John Bejakovic

Humans are not savages, but they can be made so on demand

by

Yesterday, I read a fantastic yet true story, a kind of real-life Lord of the Flies. Except the outcome was very different from the book:

As you might know, Lord of the Flies is a story about a bunch of boys who get shipwrecked on an island.

Pretty soon, they become mean, thuggish, and destructive. Some of the boys are killed by the others. Half the island is burned down.

What can you do? People are savages, and kids even more so. Except maybe not:

The real-life version of this story involves six boys from the island kingdom of Tonga.

They were bored stiff at their English boarding school.

So they decided to steal a local fisherman’s boat and sail away to adventure, and maybe even make it to New Zealand.

They didn’t make it.

After months of search, the boys were declared dead back home. Funerals were held for them.

And then, 15 months later, they were discovered by an Australian adventurer fishing in the waters around an uninhabited island named ‘Ata. The boys had shiprecked there and survived, alone all that time.

And here’s the real-life twist:

All six boys were happy, healthy, and harmonious.

They had survived by eating fish and coconuts and drinking rainwater collected in hollowed-out tree trunks.

They had broken up their chores, such as gardening, cooking, and guard duty, and they took turns doing them.

They built a gym and a badminton court, and they played a makeshift guitar made out of the wreckage of the boat.

When one of the boys fell down a ravine and broke his leg, the others climbed down after him, brought him back up, then set his leg using sticks and leaves. He recovered while the other boys took turns doing his chores.

So is this really the true nature of human beings?

​​And if so, why does your typical junior high school look nothing like it?

​​Why does Lord of the Flies resonate with us instead?

The answer comes from another real-life variant of the Lord of the Flies theme. A bunch of people stranded on an uninhabited island… with a TV crew and a prize to be won.

I’m talking about the TV show Survivor. I’ve never watched it, but I know the basic setup:

Direct competition for something scarce.

It’s all you need to turn people into savages. A finding that’s been repeated in different settings, not just on reality TV.

So let me leave off today by saying I can see two options:

One is to disconnect as much as possible from the doctrine of healthy competition. This might require moving to a deserted island, or at least turning off the TV.

The other option is not to disconnect from anything, but to profit from it. Because creating scarcity, even when there is none, and encouraging competition, or at least reminding people of it, is a great means of control.

Marinate on that for a bit. And if you want more real-life stories on the topic of profit and control, you might like my email newsletter. But better be quick, because spots are limited and others are taking them as you read this. Click here to sign up.

Superior solution, inferior marketing results?

by

Direct marketing is counterintuitive. For me even the basics don’t come easy, so I have to use all kinds of metaphors to trick myself and avoid making stupid mistakes.

Otherwise, I end writing copy that seems perfect to me — but that makes as much of a splash as a feather floating down a well.

So here’s one metaphor that helps me and might help you, too. Let me illustrate it with a scene from this morning:

The apartment I’ve been staying in for the past few days is cold. This morning, I got cold while working there for an hour. Then I went out for a walk.

My body was tense and alert and guarded. Cold.

Outside, the sun was shining. And whenever I walked into a patch of sunlight somewhere, my body relaxed and my scowl changed into something like a smile. Warm.

But then I’d step back into the cold shadow next to a building or a bunch of trees. Each time, my body tensed up again and the scowl came back.

And so on. Over and over. Warm sunlight leading to a moment of openness and hope. Cold shadow again, making me closed and guarded.

My point is:

This is the same thing that’s going on with your prospects right now.

And if your marketing or copy is not getting all the results it’s capable of, it’s because you’re taking the focus off your prospects and their problems.

It’s a mistake that’s easy to make.

You try to get people to believe your message. You try to show them how you’re better and how you’re an expert and how you deliver results. How your solution is superior and solves the problems they have.

But people can’t hear you.

Because they’re shivering in the shadow, looking for a bit of warmth. The problem is you’re shifting the focus off them too soon, and onto some external thing.

People say they want a solution to their problem, but they really don’t. Not for a long, long time.

What they want is to be understood, to be validated, and to get an understanding themselves of why they’re in this mess to begin with.

That’s the warm sunshine that gets people’s body temperature up.

So keep the focus on them.

And only when they get so sweaty and uncomfortable that they can’t take any more hot sunlight… do you provide the cool shadow of a leafy tree and say, “Here, here’s what you need. And can I interest you in an ice-cold lemonade as well?”

Well, can I?

Because if you want more ideas on how to improve your marketing results, I write a daily email newsletter on that topic. You can sign up for it here.

Where to go when a negotiation hits no

by

Do you dread having to negotiate?

Is it worse than having to take a cold shower in the middle of January in a bathroom without heating?

If so, maybe the following news item will help:

Women’s tennis world no. 2 Naomi Osaka just shocked the world by withdrawing from the French Open. As you might know, the French Open is one of the four Grand Slams, the biggest tennis tournaments of the year.

It all started a week ago, a few days before the French Open began.

That’s when Osaka wrote a post on Instagram, saying she won’t do press appearances during the tournament. Talking to the press is harmful to her mental health, Osaka said, and it feels like kicking a person when they’re down.

This created a lot of buzz in the tennis world.

A few days later, the French Tennis Federation, along with the other organizing bodies of the Grand Slam tournaments, put out a statement.

They offered support to Osaka, but also said she would be fined each time she failed to talk with the press. The fines would escalate. Eventually, Osaka could be disqualified from the tournament, and even banned from participating in future Grand Slams.

That’s when Naomi Osaka decided to withdraw.

​​She wrote to the tournament organizers for not explaining her position in a better way. And she said she wants to work together in finding a solution. But for now, she is taking time off the court.

To which the French Tennis Federation made its own statement. They said they were sad and sorry at Osaka’s decision, and they want to work with athletes to ensure their well-being. They wish Osaka all the best, and they look forward to seeing her next year.

I don’t know what the outcome of this will be. I just want to point out that everything in life, at least anything that has to do with another person, is a negotiation.

And like negotiation coach Jim Camp used to say, negotiation starts with no.

This is not a matter of hard-line posturing, or telling people to take it or leave it, or walking away.

But real negotiation starts with no. And it doesn’t end with yes.

When I first heard Jim Camp say this, it sounded bizarre or intentionally contrarian. But when you look at negotiations in the real world, like the Naomi Osaka situation above, it becomes obvious Camp is right.

Naomi said no.

Then the tournament organizers came back and said no in their own terms.

Then Naomi came back, and said no in a different way.

And all throughout, the two parties are still engaged, are still talking, and are still working together to reach an agreement.

The question then is how to best manage that process.

What do you do when the other side says no… and you say no… and yet you both have an interest in working together in some way?

The best guide I know for that is Camp’s book, of course titled Start With No.

​​It lays out a system for negotiation, so you can get to an outcome you want, while minimizing that “cold bathroom” feel.

Plus if you write sales copy, this book might have the knock-on effect at making you more persuasive. (A couple of million-dollar marketers say this book is their favorite copywriting book, even though it never mentions the topic.)

Fair warning:

Camp’s book is dense and it might take multiple reads to grasp. But in case you’re curious, here’s the link for more info:

https://bejakovic.com/start-with-no

Dan Kennedy and a Lamborghini inside this post I’ve just written

by

Dan Kennedy stood up in front of a packed room of marketers and said,

“Let me tell you how cheap Fred Catona is.”

Dan was supposed to be giving a dutiful introduction for billion-dollar direct marketer Fred Catona. But somewhere it all went wrong.

“He gives me this ridiculous introduction to read for him,” Dan said while holding multiple sheets of paper, “and he only puts a 20 in it.” And from among the papers, Dan pulled out a $20 bill to prove his point.

Turns out this was a joke. Dan and Fred were close friends.

But it is instructive, right? Because it’s such a pattern interrupt from the way introductions are usually done:

“We’re very pleased to have Mr. XY with us tonight. Mr XY went to such-and-such elite university…”

“… he is a close friend and confidant of celebrity Z and power-broker H…”

“… he has worked with billion-dollar clients such as A and B and C.”

And then humble Mr. XY, with his killer resume revealed, comes out on stage, blushing and yet pleased. He takes the mic and says, “Wow, thank you for that wonderful introduction…”

My point is this:

Association is the most powerful mechanisms of the human mind, that I know of at least.

You put two things together. Just once, and not even for very long. And the human brain starts to make connections between them. Properties of one seep into the other. Causal links form. A halo appears.

So that’s why, if you went to Harvard… if you hung out with Tony Robbins once… if you ever had a Lamborghini in your garage, whether owned or rented… well, you should highlight those things to people you just met, or who just found you online.

Or even better, have somebody else highlight it, so you don’t have to do it. It will make you seem both powerful and humble. Well, unless you get somebody like Dan Kennedy to read out your list of accomplishments.

And what if you have no accomplishments?

Then find cool, impressive, or elite people… institutions… or ideas to associate yourself with. It can be the flimsiest of associations, and it will still help your standing.

That’s my simple tip for you for today.

A more complex tip, for another day, is to be careful.

​​Because association is not the only mechanism in the human brain. And if people start to associate you as that guy who always shows off his Lamborghini, well, that can lead to new challenges of its own. But more about that another time.

If you want to read that other time:

You might like to know that several Agora copywriters, famous Internet marketing gurus, and 8-figure entrepreneurs read my daily email newsletter. You can sign up for it here.

Stop daydreaming for once and read this

by

Listen up you dreamer:

One day back in 1999, after Gordon Ramsay opened his first restaurant, he got a tableful of famous visitors.

There was Joan Collins of Dynasty fame. Then model Nicola Formby. And finally A.A. Gill, the food critic for The Sunday Times.

But Gill had earlier written a nasty review of Ramsay’s restaurant.

So Ramsay left his kitchen, walked over to the table, and kicked the whole group out.

Speaking later, an emotional A.A. Gill said:

“He seems to be a classic bully. Somebody who will overreact to people beneath him. And then feel terribly aggrieved when somebody he doesn’t have innate power over criticizes him.”

Sounds about right, yeah?

Ramsay is famous for his outbursts. (“Will he be able to control it?” asks the breathless TV teaser.)

He yells. He insults. He curses.

“Yes, Gordon,” his humbled staff reply, eyes on the floor.

​​And that’s my takeaway for you today.

A while ago, I made a brain dump of ideas on the topic of “natural authority.” What do people who have inborn charisma seem to share?

One of the things on my list was that they target the weak. You know. The poor, the friendless, the tax collectors and sinners.

Because as powerful as natural authority is, it won’t work reliably on a healthy, stable person without any gaping emotional wounds.

But the insight I learned recently, through Mike Mandel and Chris Thompson, is that people with natural authority can create emotional wounds. On demand.

One way is just what Gordon Ramsay does. Insults, humiliation, browbeating. Not all the time. But enough that there’s always a risk of it.

And here’s my addition to this theory:

I believe that a “temper,” as TV calls it, is not only a means to natural authority. It’s also a signal of it.

In other words, you don’t have to get personally insulted by a would-be leader in order for his authority to rise in your eyes. It’s enough to see it happen to somebody else. For example, to an emotional food critic, getting kicked out, while a restaurant full of people watches.

That’s why as a society, we love people like Ramsay. Sure, it’s both horrifying and entertaining to watch others getting cowed and humiliated. But it also feeds our need to look to a charismatic leader.

And by the way:
​​
You can see the same in various corners of the online guru and influencer world.

​​Now that you know this, you can choose to use it yourself — or at least be aware of what’s happening in your own head, when you witness others using it.

One last thing:

Sign up to my email list.

What are you standing there and looking for? You dreamer. Click the link already and sign up.

Why I unthinkingly watched a 2-hour documentary, and how you can use this to sell more without selling

by

“‘Violets always mean man,’ said one girl to another in a Broadway florist’s recently. ‘If a girl wears violets once, it may be accident; twice coincidence; after that it means a man.'”
— New York Sun, May 7, 1905

It might mean “man” even at just two violets. For example:

Last night, I went on YouTube. On the front page, I saw a thumbnail for a 2-hour-long documentary about Gordon Ramsay. I clicked to watch it immediately.

Trust me, there’s a reason why you might care about this. And it’s because of the big question:

Why?

After all, I’ve never seen Gordon Ramsay’s TV show. I have no emotional attachment to the man or his public persona. And I don’t care about celebrity chefs or celebrity cooking.

So why did I unthinkingly click and watch this 2-hour documentary?

The reason is a podcast I’d listened to the day earlier. It was all about how Gordon Ramsay’s TV show is a great illustration of control techniques.

If you’re curious about those control techniques, I will tell you my big takeaway about them tomorrow.

My point for today is simply this:

Two seemingly independent sources can often get compliance where one source can’t, regardless of the amount of persuasive arguments.

I bet that last sentence is as clear as a marble wall. So let me give you an illustration of what I’m trying to say:

A couple of years ago, I found out about a new email newsletter. It was called Daily Insider Secrets, and it was about Internet marketing.

I signed up. And that’s how I first heard the name Rich Schefren. Rich was one of the guys behind the newsletter.

I kept reading the emails. I found them interesting. And then came the pitch:

A big campaign, trying to sell me something, using a multi-day launch, hours of video, thousands of words of copy. Many, many persuasive arguments, which I didn’t even look at. (Silly me right? It’s kind of my job. But I’m slow to learn.)

Anyways, here’s the climax:

A few months later, a copywriter whose emails I read did an interview with Rich Schefren. And I decided to watch the interview, because I already knew Rich’s name from the Daily Insider Secrets emails, which I found interesting.

Forty minutes later, after I finished watching the interview, I was pulling out my credit card to buy Rich’s offer. The same one I had completely ignored earlier. Even though Rich only mentioned it in passing during the interview.

Coincidence? I’d say “man”.

Because Rich doesn’t just do these interviews for kicks or as a way to kill time. He does them to get his name out there, in multiple formats and multiple channels. And that’s my point for you today:

If you’re trying to sell something, get your name out there, in two channels, or three, or more.

You will reach more prospects, sure. But you will also convert prospects you’ve already reached, but who wouldn’t buy from you otherwise. And you won’t even have to sell hard to do it.

Because your prospects will just think it was all just a happy coincidence. You and I will know the truth, though. We will know it was man.

Now here’s something that’s probably not going to work:

I have an email newsletter. You can sign up for it by clicking here. I don’t expect you to do it, because odds are, this is the first and only channel you’ve seen my name so far. But maybe I will get you later, in some other format.

“Self-describing copy”

by

Copywriting is the easiest thing in the world to write about, if you do this:

Pick an idea that’s new and interesting to you. And then write an email, or a blog, or a newsletter, not just talking about that idea, but demonstrating it in action.

After all, a demo is the best kind of proof, and it’s also one of the 12 sticky messages.

But why am I not taking my own advice? Why am I telling you about this, instead of showing you? Silly me. Here, take a look:

“Coke and hookers”: Meghan Markle NYT story proves evergreen copywriting truth

This was the subject line I used in an post about the power of intriguing, dramatic headlines to drive readership. And based on open rates, it sure worked.

Here’s a second example. This is how I wrapped up a recent post about using cold reading to get people to buy into your system:

Finally, here’s a prediction:

You pride yourself on being an independent thinker. That’s why you don’t accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof.

Was I right? If yes, and you want to know the system I used to figure that out about you, then simply write me an email, and I’ll share all my secrets with you.

A bunch of people responded to that. They wanted to know what the secret is. Well, it was right there, in the post — but telling doesn’t work nearly as well as showing to make a point.

So this demonstration stuff is really great, both for your reader and for you.

But you know what’s even better?

It’s when you demonstrate a copywriting technique in action, but you don’t actually spell out what that is. You tease it a bit, you get the reader antsy because it’s sitting right there in front of his face, but he’s not 100% he’s got it. For example, take a look at the following:

I want to leave you with a couple of choices. Of course, you are perfectly free to ignore both and to take no action.

This was part of a post I wrote about an under-the-radar persuasion technique I had found myself getting manipulated by.

In the post, I spelled that technique out. Right now, in the interest of good demonstration, I won’t spell it out again here.

It’s not hard to figure out, but there are some subtleties to it. Anyways, I’m sure you’ve already got it. But in case you want to double-check, here’s the link to the post in question:

https://bejakovic.com/influence-2-0

Watching the birth of a new belief

by

My point today is not to stir up outrage. That’s because I myself don’t like outrage, even though it’s good for business.

But I find the following flip-flop story fascinating. It shows how a new belief is born, although at a mass mind level. And I think this can help you when you write copy.

So here goes, from today’s Axios World newsletter:

“President Biden ordered the U.S. intelligence community on Wednesday to ‘redouble their efforts’ to determine whether COVID-19 first emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan or through animal-to-human transmission.”

Redouble their efforts, huh?

That’s surprising. Because as you might remember, a year ago, there was exactly zero chance coronavirus came from a lab. Why exactly zero chance? Because scientists agreed. A few headlines from February and March 2020:

Financial Times: “Coronavirus was not genetically engineered in a Wuhan lab, says expert”

USA Today: “Fact check: Coronavirus not man-made or engineered but its origin remains unclear”

Science: “Scientists ‘strongly condemn’ rumors and conspiracy theories about origin of coronavirus outbreak”

Ok, on to human psychology. Here are a few things I believe to be true:

1. Individual human beliefs are driven by deep needs we are mostly not aware of

2. Beliefs are a mental shortcut for a complex underlying situation that we can’t keep in our heads

3. At the surface level, beliefs are summarized and justified by logical sound bites

Phew, that was boring, right? Because all that stuff I just told you is really abstract. You can’t really “see” it.

Our brains aren’t good at seeing how brains themselves work.

Fortunately, we can look at the mass mind.

It’s not a perfect proxy for individual human brains. But it can still be useful. Plus it’s so big and so slow-moving, allowing us more insight.

And that’s why I’m telling you about this corona story.

A year ago, there were certain underlying needs in the world. I’m not sure what they were, but they demanded the belief that corona is not lab-made. As a result, facts were found to support this belief, and only sound bites like the above headlines bubbled up to the surface. A belief was born.

Today, it sure sounds like the underlying needs have changed. And now the mass mind wants to believe, for whatever reason, in the lab-made origin, or at least its strong possibility.

So we are redoubling efforts to find facts to support this belief. And since the world is very complex, we’re sure to be successful. In fact, just now, I came across the following article by Matt Yglesias:

“The media’s lab leak fiasco: A huge fuckup, with perhaps not-so-huge policy stakes”

So that’s why I’m saying this can help you with copywriting. Because when you write copy, your real work is playing with those deep-down, hidden needs. You can give people logical sound bites, and it might help your case, but only when the right underlying conditions are there.

And maybe this corona origin story can make that real for you, can allow you to see it, so you can truly believe it.

That said, if you are interested in the strange politics of corona origins, here’s the article that put this whole topic on my radar. In case this beliefs-in-the-mass-mind stuff turns you on, take a look:

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

The end of Stansberry?

by

Last week, a reader of my email newsletter who works for an Agora affiliate clued me into the following fact:

Stansberry Research is going public.

Stansberry, as you probably know, is one of the biggest imprints that came out of Agora. They had the End of America promo. This was one of the two or three biggest direct response campaigns of all time, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars through a single VSL.

When I heard that Stansberry is going public, my first thought was to David Bowie.

Back in 1997, Bowie released 10-year bonds backed by the future royalties of his album sales.

​​Bowie bonds put $55 million into David Bowie’s pocket, and were given a respectable A3 rating.

​​But within a couple of years, digital file sharing caused the whole music album market to implode. Bowie bonds were downgraded to Baa3, one notch above junk bond status.

Maybe David Bowie, with his artist’s intuition, sensed it coming, and made a smart cash grab just in time?

And maybe Porter Stansberry, using his entrepreneur’s intuition, senses something similar in the current moment?

The Agora copywriter who told me about this assured me I’m imagining things. “It’s probably Stansberry himself wants to be a billionaire. He must be pretty close now.”

A Barrons article that reported on this quoted the CEO of the company that’s taking Stansberry public through a merger. That guy’s reasoning:

“We were looking for a company in the attention economy with scalable, digitally delivered IP. As people say, ‘content is king.’ But it’s rare that you find a company that’s as prolific at creating new IP… They’re like the Netflix of financial content.”

So rather than this being a Bowie moment, maybe it’s a Netflix moment?

​​A moment in which a somewhat limited, niche company uses its own existing assets and a bunch of cash to become a mainstream powerhouse?

Or maybe it’s a sign of things to come — Stansberry & chill?

Maybe. I’m not convinced. But I am curious. So if like me, you dip your toes in the direct response pond, it might be worth keeping an eye on the the ripples from this isolated pebble drop.

Or do you want me to keep an eye out for you? If so, then sign up for my email newsletter, because that’s where all my writing shows up first.

How to get booked solid with paying clients without prospecting any harder or dropping your prices

by

Today I have a copywriting tip for you, not a lead-gen tip. But if you are looking for a way to get more client work, then here’s an idea from a recent Ben Settle email:

If you want clients who love and rave about you, be punctual.

It truly separates the men from the boys.

It also will make what I teach in my “Email Client Horde” book that’s on sale today a lot more powerful — potentially ramping up the respect and gratitude clients have for you, wanting to keep you, and not wanting to hire anyone else.

I’ve seen (and experienced) it many times.

I suspect you can, too.

Ben’s email had the subject line, “A secret way of using an ordinary pocket watch to get booked solid with paying clients.”

It’s a standard bullet writing technique. You zoom in on the solution. And then you zoom in some more. So far in, that the reader starts to wonder, “A pocket watch? Why specifically a pocket watch? Gotta find out.”

The best copywriters out there, from Gary Bencivenga to Parris Lampropoulos and David Deutsch, all use this technique regularly. But there’s a problem:

You can’t use it all the time. Your readers get wise, and get burned out. “Oh, it’s the teaspoon trick.” “Not the air conditioner secret again.” “There he goes, trying to get me to read by zooming in on a hairbrush.”

So what can you do?

There’s a second clever thing A-list copywriters do in situations like this. It’s probably obvious because you can find it in the subject line of this very email.

But if it’s not fully obvious, or you want a few examples of how A-list copywriters use this trick to create bullets that seem to be truly impossible, then you can find that in lesson 8 of my bullets course.

​​Which you can’t join just yet… but which will be available soon. If you want to make sure you get in while it is available, sign up for my email newsletter, because that’s where I will first announce it.