John Bejakovic

Get yer own Falkor

by

One of my favorite books as a kid, and even now, is The Neverending Story.

If you’ve seen the Hollywood movie that was made from the book, you might know there’s a boy in there named Atreyu.

Atreyu lives in the great land of Fantastica, and he has to go on a quest all around the borders of this immense kingdom.

How’s a little boy gonna be able to cover these vast distances?

No problem. Atreyu hitches a ride on the back of Falkor, a benevolent, furry, white “luckdragon” who happens to fly at great speeds.

Now I think this is a good image to keep in mind in your own life as well.

Because as much as I like The Neverending Story, these days I like another book even better.

It’s called Positioning, and it’s written by Al Ries and Jack Trout.

Positioning is all about how to market products, and how to find a mental slot for them in your customer’s mind.

But one part of the book also talks about positioning yourself, and achieving personal success. And it’s here that Ries and Trout make a throwaway comment that I found very meaningful:

“The truth is the road to fame and fortune is rarely found within yourself. The only sure way to success is to find yourself a horse to ride. It may be difficult for the ego to accept, but success in life is based more on what others can do for you than on what you can do for yourself.”

Like I said, I found this very significant.

Maybe because my tendency is to try to always do everything by myself. It’s very natural to me. But it’s also very slow and ineffective.

So if you too have similar tendencies, then maybe you’ll get some value out of the Ries and Trout quote above.

And maybe you’ll consider finding yourself a horse to ride. Or even your own Falkor.

An inconvenient truth and goals

by

In a slap to avocado-munching environmentalists worldwide, a new study published in Nature reports an inconvenient truth:

Organic farming is worse for the environment.

Yes, organic practices reduce climate pollution caused directly by farming.

But they also reduce crop yields.

Which means more land has to be used to feed all the hungry mouths out there… which means more forests have to be cleared… which releases more carbon into the atmosphere… which is bad, bad news for those cliff-climbing walruses in the Arctic.

So will Greta Thunberg and her ilk finally start lobbying for heavier pesticide use?

Will they up their ingestion of GMOs to fight climate change?

Just my guess… but I think it’s unlikely.

I’m sure Greta will find a way to save the world, and all the people in it…

While still being strict and saintly about the food she puts into her own body.

In other words, she will continue to move toward her goal, while still staying true to her basic principles.

If that’s what she does, then good on ‘er.

I mean, I’m personally very callous about climate change. And I prefer my food as inorganic as can be. So it’s not like I’m personally invested in the outcome of resolving climate change while keeping our veggies and fruits “crunchy.”

I just feel that the basic recipe — keep moving forward, adjust when you realize you’re slightly off course — is the core of success in any field.

And you don’t have to take my word for it. Maxwell Maltz, who wrote the super influential self-help tome Psycho-Cybernetics, preached something similar:

“Your brain and nervous system constitute a goal-striving mechanism that operates automatically to achieve a certain goal, very much as a self-aiming torpedo or missile seeks out its target and steers its way to it. […] The torpedo accomplishes its goal by going forward, making errors, and continually correcting them. By a series of zigzags, it literally ‘gropes’ its way to the goal.”

Conclusion?

1. Have a clearly defined goal
2. Grope towards it
3. Allow your brain to correct course as needed

Simple? ​​Yes.
​
​But also your best bet for eventually getting to where you want to go — even if that goal is uncertain, complex, and has never been achieved before.

An alternative to royalties

by

A few days ago, I got an email from a potential new client.

He’s a fitness trainer with 1) an impressively muscular body, 2) a couple of brick-and-mortar gyms somewhere in the UK, and 3) a pretty healthy online following, totaling around 50k people across various platforms.

Good stuff. But not nearly as impressive as one specific bit of this guy’s background:

He has consulted several A-list Hollywood stars, and helped them get in big-screen shape for superhero and action movies.

Hmmm…

Anyways, this fitness trainer has an online sales funnel he wants to improve. It runs like this:

Facebook ads -> free lead magnet -> thank you page with $17 ebook offer.

The trouble is, the thank you page isn’t really pulling its weight.

It only gets a 1% conversion rate.

And when I took a look at it, I could see a few reasons why.

So I gave the guy some simple suggestions — do better “above the fold,” highlight the sexy Hollywood stuff instead of burying it, rename the actual offer, etc.

The fitness trainer liked the ideas. And he wanted to know…

How much would I charge to write this up?

Well, I’ve lately been moving away from flat-fee deals.

For copywriting, that usually means asking for a royalty — a percentage of the revenues generated by the copy.

But in this case, I had a feeling the guy wouldn’t be open to a royalty structure. Maybe I had good reasons… or maybe I just chickened out. But the upshot was I made him two offers:

1. A flat fee of $x, which would make it worthwhile for me to work on this project

2. A flat fee (50% of $x) plus a bonus (another 50% of $x) for each 1% bump in conversions I could provide

Option 1 is safer for me and less attractive for the client. The client would rather have Option 2 (so he told me), particularly since the bonus he would be paying me would be “free.” It would be less than the increase in revenues he gets each day he runs traffic to this funnel.

On the other hand, this Option 2 is more risky for me. If I fail to produce, I get paid less.

But the upside is also greater — if I manage to get more than 1% increase in conversions (and I think I can), then I also get paid more in total.

So if you’re a copywriter, this payment structure might be something to keep in mind.

And if you’re a business owner, and you’ve got a great product, Hollywood-level social proof, and terrible marketing, then write me an email. Because I’ve got an offer I’d like to make to you.

5 sources of entertaining inspiration

by

Email marketing guru Ben Settle says the cornerstone (at least one of them) of his successful strategy is something called:

Infotainment.

(That could be either a combination of “informal” and “attainment,” or “information” and “entertainment.” Take your pick.)

The thing is, if you look around the great email marketing landscape, you will see that most businesses and marketers have a much easier time with the information part of this formula, than with the entertainment bit.

And no wonder.

Teaching stuff, or at least appearing to teach stuff, is easy. That’s why teachers don’t get the big bucks.

On the other hand, entertaining, while it might seem trivial, is actually hard. It takes thought and practice. And nobody gets any credit for “appearing to entertain.” You either do or you don’t. That’s why people who genuinely entertain, like Eddie Murphy and Rob Schneider, get the money and the chicks.

So what to do?

Well, if you are not naturally entertaining (and who is?) then you will have to study, practice, and try to improve.

The good news is, there are lots of examples of entertaining content out there. In fact, we’re swimming in it. For example…

Syndicated newspaper comics, such as Garfield or the Far Side.

Or shock radio and entertaining podcasts, like the Howard Stern Show or the Joe Rogan Experience.

Or actual comic books, and their monstrous movie imitations.

Or late night talk shows, with their recurring characters, skits, and familiar format but ever-new content.

Or even newspapers. Particularly tabloids, and their incredible headlines (“Headless Body in Topless Bar”).

So if you’re having trouble crafting infotaining emails, try studying some of these sources, and see what you can copy, model, and mimic.

Or just get in touch with me and hire me to write for you. Because, while I’m not Rob Schneider-level yet, I’m actively working on it.

A quick disgusting story

by

I had something disgusting happen to me yesterday.

I was having breakfast, my usual fare of testosterone yogurt, steel-cut oatmeal, and a few frozen raspberries and blackcurrants.

So I sat down in my usual breakfast armchair and took hold of the oatmeal bowl. On the underside of the bowl, though, I felt something dry and hard.

“EW!!!”

It turned out to be a dead, flattened, and desiccated insect of some sort, perhaps a cockroach. I instinctively shook it off my hand and stared after it in disgust.

How the hell did it get under my yogurt bowl? And where did it come from in the first place?

I zoomed in over the cockroach corpse. And as my eyes adjusted, so did my brain. It wasn’t really a dead insect. Instead, it was just the dried calyx from a cherry tomato that I had eaten last night. But in that split second, my overactive and anxious brain had convincingly transformed it into something much grosser, more frightening, and more unpleasant.

I don’t have a particular point in telling you this story except to illustrate one thing:

You’ll often hear that good copy is based around a story. And you’ll see many people take this advice to heart.

“I had some yogurt this morning,” they will start. “Yogurt is my favorite breakfast food and this morning was no different. The end.”

(I’m exaggerating, but I think you get the idea.)

Yes, that’s a story, but it’s not very good. And it doesn’t really have a place in sales copy. Because sales copy requires stories that are dramatic, or that evoke strong emotions – fear, surprise, or even disgust.

So keep that in mind in case you’re writing some copy of your own. And in case you want help writing dramatic stories, you can find more of my disgusting advice here:

https://bejakovic.com/advertorials/

Europe’s most wanted women

by

Europol, the European policing agency, which I believe employed Inspector Clouseau back in the 1970s, has just put out a provocative misinformation campaign.

It’s called “Crime Has No Gender,” and it shows 21 wanted criminals.

Their crimes include drug and weapons trafficking (Croatia), organized crime (Romania), murder (Belgium), and fraud (Sweden).

Of these 21 listed criminals, 18 are women. The conclusion being that women can be just as successful in the criminal arts as men.

Lies, I say.

Because even a cursory search of the statistics will show you that men commit serious crimes at a much peppier clip than women do.

So what exactly is the point of the Europol campaign?

Well, aside from the inspirational but false message that women can do anything they put their minds to, maybe Europol is just trying to warn European citizens that, yes, if you do see a woman grabbing a kid at a playground and dragging that kid into an unmarked van, then she might indeed be a kidnapper. Because women can be kidnappers, too.

This actually isn’t such a dumb idea.

Because the brain has a feature, or maybe a bug, called the “availability bias.”

We tend to judge probabilities by the ease with which we can think of relevant examples.

“A woman kidnapper? Gee, I haven’t seen too many movies like that. But a male kidnapper, now I’ve seen lotsa movies like that.”

And if you’re wondering what this has to do with copy, then the answer is…

Everything. Really everything. Let me say it one more time — everything.

Because if you want to make the availability bias work in your favor, just keep repeating your main claims over and over throughout your copy.

And then repeat them again.

Even though you might think it’s transparent… or tiring… or even dumb.

Repeat your claims two dozen times in half as many pages.

Because if you write the rest of your copy well, your reader won’t notice. But he (or she!) will finally remember and understand what it is you’re trying to say — and he (or she!) might even believe you by the time you dare ask for the sale.

Speaking of which, I’ve got an offer for you. I won’t make any claims about it — because it’s too late now, you wouldn’t believe me since I haven’t repeated them a dozen times. But if you want to check out my offer, then take a peek here:

https://bejakovic.com/advertorials/

Can you identify these 3 movies?

by

Here’s a bit of a riddle for ya, or actually 3.

I read one time that the only way to get a movie made in Hollywood is by twisting an already existing idea or by mashing up two already successful movies.

So can you identify which movies I have in mind with just these short descriptions:

1. “Dances with Wolves” on an alien planet
2. “Purple Rain” in Detroit
3. “The Lord of the Rings” with Spartans

(If you think you have the answers, write in and let me know. Include your address, and for each movie you’ve guessed right, I’ll send you a Kit Kat through the mail.)

You might think that this movie-making approach just shows how Hollywood caters to the lowest common denominator.

And who knows, maybe you’re right.

As right as saying that direct response copywriting caters to the lowest common denominator. Or at least to the easiest path into the mind.

Because both Hollywood producers and direct response copywriters have figured out that this simple method — take two familiar themes, mash them together — is the easiest way to get a new idea into an old head.

So for example, I’ve noticed a ton of email subject lines recently that take the same format, particularly in the health space:

* Drano for your arteries
* A powerwash for your insides
* Armor for your breasts (the winner, in my opinion)

What’s the point of all this?

Well, the next time you have to describe something in copy, stop yourself and think. Do you really need a long, technical explanation? Or wouldn’t it be better to just say something like…

“It’s just like Home Alone. But starring cats and dogs.”

And remember, free Kit Kats. If you send me your answers and you guess the movies above correctly. ​

Avoiding the Facebook ban hammer through Personal Power

by

This summer, one of my clients ran into some trouble with a Facebook ads campaign.

The product they were advertising was a plastic ball, filled with ceramic beads, which you’re supposed to throw into the washing machine and use instead of detergent.

I was in charge of writing the advertorial, so I wrote a first-person confessional with the headline:

“How I wash blood stains out of my clothes WITHOUT laundry detergent”

Facebook didn’t have a problem with my blood-stained headline. They also didn’t have a problem with the questionable product (I still don’t understand how or if it works). But they did have an issue with little things like:

* The use of words like “magic,” “crazy,” and “trick”

* Specific claims such as “it saves me hundreds on laundry detergent”

* Before-and-after pictures of clothes washed with this breakthrough technology…​​

In short, Facebook didn’t like anything that gave this ad the unpleasant but familiar odor of an old-school infomercial.

But wait a minute.

Maybe that comparison is not really fair.

Because right now, I’m hand-copying a very old and very successful infomercial.

It’s for Tony Robbins’s Personal Power tapes.

This infomercial looks like a segment from 60 Minutes. It opens with Tony and Fran Tarkenton, a Hall of Fame NFL quarterback, boarding a helicopter, and then flying around Southern California.

Once they land, Tony and Fran go inside a fancy house, smile and nod at each other, and chat about the good results people are getting from Personal Power.

The rest of the infomercial is punctuated by lots of testimonials, most of which are saying, “This system works really well, and it’s helped me.”

When you get the chance to buy the tapes, there’s no massive price anchoring, and there’s no “But wait, there’s more!”

If all this is starting to bore you, that’s kind of the point.

Because this infomercial was pretty classy, really not sensationalistic, and would have fit in perfectly into a Facebook advertising campaign today.

(And like I said, this infomercial was immensely effective. It helped launch Guthy-Renker Corporation, which at that time was just an experiment between a couple of guys, and now has revenues of over $2 billion a year.)

The point of all this?

Maybe these Facebook compliance requirements don’t have to hamstring sales…

Maybe direct response copywriters have just gotten into too much of a Gary Halbert and John Carlton groove…

And maybe there are plenty of other effective ways to sell stuff without !!! and crazy/amazing/jaw-dropping before-and-after.

Or maybe not.

But if you get the Facebook ban hammer, it’s something to keep in mind, and maybe something to comfort yourself with.

Anyways, if you need help with writing Facebook-compliant advertorials that still make sales, you might get some ideas here:

https://bejakovic.com/advertorials/

“Nobody Died at Sandy Hook” and Facebook ads

by

A few days ago, a jury in Wisconsin awarded $450k to one Leonard Pozner in a defamation suit.

The defendant in the suit was James Fetzer, the author of the book “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.”

The gist of this book, according to what I’ve seen online, is that the Sandy Hook shooting never really happened. Instead, much like the moon landing, it was all faked.

​​(In this case, it was Obama and his lackeys, coming after your guns in a roundabout way.)

Pozner, the guy who got the $450k, is the father of a boy who was killed at Sandy Hook.

He sued Fetzer, the author, and won. But Pozner didn’t get these damages because of the insulting or hurtful claims in Fetzer’s book.

Instead, the jury awarded the damages because “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook” claims that Pozner fabricated his son’s death certificate.

In other words, in spite of all the outrageous content that Fetzer put in his book, it was really a technicality that brought him down.

(BTW, Fetzer is a retired university professor. It’s another bit of proof that intelligence has little to do with having an accurate or useful view of the world.)

Anyways, I bring this up because “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook” is just like a direct response promotion.

A direct response promotion can make all sorts of outrageous, ridiculous, or even offensive claims. And that’s quite ok, and even encouraged in some circles.

But you have to watch out for technicalities.

For example, I just got some feedback from one of my clients, about a campaign we ran on Facebook this summer.

The promotion in question was nowhere as inflammatory as “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.”

Still, our campaign was a bit ridiculous, and it promoted a slightly suspect product.

“No problem with any of that,” says Facebook. “But we do have some issues with a few technicalities.”

I’ll give you some examples of the issues we had in my post tomorrow. It won’t be terribly shocking, but it might be instructive, particularly if you’re running ads on Facebook to cold traffic.

The “dead sparrow” tactic for easier copywriting

by

A few weeks ago, just when the weather had turned colder, I caused an apparent animal death.

It all happened because I had closed my balcony doors. Really just two enormous panes of glass. And since I have a cleaning woman who comes by every couple of weeks, pretty clean, too.

Anyways, a few minutes after I closed these doors, a sparrow flew right into the glass.

The glass was fine. The sparrow was not.

It immediately fell to the balcony, twitched a few twitches, and then gave no more signs of life.

“Ah fuck,” I said to myself.

I hate dead animals.

My small amount of pity for the sparrow was overwhelmed by my immense repulsion at the thought of having to clean it off my balcony.

So instead of dealing with the situation, I sat back down and got back to work.

“Should I just shovel it off the balcony?” I kept thinking. “Or scoop it up and take it out to the trash?”

Eventually my phone’s timer rang. My work period was over.

So I get up to look at the hated sparrow corpse. And right at that moment, the sparrow popped back to life, shook its head a bit, and flew away.

I was immensely relieved. Almost as relieved as I am each time I have to write something, and rather than having to struggle and work at it, the words just pour out on their own. Here’s what I mean:
​
Usually when I have a writing task, I’ll do my research, think about ideas, and take a stab or two at the actual writing.

Sometimes it works. Other times, the task refuses to yield to my weak attacks.

No matter.

I’ve learned to simply switch focus to something else. And there’s always plenty of other work waiting for me.

Then, after some time has passed, I’ll come back to that initial, stubborn, even daunting writing problem.

It often does like the sparrow:

It shakes its head a bit and flies off. No problems any more. The words just seem to come on their own, and the once-difficult task solves itself in just a few minutes.

Of course, you can’t always take this approach, not if there’s an immediate deadline looming.

But if you have the luxury of a bit of extra time, then maybe try this “dead sparrow” tactic. Ignore the problem at hand for a while. And then come back and watch it vanish, without even leaving a stain on your balcony.

John Bejakovic