, here are a few more of his fascinating quotes. Read them, and you’ll see how ahead of his time this guy was.
Anyway, ’tis all food for thought.
The important thing in all of this, is this: how do we mold our businesses, products, and services to fit these upcoming trends? More important, how can we monetize them?
Bottom line, keep your eyes peeled. Just sayin’.
Get in Touch With The Future originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.
The Facebook Fake Friend Fallout
Posted on 24. Mar, 2010 by Michel Fortin in Blog, customer, facebook, fan, follower, friend, helpdesk, Opinions, philosophy, profile, relationship, service, Seth Godin, Small Business Internet Marketing, Small Business Marketing, spam, spammer, tweet, Twitter
He was so incensed, he wrote me a personal message accusing me of being rude and insulting. He even remarked that I’m arrogant, and snarkily added that some of his “friends” seem to feel the same way.
Now, before I give you the reason, I’d like to share with you my philosophy on Facebook friendships in general.
To me, and I think it’s simply common sense, a friend is a friend. It’s someone you know, someone you have a relationship with, someone you want to stay connected with, and someone you consider a real friend — not a fan, follower, or worse yet, a spammer.
And the latter of the three is the one I can’t stand.
But there’s a difference between a “profile” and “page.” Between a “friend” and a “fan.” Those differences are not mine. They are Facebook’s. Their policies are pretty clear.
Personal profiles are not to be used for commercial purposes.
I know. It’s not only listed in their terms, but Facebook have also told me personally.
Befriending someone on Facebook can be just as problematic as following someone on Twitter. Just
“It is unlikely that anyone can actually read tweets from thousands of accounts which makes this activity disingenuous.”
Even Seth Godin calls mass-friending as “fake networking.” This applies to Facebook as much as it does to Twitter — or to any other social media application, for that matter.
I wanted to keep my friends list clean. I could have, like some marketers out there, dumped my profile entirely, or deleted my entire friends list, and started from scratch.
But I didn’t want to do that. Starting from scratch can seem just as disingenuous.
So in order to whittle my list down to the people I really do want to stay friends with, including family members, old school friends, and several marketers I have an actual relationship with, I’ve decided to remove friends based on the following five criteria.
If the people are not known to me (i.e., people I don’t really know, have never met, or haven’t some kind of personal relationship with), I remove the following:
Above all, I’m not on Facebook to provide customer support or free advice, or to do any networking. (Sure, I do network. But it’s not my primary focus.) So I also remove friends who send me a direct message in some obvious attempt to extract free advice from me.
Yes, I’m very selective with who I hang around with. But I don’t spend endless hours scouring my friend list searching for anyone who meets any of the above criteria. I only apply it to friends who happen to spam me and to those who try to add me as a friend.
Incidentally, when adding friends I prefer and particularly approve those who add a small message with their friend request. They’re making an effort in introducing themselves to me, and in sharing some commonality or reason why we should be friends.
Bottom line, I’m very protective of my time, my reputation, and my integrity.
Back to the “friend” who rebuked me for unfriending him. He added me as a friend, and spammed me with a request of some kind literally the next day. Now, spamming me is one thing. But spamming me within hours of adding me as a friend is another.
When people do this, it makes their friend request suspect.
Not only do I de-friend people who spam me, but I hesitate even less when the request comes in shortly after adding me as a friend. Facebook is filled with people who add “friends” for the sole purpose of pushing their offers, businesses, or opportunities.
(Sorry, but I’m not interested in your “opportunity.”)
I replied to this fellow and expressed that he should have given me a chance to explain before jumping the gun. His reply was just as perplexing when he counter-accused me of jumping to conclusions by unfriending him so quickly. (Uh, merry-go-round, anyone?)
With this situation, Seth Godin’s “permission marketing” comes to mind. Specifically, don’t ask me to marry you when we’re still on the first date. Get to know me first.
Nevertheless, I don’t have time to vet each friend request, much less every friend on my list. So following this “whittling” process seems to work for me.
It’s the lesser of two evils — removing undesirables one by one is a lot less daunting than deleting my entire friends list and starting over from scratch. Plus, in the end by cleaning out my friends list allows me to stay in touch with only the people I want.
If not adding everyone who asks as a friend, if being selective when choosing my friends, and if unfriending undesirables make me arrogant, then I guess I am.
Come to think of it, this argument is very reminiscent of the whole “auto-follow fiasco” on Twitter
Not following you back (or in this case, not befriending you) doesn’t make me rude, arrogant, or discourteous. This is a blatant myth propagated by some social media gurus who are using peer pressure to justify their attempt to grow their own lists.
Ditto with people befriending others in an attempt to usurp free advice or support. I do offer support. I have staff and a helpdesk for that purpose. And I do try to help whenever I can. But there’s a difference between customer service and customer support.
So if you want to become my friend, I only ask three simple things.
Ultimately, ask yourself, and be honest: would you treat a Facebook friend the same way you’d treat a real friend in the real world? If so, and if you want friends only to promote yourself, then your Facebook profile is not the place. There are better places for that.
They’re called tradeshows.
The Real Problem With The Flaw of Attraction
Posted on 19. Feb, 2010 by Michel Fortin in abuse, action, Blog, drug, guru, health, law-of-attraction, metaphysical, Motivation, Opinions, responsibility, secret, selling, Small Business Internet Marketing, Small Business Marketing, wealth
Last night while watching TV, my wife and I had an interesting debate on the whole “The Secret” phenomena. And we came to the very same conclusions.
I believe in the law of attraction. I also like the premise behind the book, which is largely influenced by Wally Wattles’ 1910 book, The Science of Getting Rich.
But with all the “new-wage” gurus out there giving it a bad rap, the law of attraction is getting an undeserved reputation. Some people even call it the “flaw of attraction.” However, the real flaw isn’t with the secret in itself, as some suggested.
It’s with how some people have bastardized it for their own selfish greed.
Here’s the problem…
Your chances of getting what you want is higher when you’re focused on it. Absolutely. And it’s not just some metaphysical, woo-woo thing. Quantum physics aside, which is something else I also believe in, let’s take a more practical look at the law.
You become what you think about. It’s true. But the twist is, you already are what you thought about all your life. So how can some book magically switch your state when your mindset is still on that which made you who you are in the first place?
A mindset that took years to acquire?
Simply, if you think you’re a loser, then chances are you’re a loser. If you truly believe you deserve wealth, then you’ll get wealth if you’re not already wealthy. But it isn’t as automatic as so many of the new-wage gurus want you to believe.
And there lies the rub. And it ain’t some genie lamp, either.
When you focus on something hard enough and long enough, you will eventually change your belief system. And once your belief system has changed, then your consciousness will open itself to notice all the possibilities and opportunities related to it.
Doors that previously seemed closed will open for you. Were they really closed before? No. You were simply oblivious to them. Now, they just jump out at you. As if by miracle.
But it’s no miracle.
Has this ever happened to you? You buy a brand-new car, and you think to yourself that not a lot of people have that same car, much less in that same paint color.
So you buy it, and wouldn’t you know it? As you drive it home, you start to notice that exact same car all over the place. Everybody seems to own one, now. In the same color, too! As if it was some conspiracy to follow you around and copy you.
Funny, isn’t?
That’s the real secret behind the law of attraction.
Here’s the problem with the way this law has been abused of late. People who are vulnerable, gullible, and desperate are seeking a magic pill. A quick-fix solution.
So their mindset is now focused on getting help. They are thinking about getting rid of their financial pains. Once they see a course, program, training, or seminar that purports to teach them on how to cure their money ills, they jump on it like bees to honey.
(Or better said, like flies to excrement.)
Greedy new-wage gurus know this all too well. So they package their rehashed, embellished version of the secret, overprice it, and sell it to the unsuspecting masses.
And guess what? Most of the people who will buy it are those very people who don’t need it. These naive hopefuls will spend the remaining cash in their bank accounts just for some magic pill — and the gurus walk away with their money.
Sure, sell a book or course on how to use the secret. It’s your take on the law. Like an opinion piece of commentary. In it, you perhaps even share some of your observations on how well it’s worked in your own life and those of others around you. No problem.
But when people buy it, they are — better said, they should be — buying it for the educational or entertainment value, just like someone’s book of theories on TV’s Lost.
But don’t promise that this book is the panacea they were looking for, especially when they’re in a vulnerable state. That’s misleading, unethical, nonsensical bullshit.
The best line I’ve heard on the secret came from another movie called “What the Bleep?” I liked the movie because it explained the secret in less philosophical but more scientific terms — such as neuroscience, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, etc.
(Although, some of the people on the show were a little too “out there” for my taste.)
The line came from an interview with a University professor, who said that you can’t overcome years upon years of negativity with just a thin veneer of positive thinking shoved on top of it. You still have this huge underbelly of negativity that’s still there.
It’s the same as weight loss. You can’t lose overnight what often took years to gain. In the same way, you can’t change your thinking overnight, because it took years to build and condition, be it through experience, education, expectations, etc. Even genetics.
Focus on the positive, yes. But you must take action. And that’s the point. People expect the secret to be a magic pill. And they take no action believing the secret will magically save them. They look at the law of attraction as a cure rather than as a tool.
Those types of people are scary, if you ask me. Because the moment something good happens to them, which might have happened anyway either by pure happenstance or as the result of their hard work, they will have a tendency to blame it on the secret.
When the secret had nothing to do with it.
There’s nothing much you can do about these folk, unfortunately. But there’s a second, more sinister category of people who are “attracted” to the law of attraction.
To take action, you need to want to do it. You need motivation. Or desperation, in some cases. Sure, the secret can help you find the motivation you need to take action. It can inspire you. But it’s not and should never be a substitute for action.
Motivation can take time, too. Sometimes, years or even decades.
But the problem is that it’s not sold as a motivational tool. It’s sold as a solution.
And the people who sell the secret as such are the worse of the bunch, in my opinion. Those greedy vultures are masters in the art of repackaging material in a way that caters to a specific market in need of the package — and not the thing being packaged.
Why do you think credit repair products, particularly credit repair scams, are so rampant, especially during tough economic times? Because there’s a market for it!
The secret is just the same. The reason so many people are buying it is because there’s a market for what it promises — not for its educational or motivational value.
First, you shouldn’t be in a position where you would need credit repair if you had the right mindset to begin with and took action on it earlier. It’s about planning, taking responsibility, and most of all, taking action. Before it’s too late.
Of course, accidents happen. Stuff happens over which you have no control. So I’m not talking about people who have no control over their financial dilemmas. I’m talking about those who didn’t take control over their finances before their finances went out of it.
In short, the secret would have been best used before you decided on doing the things that had negative consequences. Consequences that would have put you in a situation where you would need any solution, much less a secret one.
The secret is not remedial. It may be palliative, at best.
Sure, it may be used as a remedial tool. It can motivate you into taking action to remedy your situation, just as you took action that put you in the bad spot you’re in now.
But it is best used as a preventative tool, particularly when you took actions with negative consequences. Or better said, when you had the wrong mindset that led you to making the wrong decisions and taking the wrong actions in the first place.
Or at the very least, the secret can help change your mindset to avoid the negative things that, if unchanged, may keep you in constant need to seek out quick-fix solutions.
Self-help is exactly what it means. The law of attraction can help you to help yourself. But too many people buy into it thinking it’s going to save them. So they fail to take action.
For example, why is it that books on how to make money are more popular than those on how to save it? Because saving money is a sacrifice. It’s work! You need to take action.
But trying to sell a preventative to vulnerable people who are desperately hurting — such as people who are suffering from terminal illnesses or facing bankruptcies — is like trying to sell them a course on how to save money when there is none to save.
Using the weightloss example, you can learn how to change the way you think about food to stop gaining weight, instead of buying a book on how to lose it when it’s too late.
The law of attraction can help steer you in the right direction, and motivate you to make the right decisions and take the right actions, that will prevent you from going to a place where you would need to lose the weight you shouldn’t have gained, anyhow.
(By the way, my apologies to those who are battling weight problems. My intent is not to denigrate people in tough situations but to focus on those who take advantage of them.)
My wife said it best on her breast cancer blog. She said that she wouldn’t focus on battling her breast cancer because it would be very difficult to “fight darkness.”
I mean, how do you conquer darkness?
Do you stab it? Do you pull out your gun and try to shoot it? Do you meditate, pray, and positively think that it will simply go away through some miracle? Of course not.
Really, the only way to fight the darkness is to turn on the light.
You must take action. Do you need a self-help book for that? Maybe, if the self-help book shows you where the lightswitch is, or how to build a lightsource, or how to make money to buy a flashlight, or cheers you up as you patiently wait for the sun to come up.
So is there really a “flaw of attraction?” Not with the law itself. The real flaw is in the way it’s unscrupulously pushed onto innocent souls who don’t know any better.
It’s like pushing drugs onto addicts.
Some of these new-wage gurus are no different than drug dealers, in my opinion.
The issue I have is with those who prey on vulnerable people by selling a preventative as a cure — and worse yet, to mislead them into thinking a preventative is the cure — and to give them false hope only to line their own pockets. Drug pushers, indeed.
Self-help is self-help. You actually need to help yourself to make any “self-help” work.
But to help yourself, you need to act. Because if you buy a book on self-help thinking it will save you miraculously, you might as well leave the book on the shelf-help.
The Real Problem With The Flaw of Attraction originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.
Connect With Us Here:
