Integrated Writing

Jim Camp, A-list copywriter

by

Right now I’m reading a book titled You Can’t Teach a Kid To Ride a Bike at a Seminar.

The book was written by David Sandler, a 20th-century sales trainer.

I wrote an email about Sandler last year because of his connection to famed negotiation coach Jim Camp. That email ran with the subject line, “Jim Camp, plagiarist.”

Camp must have studied under Sandler, because the ideas inside “You Can’t Teach a Kid” and Camp’s book “Start With No” are as close to identical as two brown, “L”-sized, farm-fresh eggs. (For reference, Sandler died in 1995, Camp published Start With No in 2002.)

If you ask me, Camp did three things right.

First, he took Sandler’s system out of the world of sales — water filters, life insurance, and whirring hard drives — and he applied it, word-for-word, to the world of billion-dollar negotiation in corporate boardrooms.

In other words, Camp took Sandler’s valuable but provincial knowledge and brought it to a bigger, more prestigious arena, not encumbered by the slumdog baggage that’s attached to the word “sales.”

Second, Camp co-opted what Sandler taught and made it his own. He turned the Sandler Sales System into the Camp Negotiation System, without ever mentioning or crediting Sandler except once, in the middle of a list of 20 other mentors, in an appendix to his “Start With No” book.

You might think this is despicable, and in a way it is, but it’s also a necessary part of the positioning of the guru at the top of the mountain.

And then there’s a third thing that Camp did right.

It’s completely in the presentation, the messaging of his book and of his Camp Negotiation System.

You can see this messaging change in the title Start With No. It’s also present on almost every page of the book.

This messaging change is what built up the mystery of Jim Camp, and it’s why Camp’s book has sold so well and spread so far, and why so many sales folks and marketers and copywriters know Camp today, and why so few know Sandler.

Now ask yourself:

If you knew what change Camp made, and if you could apply it to turn your message from unknown to bestselling, from slumdog salesman to mysterious and yet celebrated negotiation guru…

… what could that be worth to you?

I don’t know. But you do know, and maybe the truth is it would be worth a lot — thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more.

I’m asking you this question because you can find this messaging change, the technique that Camp used to make himself and his system fascinating, in my Copy Riddles program.

It’s there in round 15.

If you own Copy Riddles and it’s not 100% clear to you how Camp applied the technique in that round to his messaging, write me and I will clarify it.

And if you don’t own Copy Riddles, you can find out more about it at the link below.

I can tell you upfront, at $997, Copy Riddles is an expensive program.

But maybe in your case will be worth much more than I’m asking for it. Here’s that link:

https://bejakovic.com/cr/

I got a hot date tonight HONK

by

Yeah, about my hot date… I’ll get to that in a second.

First, here’s a scene from the animated TV show The Simpsons. The scene illustrates a valuable/funny point about influence. But hold on.

I grew up watching The Simpsons. If you didn’t, that’s no problem. You don’t need to like The Simpsons or even to have ever seen a single episode to get what this scene is about, or to understand the underlying point.

Scene:

Moe the bartender is being interrogated by the police for shooting the local billionaire, Mr. Burns.

Moe is hooked up to a lie detector machine. He’s asked if he ever held a grudge against Mr. Burns. He answers no. But the lie detector machine HONKS to indicate he’s lying.

“All right,” Moe says. “Maybe I did. But I didn’t shoot him!” Sure enough, the lie detector machine DINGS to confirm Moe’s statement as true.

“Checks out,” says the cop. “Ok sir, you’re free to go.”

So far, so conventional. But then, Moe executes the following rapid-fire descent into humiliation, to the sounds of the lie detector machine:

“Good,” he says. “Cause I got a hot date tonight!” HONK

“A date.” HONK

“Dinner with Fred.” HONK

“Dinner alone.” HONK

“Watching TV alone!” HONK

“All right!!!” Moe says. “I’m gonna sit at home and ogle the ladies in the Victoria’s Secret catalogue!” HONK

Moe hangs his head. “Sears catalogue.” DING

“Now would you unhook this already please! I don’t deserve this kind of shabby treatment!” HONK

That’s the end of the scene. Maybe you found it funny even in my transcript above. But if you didn’t, trust me that it’s funny in the original version.

The question is… why?

Is it just funny to find out Moe is a loser? That’s part of it. But would it have been as funny if the scene simply went:

“Good. Cause I got a hot date tonight!” HONK

[Moe hangs head] “Actually, I’m gonna sit at home and ogle the ladies in the Sears catalogue.” DING

My contention is no. That wouldn’t be nearly as funny. Which brings me to the following valuable point that I promised you:

“We build interest by adding more: more movement, more color, more sound, more light, more people, more intensity, more concentration, more excitement. In short, anything whatever that the spectators regard as increasing will also increase their interest.”

That comes from a book about magic and showmanship. In other words, the above advice about adding more is how expert magicians build the audience’s interest.

But it works the same for comedy.

And in fact, it works the same for copywriting.

Stack a bunch of moderately interesting, or funny, or insightful stuff on top of each other… and the effect is multiplicative, not additive.

And with that punchline, we conclude today’s episode. DING

But if by any chance you want more simple tips on building interest and desire in your readers, you can find that here:

https://bejakovic.com/sme/

The quantum theory of sitcom or blowing your readers’ minds

by

Two weeks ago, I wrote an email all about my futile, morning-long search for a quote about Larry David and how he ran the writers for “Seinfeld” like a team of huskies pulling a sled.

It turns out my search wasn’t entirely futile. I did come across the following interesting bit by Larry Charles.

Charles used to be the supervising producer on “Seinfeld.” In a New Yorker article, he remembered the exact moment, during the development of season three, when he was talking to Larry David and when things clicked:

===

We went, “What if the book that was overdue was in the homeless guy’s car? And the homeless guy was the gym teacher that had done the wedgie? And what if, when they return the book, Kramer has a relationship with the librarian?”

Suddenly it’s like — why not? It’s like, boom boom boom, an epiphany — quantum theory of sitcom! It was, like, nobody’s doing this! Usually, there’s the A story, the B story — no, let’s have five stories! And all the characters’ stories intersect in some sort of weirdly organic way, and you just see what happens. It was like — oh my God. It was like finding the cure for cancer.

===

Last November, I put together a live training about creating an a-ha moment in your reader’s brain or brains.

I did a lot of research and a lot of thinking to prepare for that training.

One thing I realized is how there’s 98% overlap, perhaps 98.2%, between creating an a-ha moment and creating a ha-ha moment.

The difference mainly comes down to context, tone, the kind of setting you find yourself in.

On the other hand, the structure, techniques, necessary ingredients, and resulting effects are all the same between a-ha and ha-ha, insight and comedy.

So maybe it’s worth looking at Charles’s quote above in more detail, at least if you want to blow your readers’ minds.

Notice what it doesn’t say:

* There’s nothing about character development

* There’s nothing about carefully crafted language

* There really nothing about the substance of the thing, rather only about the form, the structure

Maybe you find all this kind of abstract.

Maybe you’d like some more concrete stories and examples to illustrate how to take the quantum theory of sitcom above, and use it to blow people’s minds.

If that’s what you’d like, I’ve put together a course about it, called Most Valuable Email. It tells you one way, which has worked very well for me, to take Charles’s idea above and apply it to writing daily emails.

Most Valuable Email also gives you 51 concrete examples of the most successful, influential, and insightful emails that use the Most Valuable Email trick.

It’s very possible you’ve decided Most Valuable Email isn’t for you. That’s fine. Otherwise, you can find more information here:

https://bejakovic.com/mve/

Contradicting and fulfilling the most effective thing ever found in advertising

by

This morning, I woke up to find a bunch of different emails in my inbox from a bunch of different marketers, all on the same topic.

All these people are promoting a run of webinars, which will happen tomorrow, staggered two hours apart, to be given by Rich Schefren.

You might know Rich as “the guru to the gurus” — the guy who coached big-name Internet marketers like Russell Brunson, Ryan Deiss, and Todd Brown.

So now Rich is promoting something, and he has enlisted a bunch of other people to promote him. Which is proof of something written by the “godfather of modern advertising,” Claude Hopkins, some 100 years ago:

“The most effective thing I have ever found in advertising is the trend of the crowd. That is a factor not to be overlooked. People follow styles and preferences. We rarely decide for ourselves, because we don’t know the facts. But when we see the crowds taking any certain direction, we are much inclined to go with them.”

So that’s the harmonious part one. Here’s the clashing part two.

I don’t know what the content of Rich’s webinars tomorrow will be. But I have an idea.

Because speaking a few years back about what really made his messaging and marketing powerful — what made his 40-page reports like the Internet Business Manifesto go viral and bring in millions of dollars of new business — Rich had this to say:

“I really experimented with a lot of different approaches over the years. I’ve come to the conclusion that the best core concept is a paradigm shift on their problem and your solution to their problem.”

Now let’s put our two pieces of music side by side:

Part one is Hopkins saying, 100 years ago, that the “the trend of the crowd” is the most effective thing he has found.

Part two is Rich saying, today, that a “paradigm shift” is the most effective thing he has found.

Those two claims might sound contradictory, and rightly so. After all, if your prospect forms his beliefs based on what others think and do… and if you are giving your prospect a paradigm shift… then you are by definition going against the trend of the crowd.

So maybe it really is a contradiction. Or maybe not.

Maybe, paradigm shifts — insight techniques as I call them — are not here to abolish the old laws of advertising, but to fulfill them. After all, that’s what Rich’s own marketing seems to show.

The fact is, like promises, like social proof, like urgency, creating a “paradigm shift” in your prospect’s mind has been around as long as prospects have been around, or maybe as long as minds have been around.

Giving people a new perspective has always been a powerful way to influence people and move them to action.

​​It’s just that until now, it hasn’t been mandatory. But that’s changing, thanks in part to smart marketers like Rich, who are consciously creating paradigm shifts and aiming to create feeling of insight in their prospects’ minds.

Now here’s a promise for you:

Insight techniques is something I have been thinking and even writing about for a long time. If you’d like to know how you too can consciously create paradigm shifts in your prospect’s mind, then as a first step, join a lot of other smart marketers and entrepreneurs, and sign up to my email newsletter.

Storytelling recipe for disaster that ended up succeeding against all odds

by

Tom Hanks sauntered into the office, and he didn’t look pleased.

A few months earlier, Hanks had won the Best Actor Oscar for Philadelphia. With movies like Forrest Gump and Apollo 13 coming out soon, he was perhaps the biggest star in Hollywood.

Hanks sat down and picked up the script. He frowned. He shook his head a little.

“You don’t want me to sing, do you?”

I just watched a TED talk about storytelling.

The talk was not great. That’s because it was too valuable, with too many good-but-different ideas packed into just 19 minutes.

The emotional highlight of the talk, to me at least, was the Tom Hanks story above.

As it turns out, the filmmakers didn’t want Hanks to sing. Even though the movie in question was an animated film, and even though the only imaginable animated films at the time looked like The Lion King, filled with Hakuna Matata.

But no. There would be no Hakuna Matata and no Under the Sea in this new animated movie. And not only that.

There would be no love story.

There would be no “I want” moment.

There wouldn’t even be a villain.

It sounded like a recipe for disaster. It broke all the rules of how a Hollywood cartoon was supposed to go.

And yet, the movie in question ended up earning $735 million (in today’s money), making it the second biggest film of the year… it got rave reviews (a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes)… and it was nominated for the Oscar for best original screenplay (the first animated movie ever to be nominated for a great story).

That’s why, if you’re into storytelling, or more broadly, if you want to create salt peanuts content that people can’t help but consume, my advice to you is:

Watch this TED talk. In fact, watch it two or three times.

If you’re curious why I would say this talk warrants rewatching, then watch it once first. And maybe you will get a hint. In case you’re curious:

https://bejakovic.com/story

Cool-o & Sexy-o: I kill a bad joke even more dead for your benefit

by

In my email yesterday, I wrote about a tricky anti-tobacco campaign, “Tobacco is whacko.” ​​​I played on that phrase and explained how you can make your appeals “cool-o” and “sexy-o”. To which a friend lovingly wrote me:

“Cool-o. Sexy-o. This is the corniest email you’ve ever sent. You old man. Watching too many Joe Biden speeches?”

Let me take a Joe-like ramble and say:

Marketers and copywriters are often told to study only the successful advertising. The controls. The winners.

But I have personally found a lot of value by looking at stuff that flopped. Particularly if it was done by somebody who should have known better.

In my view, flops shine more light on valuable techniques than situations when everything goes perfectly.

So for example:

Maybe — though I admit nothing — the jokes in my email yesterday were lame-o and corny-o.

And yet, if you look at what exactly I was doing, you will be able to identify a powerful email copywriting technique I use all the time. Often to very good effect.

Rather than killing a bad joke even more dead by explaining what exactly I have in mind, let me just get to today’s point:

Read more bad advertising.

I’m not joking.

Ads that flopped might turn out to be the cheapest, though corniest, education in effective writing and marketing techniques you can get.

Of course, not all bad advertising is created equal.

Like I said, you want to look at stuff that flopped, but was written by somebody with sufficient other success. Somebody who was reaching for a technique that works in general, but for whatever reason, didn’t come out right-o that particular time-o.

If you want an example of that, pull out your copy of Joe Sugarman’s Adweek book.

Joe was great copywriter. He sold hundreds of millions’ worth of stuff with his infomercials, catalogs, and magazine ads.

But not every piece of Joe’s copy was a success. And his Adweek book includes a bunch of failures, where Joe’s copywriting techniques, including some he doesn’t highlight explicitly in the book, become obvious.

And if you still don’t have a copy of Joe’s book… well, what are you waiting for? Get it here, daddy-o:

https://bejakovic.com/adweek

The power of sitting and not taking action

by

Yesterday, I found myself reading a promising article titled:

“Buy Things, Not Experiences”

“Wow!” I said, as a gust of wind shook my window. “That’s the opposite of that tired phrase everybody’s always preaching, ‘Buy experiences, not things.'”

A little smile spread across my face. I couldn’t wait to see how the writer would pay off this shocking, denialist headline.

But woof, what a disappointment.

The article sounded like a speech prepared in 15 minutes by a high school debater. Three unrelated, undeveloped, unconvincing arguments. I won’t retell them here, but I’ll tell you the upshot:

The controversial headline got my attention. But the actual content didn’t make me want to read more by the same writer.

In fact, it put me on guard. In case I ever see another link to this guy’s content, I will think twice — Oh, that’s the high school debater, it’s probably not worth wasting my time.

That’s a fate I would like to avoid for the things that I write. Perhaps you want the same for yourself, too.

In that case, I can tell you a little secret which goes against much conventional wisdom in the marketing space:

There’s a lot of value in just sitting on things. Well, at least that’s what I’ve personally found.

For example, this newsletter. I don’t “execute” these emails fast. I don’t write at breakneck speed or jump on good ideas as they come to me.

Instead, I often get an idea for a subject line, topic, angle… and then it sits there, for days, weeks, sometimes months. I have things I wrote down two years ago which have still not matured.

But on occasion, something will click. A second good idea, or illustration, or whatever, will come my way. And I’ll remember — boy, this would go great with that other thing I thought of months ago.

Of course, it doesn’t always click. But in general, by sitting on ideas, like a mother goose on her eggs, I’ve written some of my most effective, interesting, and influential emails.

And maybe, you will find the same with your own writing. By sitting, and not taking action fast. In spite of that tired phrase everybody’s always preaching, “Money loves speed!”

But really, all this has just been a buildup to the thing I really wanted to show you.

Because a few weeks ago, I found a funny clip on YouTube. ​​It was part of a sketch show that ran on the BBC between 2006 and 2010.

​​All the clips I found from this show were clever and well-written, and they often had direct application to persuasion and influence.

Such as the clip I’m about to share with you.

It’s a satire of Richard Dawkins, looking for a new topic after his blockbuster book, The God Delusion.

Maybe you will enjoy the sketch. And maybe, it will give you some good ideas for controversial content that delivers… rather than disappoints. You can find it below.

But before you click to watch it, sign up for my email newsletter. Or don’t, and sit on it for a while. Here’s the video:

The fascist cokehead who raised me

by

How foolishly inconsistent of me.

On April 7 of this year, I wrote an email promoting the idea that you should give your prospects a menu of options. I quoted from Jonah Berger’s book The Catalyst:

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.

Reasonable, right?

Except, only a short while earlier, on February 28, I sent out an email with the exact opposite message. The subject line for that was “The best copywriting tactic ever.” It was inspired by an article I’d read in Scientific American by neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran. The email concluded:

The world is complicated. Too many choices. Too much information. That’s why we seek out extremes, to make our lives easier. And that’s something you can use to make your copy not better, but best.

So one email is basically telling you to give your prospects a choice… the other email is telling you to give them no choice.

How to reconcile these two ideas?

I don’t know. Maybe you can do it. I haven’t tried. And I won’t, because I’ve got better things to do. Like preparing for the second call of my Influential Emails training.

The first call was all about writing and persuasion techniques that I use regularly — and that anybody else can use and profit from as well.

But this second call is more personal. It will include some of my own writing and thinking quirks.

Such as for example, the contradiction in my two emails above. The reason I’m ok with this contradiction is because of a third email I wrote.

That third email was about David Bowie and an infuriatingly inconsistent interview he gave to Playboy magazine in 1976. (1976 was the height of Bowie’s cokehead era. A big brouhaha emerged after the interview because Bowie said during it, “I believe very strongly in fascism.”)

This Bowie email is the most influential thing I’ve ever written.

Not because it got me any sales… or any interest from important people in the industry… or even any engagement from readers on my list. In fact, as far as I remember, nobody even commented on this email.

But the ideas in that email had the biggest influence on how I personally write. And not just emails, but influential writing more broadly.

You might think I’m just advocating being provocative in your thinking and writing. It goes deeper than that, at least in my mind.

In any case, if you want to read that short email about David Bowie, so you can see if it will have any influence on you, here’s the link:

https://bejakovic.com/being-authentic-is-overrated/