The “Cow For Sale” principle

by

Do you know what this is:

If you’re like me, you probably said it’s a cow.

Actually, this is Posh Spice. Posh is a pedigreed Limousin heifer, and several months ago, she became the most expensive heifer in the world. She sold at auction for a little over $359k. (Her owner described her as”smart and stylish” with a “lot of panache.”)

Speaking of farm animals:

Gary Bencivenga has this thing he calls the “Duck For Sale” principle. Sometimes, says Gary, when you have a duck for sale, just say so. “Don’t beat about the bush with a headline such as, ‘Announcing a special opportunity to buy a white-feathered flying object.'”

That’s good stuff, Gary. But don’t forget about the “Cow For Sale” principle.

Because sometimes, what you have in hand, or at the end of a rope, is a solution that is more specific than what your prospect really wants, or at least is aware that he wants.

I couldn’t tell Posh apart from any other cow. Maybe you couldn’t either. Maye you just thought to yourself,

“I just really need a cow right now. Any cow. That’s all.”

In that case, no sense in being stubborn. Don’t push a specific headline on your prospect such as, “Pedigreed Limousin heifer for sale — daughter of Gingerspice.” Because that will fly right over your prospect’s head.

Instead, swallow your pride and write a less specific headline. Something like:

“Beautiful cow for sale. Milk for miles, cheap to keep. Call 617-459-POSH”

One final point:

Are you looking for entertainment as well as education, specifically in the field of persuasion? In that case, check out the opportunity at the other side of this link — it might be just what you need.

“Good-bye, please don’t cry”: Dan Kennedy and Dolly Parton enforce the rules

by

“I cried all night,” Dolly said, “cause I just pictured Elvis singing it.”

Back in 1974, Dolly Parton had a no. 1 hit with a song she’d written, I Will Always Love You. And a year later, she got word that the king himself, Elvis, wanted to record the song.

“I was so excited,” Dolly said.

And then, the night before the recording session was supposed to happen, Elvis’s manager, Colonel Tom Parker, told Dolly the deal.

“Elvis don’t record nothing unless we get the publishing rights or at least 50%.”

Dolly cried all night. But she said no. It was her song and it didn’t feel right giving away the rights to it.

​​In the end, Dolly made out all right. I Will Always Love You became a giant hit for Whitney Houston in 1995, and Dolly got over $10 million in royalties — in the 90s alone.

But most songwriters aren’t like Dolly. They give in. And apparently, this kind of thing is a dirty little secret of the music world, according to an article I read in Variety today.

Big stars routinely get songwriting credit — including publishing royalties — for songs they didn’t write or even help write.

But now, a bunch of songwriters are pushing back.

They find it outrageous that they are forced to share a part of their creative ownership with people who were not involved in the creation in any way.

It sounds like a perfectly legit complaint against a perfectly outrageous practice.

But it goes industry to industry, doesn’t it?

Take copywriting.

It’s standard that you write something and hand over all the control to the client.

In fact, if you’re very good and you manage to claw your way to the top, then you can hope to hand over all control of your copy in exchange for a few percent of the revenue it generates.

But it don’t have to be like that.

I heard Dan Kennedy talk about different things he does. How he bakes into his contract that he might later reuse copy that he’s writing for that client. Or that he might use copy on the current project that he wrote for a previous client. Or how he creates templetized copy, and licenses it to clients instead of giving away the copyright.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not telling you to be outraged if you are working the same standard way as every other copywriter. I just want to, as Ben Settle likes to say, give you options for thinking differently.

​​Because the standard way is not the only way it can be. You can create your own rules, and like Dolly and Dan, you can stick to them. And if a potential client doesn’t go for it, you can sing him a bit of Dolly’s song:

Good-bye, please don’t cry
‘Cause we both know that I’m not
What you need…

And then, when the song ends, you wonder what’s next. Perhaps you open up your inbox and read a new email I’ve written, and get some more ideas for thinking differently. Because I have an email newsletter — click here if you’d like to sign up for it.

Writing to the urgent foot fetish market

by

Today I learned about Wikifeet, which is just like Wikipedia, with one big difference. Where Wikipedia has a range of in-depth articles on things like gift wrapping and Sam Kinison, Wikifeet only has pictures, and only of feet.

The feet on Wikifeet belong to celebrities, like Ilona Robelin and Trisha Paytas. If you’ve never heard of these two celebrities, don’t worry. Neither had I before today. But both Ilona and Trisha apparently have an IMDB page (a requirement for getting onto Wikifeet), and of course, they both have feet.

I learned about this today through a woman named Laura Bassett. Bassett, who is not a big celebrity but who does have an IMDB page, wrote an article about discovering her Wikifeet profile.

Finding a page dedicated to your own feet would probably be strange enough. But what was even more strange was that Bassett’s Wikifeet profile was always up-to-date. Each time Bassett posted a new photo to Instagram where her feet showed, a few minutes later, she found the same photo, uploaded to Wikifeet.

Mysterious.

So Bassett posted to Instagram, asking the foot poster to get in touch (“No shade, I just have questions”). And to her surprise, she got a response. Bassett’s foot admirer came out of the shadows, and was willing to publicly share his name — and so much more.

I won’t reprint the whole article, but here are a few key statistics about the man who came forward, Robert Hamilton:

1. Robert is 58 years old, and he lives in northern New Jersey.

2. He works as a salesman.

3. He loves the Yankees.

4. He is also a big fan of live music.

Basset had a Q&A with Robert, which is printed in the article. Robert revealed the key childhood events that led to his foot fetish. He explained what he looks for in a foot. He listed his favorite celebrity feet.

He also said he is aware his foot fixation on Internet strangers might make those strangers uncomfortable. And he’s willing to stop if asked. Otherwise, he doesn’t think he’s harming anybody.

Which leads me to something A-list copywriter Gary Bencivenga teaches.

Markets are problems, says Gary. And by problems, he means problems, wants, desires, or possibly, fetishes.

Gary’s point is not to get hung up on demographics. How many other Wikifeet posters are 58-year-old salesmen from New Jersey? Probably not many. And yet all Wikifeet posters share something powerful in common.

So Gary says to focus on writing to that common problem. And even better if you can write to a slice of that market that has a more urgent problem.

But that urgent part is another topic, for another time. Speaking of which:

If you have a problem, or a fetish, involving persuasion, marketing, and copywriting, you might like my email newsletter. It’s just like Wikipedia, except it’s a short email that arrives to your inbox each day. In case you’d like to try it out, here’s where to go.

The practice to become a skillful copy-fancier

by

“Not one man in a thousand has accuracy of eye and judgment sufficient to become an eminent breeder. If gifted with these qualities, and he studies his subject for years, and devotes his lifetime to it with indomitable perseverance, he will succeed, and may make great improvements; if he wants any of these qualities, he will assuredly fail. Few would readily believe in the natural capacity and years of practice requisite to become even a skillful pigeon-fancier.”

I’ll tell you in a moment who wrote that quote. But first, let me admit how foolish I was.

Many years ago, in my first three months of writing copy for money, I thought I’d learned everything there is to know about copywriting.

After all, I’d read Joe Sugarman’s Adweek book and a bunch of Gary Halbert’s newsletters. I’d learned you’re supposed to get attention and turn features into benefits. In the end you had to include a call-to-action. Oh yeah. Also open loops, like I used above. What else is there?

It was a serious case of newbie blindness.

That’s when you know just enough to explain everything away, without seeing the subtle detail that divides failure from success. Take the following headline for example:

The 7 Deadliest Crimes Against Yourself
Are You Guilty of Any of Them?

“A listicle with a warning.” That’s what I would have said back then. “I could write the same, without being so melodramatic. There’s nothing special here.”

Well today, I can see many special things in this short headline.

For example, how it sets you up to expect the 7 deadly sins — and then subverts your expectations. Or how it says deadliest instead of deadly. Or how it sneakily uses “crimes against yourself” rather than ” causes of your anxiety.”

And by the way, I don’t think any of those things are accidental.

The guy who wrote this headline was Gene Schwartz. He was an eminent copywriter, one in a thousand, really. He devoted a lifetime to writing copy with “indomitable perseverance.” As a result, he made great improvements in this field.

Maybe that’s more than your ambition right now. Fine. It’s also more than my ambition. But you might still like to hear the following:

If you want to become a good copywriter, and make yourself a lot of money as a result, then it doesn’t have to take unusual “natural capacity.” I’ve managed, and my natural capacity is common.

But like Charles Darwin says in the quote at the top, it does take practice to become a skillful copy-fancier. It can take you years, like it took me. Or maybe you can do it more quickly, if you don’t waste your time like I did, thinking that I already know everything.

Which brings me to my question for you:

Have you gone through any copywriting course or training in 2021? Anything you would recommend? Anything you would warn others against?

I’ll be transparent about why I’m asking. I’m nearing the halfway point of the trial run of my bullets course. And I am thinking about the next run, which will kick off probably in early June.

So if you’re interested in taking this course down the line… then write me an email and tell me about any copy training you have or have not liked. It will help me make my course better — and more useful to you if you do ever decide to take it.

But bullets course? Maybe you don’t even know what I’m talking about. If that’s the case and you’re curious, take a look at this post, which basically gives you a free sample lesson:

https://bejakovic.com/surprise-how-to-make-your-copy-more-appealing-by-saying-less/

Influence 2.0 (your choice)

by

“The washing machine cannot be fixed,” my landlady texted me today. “So I don’t know what’s better. To replace it and bother you with the workers coming and going. Or to just have you wash your stuff at my place.”

I considered my options.

It would be nice to have a working washing machine. But I’ll only be in the apartment until the end of the month. The landlady lives downstairs. And she does have a point. Workers coming and going to take out the old machine and set up the new one… it would be a hassle and a distraction.

“No problem,” I texted back, “I’ll do the laundry at your place.”

Only then did it occur to me how this was a clever strategy on her part. Had she said, “The washing machine cannot be fixed. But it’s no problem! Just use mine! It will be easiest for you!” Had she said that, I would have raised all kinds of objections. At least in my mind.

As you might know, what the landlady did is a classic persuasion technique. It’s called giving people a menu. From Jonah Berger’s  book The Catalyst:

Try to convince people to do something, and they spend a lot of time counterarguing. Thinking about all the various reasons why it’s a bad idea or why something else would be better. Why they don’t want to do what was suggested.

But give people multiple options, and suddenly things shift.

Rather than thinking about what is wrong with whatever was suggested, they think about which one is better. Rather than poking holes in whatever was raised, they think about which of the options is best for them. And because they’ve been participating, they’re much more likely to go along with one of them in the end.

Berger gives examples of using menus to persuade your kids to brush their teeth and your clients to accept your plan of action. But here’s a warning:

If you abuse this, it can turn into a standard pushy salesman’s grift. “So Mr. Bejako… do you want that new Miata in red… or in black?”

“Hold on buddy. I never said I want a Miata. Why are you trying to trick me?”

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

Choice one is to go and check out Berger’s The Catalyst, which I mentioned above. I really like this book, and I think of it as a kind of 2.0 version of Cialdini’s Influence. If you want to see why, check out this page for more info about The Catalyst:

https://bejakovic.com/catalyst

Choice two is to not bother reading the nearly 300 pages of The Catalyst. Instead you can simply sign up for my email newsletter. That’s where I share the best marketing and persuasion ideas I come across.

In fact, that’s where I already shared some great ideas from The Catalyst, and where I’m sure to share more. Here’s where to click if you’d like to sign up.

How to sound smarter

by

There’s a well-known guy in the copywriting space who loves to use million-dollar words. He does it a lot in writing. He does it even more when giving a speech.

I’ve always wondered at this. It seems out of place in the quick-cheap-easy world of direct response. Like some kind of insecurity. Like he’s trying to prove he’s educated and smart.

If so, then bad move, at least if you go by a study I just read.

Back in 2005, a scientist at Princeton University jiggered a bunch of texts. He put in longer words into some. He put in shorter words into others. And then he put these texts in front of Stanford undergrads, to see what they would say.

I’m sure you can guess one part of what the students said. The texts with the longer words were harder to read. No surprise there.

But get this:

Students also said that longer words made the author sound less smart. And vice versa. Shorter words made the author sound more smart.

Of course, if you like, there are holes you can poke in this study:

It was only done on Stanford students, an unusual bunch. And it’s only about written texts, and not about speech.

But to my lazy mind, the conclusion is clear:

Use short words. Make your writing and speaking simple. Not because you want to sell more. That’s a nice side effect. But the real benefit is that short and simple will make you sound smarter.

And now the punchline:

Are you impressed by my 1- and 2- syllable words? Then you will love, I say love, my email news-letter. It’s full of short words. You can sign up for it here.

Man, or mouse?

by

Marketer Andre Chaperon once wrote an intriguing email/article titled, Chefs vs. Cooks. Here’s the gist in Andre’s words:

When you go to a restaurant: there are two types of people who cook the food that diners order.

One type typically works in Michelin star establishments, like the Aviary in Chicago, or Gordon Ramsay in London, or the Mirazur in Menton, France.

These people are called chefs.

The other type are cooks.

You’ll find them in places like McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and Chili’s Grill & Bar. Even your local “pretty good” restaurant.

The difference between the two is vast, of course.

Andre’s point is that there are chefs and cooks among marketers too. “Nothing wrong with that,” Andre suggests. “The world needs both!”

Thanks, Andre. But who the hell wants to be the marketing equivalent of a pimply 16-year-old, wearing a Wendy’s paper hat, shoveling out 15 lbs. of french fries from a cauldron of bubbling canola oil?

Nobody, of course. Not if they have a choice. Which is why Andre offers you the choice to join his course for creators at the end of his Chefs vs. Cooks pitch.

Dan Kennedy calls this man-or-mouse copy. And he explains how this isn’t just about men, or mice, or chefs, or cooks:

Great direct response copy makes people identify themselves as one or the other. Great direct response copy is all about divide and conquer. It is all about, you tell us who you are — smart/dumb, winner/loser, etc. — and then we’ll tell you the behavior that matches who you just said you are.

Dan says this is one of the four governing principles at the heart of each of his hundreds of successful campaigns.

Which brings up a man-or-mouse moment for you:

A lot of marketers have a certain contempt for their market. “Make them pay,” these marketers whisper. “Because when they pay, they pay attention.”

In other words, these marketers think most people are too stupid to value a thing properly if it’s given away for free.

And you know what? There’s probably truth to this.

But I hope you’re smarter than that.

Because that Dan Kennedy quote above, about making people identify themselves, is from Dan’s speech that I linked to yesterday.

This was the keynote speech at the Titans of Direct Response. The Titans event cost something like $5k to attend… and it still costs several thousand if you want to get the tapes.

But for some reason, at some point, Brian Kurtz, who put on the Titans event, made Dan’s keynote presentation available for free online. In my opinion, Dan’s is the most valuable presentation of the lot. And if that’s something you can appreciate, you can find it at this link. But before you go —

I also have an email newsletter. If you got value out of this post, and if you’re about to go watch Dan Kennedy’s presentation, there’s a good chance you will like the emails I send. If you want to try it out, you can sign up quickly here. And then go and watch that Dan Kennedy presentation.

Hollywood tear-jerker: Billion-dollar psychology lesson for cheap

by

“Look at what they’ve done to you. I’m so sorry. You must be dead… because I don’t know how to feel. I can’t feel anything any more. You’ve gone someplace else now.”

You recognize that? It’s from E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. One of the biggest movies of all time.

When I was a kid, the main movie theater in my town for some reason kept the marquee for E.T. long after the movie had stopped playing.

I was too young to see it when it came out. And I suffered for years, seeing that marquee. I wanted to watch the movie so badly — a real life alien, and cute too! On Earth! Makes friends with a little boy and gets the boy’s bike airborne!

It’s everything my 5-year-old self wanted in life. But the movie was no longer in theaters, and there was no VHS either.

So a few weeks ago, I downloaded E.T. to finally heal this childhood wound and to see why this Spielberg fantasy is called the #24 greatest film of all time.

Unfortunately, the moment has passed.

I couldn’t really get into E.T. But I did get some use out of it. That scene above.

That’s when E.T. dies, about nine-tenths of the way through the movie. And the boy, Elliott, who had a psychic link with E.T. and who has felt everything E.T. has felt, suddenly cannot feel anything any more.

I can imagine that when E.T. played in movie theaters, both the kids and the parents choked up at this point. The kids, because the cute little extraterrestrial is dead. The parents, because they felt on some level how this scene might be about their childhood dreams, hopes, and capacity for joy and wonder… which have been drained out of them as they grew up and became adults.

And then of course, E.T. comes back to life and everything works out just fine. Which is the insight I want to leave you with today.

I recently re-watched Dan Kennedy’s Titans of Direct Response keynote speech. In one part of this amazing presentation, Dan tells an Earl Nightingale story. Two farmers each thought the other guy’s farm had the greener pasture. And when they get their wish and swap farms, it turns out the other pasture is no greener.

Dan: “Earl didn’t tell that story to be a marketing lesson… but I got the marketing lesson out of it.”

And you can too.

If a story reaches mass popularity — greener pastures, E.T., Bad Santa — it’s because it makes people vibrate. The thing is, social order must be maintained. That’s why each mass-market story either has a happy ending (if the characters were deep-down deserving) or a moral to be learned (if they were not).

Don’t let that fool you.

Market-proven tear-jerkers like E.T. can really show you true human nature — if you don’t wait until the end. The end is just tacked on to muddy the waters. But the psychology lesson is all the emotional buildup that happens before the turnaround.

That buildup shows you how people really are. Those are the real problems and desires people respond to, and that’s what you should speak to. Everything else is just Hollywood.

By the way, Brian Kurtz generously made Dan Kennedy’s keynote speech freely available online. If you haven’t watched it yet (or in the past month), it’s time to fix that.

But in case you need more convincing about the value hidden inside this speech, you might like to sign up for my email newsletter. In the coming days, there’s where I’ll be sharing some more Dan-inspired marketing ideas, like the one you just read.

Tom Cleveland continues his productive NYT snooping

by

How do veterans of #vanlife feel about all the newbies? Can you make a statement about your gender, when there’s no one there to watch you? And is that “maskne” on your face, or is it plain old acne?

In case you want answers to any of these questions, head on over to the New York Times website. As I write, these stories are all up on the home page.

A guy named Tom Cleveland has been snooping on the Times. I wrote about him a few weeks ago. Through his snooping, he discovered how the NYT makes its headlines more dramatic through A/B testing.

Now Cleveland has put out a part two to his research. It’s about which stories linger on the Times digital front page. And the breakdown is this:

News: 46.6%
Opinion: 22.2%
Feature: 31.1%

“Categories and numbers, huh?” Let me translate what I think this means.

“News” you’re probably familiar with. “U.S. Adds 916,000 Jobs in Sign of Surging Labor Market.” No thrills there.

“Opinion” is a little more fluid. It includes hard-hitting editorial such as “The unsettling power of Easter” (also on the NYT front page right now) as well as the “If a gender falls in the forest” piece above.

And then there’s “Features.” This is apparently an industry term for pure fluff — your typical #vanlife and maskne pieces.

So adding up Opinion and Feature, we get that the NY Times shows this type of content 54.3% of the time on its front page. In other words, this is most of what they show — because it’s most of what people want to see.

Please believe me:

This is not my ant-sized attack on the elephant that is the New York Times. Instead, I just want to point out that people always want human-interest stuff, first and foremost.

If you’re in the business of feeding people whatever, just to sell subscriptions and ads, they you might as well stick to fluff or tabloid content.

On the other hand, perhaps you have an important message to share with the world. But you worry that your topic puts people to sleep. Or gives them a headache.

Don’t worry. It’s an easy problem to fix. Just wrap your dry, complex topic in a thick human-interest sandwich. People will happily devour it, all the way to the end. ​​Here’s an example from an email I wrote last year:

“It’s a story of family betrayal… of breakthrough ideas, conceived in prison… of a small group of desperate visionaries who took an almost occult science… and combined it with a strange, untested new technology… to create the foundations of an industry worth over a quarter trillion dollars.”

Do you know what that paragraph was about? It’s about dry, technical topic. Namely, direct marketing, told through the colorful characters who dun it — Claude Hopkins, Gary Halbert, Ken McCarthy. And if you want to know how that story developed, you might like to sign up to my very human-friendly email newsletter.

Coming soon — The Destiny & Power Newsletter

by

I meant to publish this post yesterday, but you know what? It’s not a joke. So here goes:

Some time in the long-lost 1970s, a guy named Uri Geller became a worldwide star by going on different TV shows and doing the impossible.

Under bright studio lights, with millions watching, Geller bent solid metal spoons, made stopped watches run again, and saw through walls and closed doors — using only the power of his mind.

(Yes, this is from the video I shared a few days ago, if you managed to watch it till the end.)

Then there was this second guy, a former stage magician named The Great Randi.

Randi started following Geller around from TV show to TV show. He’d appear a week later, and expose every one of Geller’s mysterious and transcendent acts for what they really were.

“It’s just parlor tricks,” said Randi. “Don’t believe this guy or his lies. He’s trying to con you, prey on your weaknesses, and probably steal your money.” And he showed exactly how Geller did did his illusions.

So what do you think happened?

Maybe you’ll say it was predictable. But it was eye-opening to me:

Uri’s popularity was unharmed.

Meanwhile, people starting booing poor Randi and chasing him off TV. “We’re going to commercial break,” shouted one TV host at Randi, “and you can piss off!”

Now that you know this interesting story, you can do with it what you will.

I know what I will do.

My conclusion is that hitting the road with an “Enlightened Rationalist” act is a sucker’s game.

I’d much rather win the love and loyalty of people who have the urge to believe — and fight for what they believe.

And that’s why I’ll be changing my own skeptical and cynical ways. I don’t expect the change to be immediate, but it will come, and soon.

You’ll be able to find it in my new newsletter, which I’ll call Destiny & Power. If you want to read this new newsletter, joining it is free and easy. You can do it right here, in just a few seconds.

And if you don’t want to read it, well, I hope you’ll change your mind. Because Destiny & Power welcomes and embraces everyone.