Copywriting

Lies and legends of the left brain

by

A couple years ago, I came across a bizarre and eye-opening story told by neuroscientist V.S Ramachandran.

Ramachandran was working with split-brain patients, who have surgically had the connection between their left and brain hemispheres cut to control seizures.

In an experiment, Ramachandran demonstrated that these patients effectively had two different minds inside one skull. One mind would like chocolate ice cream best, the other vanilla. One believed in God, the other didn’t.

This story was my first exposure to strange and wonderful world of split-brain research.

I had always thought all the “left-brained/right-brained” stuff was just bunk. I didn’t realize it’s based on pretty incontrovertible scientific proof, going back to research on these split-brain people.

I recently came across another split-brain story, this one in a book by neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga.

Gazzaniga did his PhD at Caltech under a guy named Roger Sperry, who went on to win the 1981 Nobel Prize in Medicine for this work.

Sperry and Gazzaniga were pioneers in working with split-brain patients. These patients seemed to be perfectly normal. But thanks to a bunch of clever experiments, Sperry and Gazzaniga managed to tease out some strange things happening in these patients, which reveal real mysteries of the mind.

For example, the scientists would simultaneously show two images to the patient in such a way that each image only went to one hemisphere.

The patient was then asked to point, with his two hands, to cards connected to the image he had just seen.

One time, a patient was shown a picture of a snow scene for the right brain… and a chicken claw for the left brain.

He then pointed to images of a shovel and a chicken (with the left hand being controlled by the right brain, and the right hand being controlled by the left brain — we’re cross-wired like that).

So far so good. The different sides of the brain had seen different images, and could identify those images by pointing with the hands they controlled.

But here’s where it gets really tricky and interesting:

Gazzaniga had the intuition to ask the patient to explain why he had selected the two images, the one of a chicken and the other of a shovel.

One last scientific fact:

Verbal stuff happens mainly on the left hemisphere (again, we know this based on these split-brain experiments).

In other words, when verbalizing stuff, this patient didn’t have access to the information about the snow scene his right brain had seen. The part of his brain that could speak had only seen one image, that of a chicken claw.

The fact this patient had no possible idea why he had pointed to an image of a shovel didn’t stop him. He immediately and confidently replied:

“Oh, that’s simple. The chicken claw goes with the chicken, and you need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed.”

Hm. Do you see what happened?

This split-brain patient, or rather the left mind in his skull, came up with a story, consistent with the facts he knew (the fact was he had pointed to a picture of a shovel).

Of course, in this case, the story was completely fabricated and wrong, and had nothing to do with the actual reason (that the other half of his brain had seen a snow scene and had connected it to the image of a shovel).

To me, this is really fascinating. Because it’s not just about these rare few people who don’t have a connection between the left and right brain hemispheres.

This same thing is happening in all of us, all the time, even right now as you read this. It’s just not so neatly visible and trackable in connected-brain humans as it is in split-brain humans (hence why this research won the Nobel Prize).

This is cool knowledge on its own. But it also practical consequences, and gives you specific technique to practice in case you want to influence others.

This technique is nothing new. But it is immensely powerful. (And no, it’s not “Tell a stawrry.”)

You probably know the technique I have in mind. But if not, you can find it in my upcoming book, full title:

10 Commandments of Con Men, Pick Up Artists, Magicians, Door-to-Door Salesmen, Hypnotists, Copywriters, Professional Negotiators, Political Propagandists, Stand Up Comedians, and Oscar-Winning Screenwriters

My goal is to finish and publish this book by March 24.

Until then, I will be writing about this book and how it’s progressing, plus what I’m thinking about doing to make it a success when it comes out.

If you are interested in the topic of this book, and you’re thinking you might wanna get a copy when it comes out, click below. I’m planning some launch bonuses and I will be dripping them out early to people on this pre-launch list:

​​Click here to get on the bonus-dripping pre-launch list for my new 10 Commandments book​ ​

The Trump-Fauci money mystery

by

I read a fascinating story a few days ago about an interaction between Donald Trump and Anthony Fauci during Trump’s first administration.

It happened well into the covid era. The first vaccines were being released, and the country was ready to get back to business.

Fauci then made a public statement about the possible need for booster shots in order for the vaccines to be effective.

Here’s what happened next, in Fauci’s own words:

===

The president was irate, saying that I could not keep doing this to him. He said he loved me, but the country was in trouble, and I was making it worse. He added that the stock market went up only six hundred points in response to the positive phase 1 vaccine news and it should have gone up a thousand points and so I cost the country “one trillion fucking dollars.”

===

Stories like this make my head spin. If Trump was right, and it’s very possible he was, then where did that “one trillion fucking dollars” go?

Had Fauci not said anything, would that trillion really be there in the world in any meaningful way?

How can a trillion dollars of actual “value” just appear and disappear, on command, with a few words by the right person in the right place at the right time?

I’ve long been fascinated by the topic of money. Not in the sense of getting my hands on as much of it as I can, but simply understanding what it is.

I have never found a good explanation. Whenever somebody gives me their own explanation, it always seems inadequate.

From what little I understand, money is so confusing because it’s a mix of different things. Hope about the future… willingness to cooperate… built-up knowledge… information about the physical world… information about personal values and preferences, as in, “Do you value this beautiful house? Or do you value the plot of land underneath it more, and you’d be willing to pay to have the house demolished?”

If you have a comprehensive theory of what money is, or a good analogy, or you can point me to some insightful book on the matter, I will be grateful to you.

Meanwhile, one thing is clear to me:

We live in a world of ideas and feelings, which have tremendous real-world influence, even when the physical reality remains almost entirely unchanged, as in the Trump-Fauci story above.

It might be worth thinking about, learning about, getting informed about how to influence those ideas and feelings, including for your own money-getting ambitions.

And on that note, I’d like to remind you I’m making one final, desperate, almost-certain-to-fail-but-possibly-will-succeed push to finish my new 10 Commandments book, full title:

10 Commandments of Con Men, Pick Up Artists, Magicians, Door-to-Door Salesmen, Hypnotists, Copywriters, Professional Negotiators, Political Propagandists, Stand Up Comedians, and Oscar-Winning Screenwriters

As the very long title suggests, this book will be about 10 techniques or “commandments” used by some of the most effective communicators and influencers in the world, across all history and space, both for good and evil, in their quest to change feelings, plant ideas, and motivate action.

My goal is to finish and publish this book by March 24.

Until then, I will be writing about this book and how it’s progressing, plus what I’m thinking about doing to make it a success when it comes out.

If you are interested in the topic of this book, and you’re thinking you might wanna get a copy when it comes out, click below. I’m planning some launch bonuses and I will be dripping them out early to people on this pre-launch list:

​Click here to get on the bonus-dripping pre-launch list for my new 10 Commandments book​

Insightful advice from the most famous door-to-door salesman of all time

by

I once wrote an email trying to figure out who the most famous copywriter of all time is.

(I used the number of Google search results as a proxy.)

It turns out several very famous fiction authors previously worked as copywriters. But in terms of people who actually got famous for being copywriters, it was no contest. There was only one option:

David Ogilvy.

Today, I want to write about Ogilvy again, but not as the most famous copywriter, but as the most famous door-to-door salesman.

Ogilvy of course didn’t become famous because he sold door-to-door. Still, I’m giving him preference over other famous people with door-to-door sales experience (Johnny Cash, Mark Cuban) because Ogilvy was actually a star door-to-door salesman, and because he lasted in the profession for years.

At age 21, Ogilvy came back from France where he had worked as a kitchen hand at the Hotel Majestic in Paris. He took a job in Scotland, going door to door and selling the AGA Cooker, a kind of stove + oven + toaster + heater.

Ogilvy was so successful selling this kitchen contraption that three years later, the company had asked him to write a new sales manual for other door-to-door salesman inside the AGA empire.

The result was a 15-page document, The Theory And Practice of Selling The AGA Cooker, which Fortune magazine has called “probably the best sales manual ever written.”

Since a part of my craft is to search within the deep caverns of persuasion and influence, I of course tracked down and read Ogilvy’s manual.

Today, I want to share just one insightful line with you. It comes in the second section of the manual, which is titled “Defence.”

The first section of the manual is “Attack,” which Ogilvy devotes most of his time to, and which he says should be “so thorough that the enemy is incapable of counter-attack.”

Still, in war as in sales, sometimes you gotta defend. And on the topic of defense, Ogilvy says:

“To show that you are completely stumped on any point is fatal, for it stimulates the prospect to attack, puts you on the defensive, and, worst of all, gives the impression that you do not know your job.”

Like I said, it’s an insightful line.

Because if a prospect asks a question or raises an objection, maybe they genuinely care about that point.

Or maybe they don’t. Maybe they’re just asking because they haven’t fully made up their minds, and are prodding, hoping to have something external make up their mind for them.

The worst thing you can do is to leave that question unanswered, or that objection hanging in the air.

Yes, you allow the prospect a specific line of attack. But it’s much more than that.

As Ogilvy says, worst of all, you put your entire credibility on the line, and you put everything else you have said or might say under suspicion.

Point being:

It’s never really the facts of the case that are the problem. It’s always the interpretation of it. And if you can’t control the facts — or even if you can — you’d better control the interpretation.

You might think I’m telling you to be polite and to politely answer your prospect’s questions or address their objections once they’re raised. And yes, that’s much better than not doing so.

But like Ogilvy says, there’s a better still approach.

But that’s really the topic for another email, or more likely, for an entire book.

For now, let me just remind you of my Daily Email Habit service. You can find more information about it at the link below.

And if you have any questions about it, send me an email and ask away. I’ll answer your questions thoroughly and honestly, because I’d rather have you not sign up, than sign up if Daily Email Habit is not right for you.

Here’s the link:

https://bejakovic.com/deh

Reader warns me against being a Negative Nancy

by

A long-time reader replies to my email yesterday:

===

Hey John

First – as I stated in a couple of my previous replies to your emails – I love reading yours. (I am subscribed only to two daily newsletters and one is yours)

It gives that chill vibes and interesting reading type of feelings.

And since, I like reading your emails and planning to do so as long as you write, wanted to share with you that today’s email brought a feeling of negativity (it could be me only though).

No intention to judge, just sharing the impact of your email left on me.

===

I’m not 100% sure what this reader meant to convey. If I’m reading into it, I guess he meant that negativity is negative, and negative things are negative. “Don’t be a Negative Nancy,” that kind of thing.

And yes:

It’s good idea to keep your emails light and positive. And yet…

It’s a better idea to change things up from time to time, to keep people from dismissing you by thinking they know what you’ll say next. And then…

It’s a best idea to be congruent, and to never sound like you’re trying to cover up your real thoughts or feelings, or come across as half-heartedly spinning scat into sucrose.

More on the this sensitive topic:

A few days ago, I got an unusual new subscriber to my Daily Email Habit service. I won’t name him here, because I’m not sure he wants me to.

I will say that, unlike most people signed up to DEH, this new customer is not running a typical coaching/course-selling/service-provider business.

Instead, he is a fiction author. He’s looking to sell his more of his own fiction books, and to build a tighter bond with his existing audience.

We exchanged a couple emails, and in one of them, this fiction author wrote about the unique part of writing daily emails to a fiction-reading list:

===

It’s a different beast to problem-solving markets as it disproportionately leans more on personal stories, personality, etc., which is difficult when you’ve got no pain points to leverage. Still, it has been fun to stretch myself.

===

True. People don’t really read fiction because they are looking for how-to solutions to their specific problems.

That said, people who read fiction do have problems in their lives – as we all do.

My bit of advice to the fiction author was to talk about his own problems. Not in a way of seeking pity or even asking for solutions, but simply as a means of allowing his audience to identify with him.

It took me a long while to realize the following point, because I’m a bit dense:

But the real point of telling a personal story isn’t to brag or be an exhibitionist or even to entertain.

Rather, it’s to allow other people to identify with you, to put themselves in your position in your story, and to say to themselves, “Yeah, that makes sense,” or “Yeah, that’s happened to me,” or “Yeah, that’s how I felt also.”

And so if you ever find yourself asking:

“Is this a good personal story? Should I include this bit? Is it relevant? Is it interesting? Am I just including it for the sake of ego? Is it irrelevant to the story but somehow important on another level?”

… then keep in mind that your personal story isn’t really about you, but is really about allowing your reader to have a certain kind of experience, thanks to you.

Anyways, all that’s to say:

1. Daily emails don’t always gotta be blinding sunshine and positivity

2. In fact there’s a good reason for regularly sharing frustrations and personal problems

3. Sometimes you can cram more than one point into an email

By the way, my email yesterday, which was deemed negative by at least one reader, was negative on purpose, because it was written as my answer to yesterday’s Daily Email Habit puzzle.

Yesterday’s DEH puzzle has now vanished, along with February 2025, never to be repeated.

But another new puzzle will come out tomorrow, fresh for March 2, 2025.

And if you want to use this upcoming puzzle to help you sell more of your own stuff, including even fiction books… and to build a tighter bond with your existing audience… then you may, or you may not, like my Daily Email Habit service. Only one way to find out:

https://bejakovic.com/deh

Where it’s at: Two narrow columns and a PDF

by

One of the rare daily email newsletters I read more often than not is by Jason Leister.

Jason used to be a direct response copywriter. He used to write about getting and managing copywriting clients. He’s since moved into stranger waters, where he talks about raising his 10 kids, living off the grid, “unplugging from the matrix,” and manifesting your desires.

All right up my alley, minus the 10 kids.

But let’s talk turkey:

Each Monday, Jason sends an email called Monday Hotsheet. It’s a bunch of curated resources — interesting articles, tech, videos that Jason has come across.

That’s pretty normal.

What was weird is that Jason used to send the Monday Hotsheet as a PDF that he’d link to in his email. Even weirder, the PDF was formatted in two columns, like some insurance brochure.

I liked to read through Jason’s Monday Hotsheet but I always chuckled at the experience. Who does PDFs any more? And in two columns like this?

Well, I guess I manifested something myself, and I should have been more careful about what I asked for.

Because Jason for some reason recently switched Monday Hotsheet to be simply delivered in his daily email, and in just one measly column.

I found myself disappointed. From one week to the next, Jason’s Monday Hotsheet looked cheaper, much less valuable and interesting.

Suddenly, I asked myself if I need another weekly email the curates useful and interesting resources online? I feel like everybody from Arnold Schwarzenegger on down has one of those. I ain’t got time for all these curated valuable resources.

A-list copywriter Parris Lampropoulos once got a tin pot and a wooden spoon. He then started banging on the tin pot with the wooden spoon while jumping up and down on his couch and chanting, “Format beats copy! Format beats copy!”

(Fine. The part with the wooden spoon and the tin pot I made up. But all the rest of that story is true, except the jumping up and down.)

Parris was specifically talking about the format of sales copy.

Once upon a time, you could take a proven sales letter, format it to look like a magazine or an article or a newsletter issue (the print kind), and you might get a 2.5x bump in response. Format beats copy: Ain’t no copy in the universe that’s gonna get you that kind of a bounce, not when you already have top copywriters working for you.

This holds just as well for info products, whether you give ’em away or charge thousands of dollars for them.

Yes, people should only want the truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, it shouldn’t matter whether you deliver the truth on a 3×5 index card, or in a 3-ring binder, or a never-to-be-repeated secret performance in an amphitheater in the middle of some remote forest.

It shouldn’t matter, but it does matter.

So my point for you today is, think about the format in which you will deliver your truth.

And if you’ve already delivered your truth, and nobody much cared, or they cared at first and then they dropped off… then think about format again.

Rather than coming up with a new message, you might be able to keep the message and simply deliver it as a 2-column PDF, or whatever else feels unique and different and valuable in your industry.

And sometimes, simple word choice is enough to change the format. Or at least be a major part of it.

Take for example my Daily Email Habit service. At bottom, it’s delivered as a daily email. I could have simply said, “Hey, would you like to sign up for a new set of daily emails, and pay me $30 a month for the privilege?”

Maybe some forward-thinking people would have taken me up on this. But i don’t think it would have worked nearly as well as calling Daily Email Habit a service, which happens to be delivered by email, for your convenience.

Speaking of Daily Email Habit, if you’d like to find out more about this valuable service, or even try it out yourself:

https://bejakovic.com/deh

The Bejako starter pack

by

You might be familiar with the concept of a starter pack. It’s a kind of meme format.

In a starter pack, people put together a few images or phrases or whatever, which are representative of something — a gym bro, a local Mexican restaurant, a 1980s heavy metal video.

New Yorker magazine does its own variant, where it asks people they profile to create a starter pack for themselves, consisting of a movie, a TV show, a book, and an album, which are somehow representative.

I had to try it. So here goes:

Bejako starter pack ingredient #1 (movie): The Princess Bride

If you’ve been a reader of this newsletter for a while, this should be no surprise.

My optin page literally says:

“I write a daily email newsletter about direct marketing, copywriting, and my love for the books and screenplays of William Goldman.”

Well, Goldman wrote the screenplay for The Princess Bride, based on his book of the same title.

(He also wrote the famous line, “Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.” On my website, that morphed into, “Hello. My name is John Bejakovic. You found my website. Prepare to decide.”)

The fact is, I saw The Princess Bride for the first time when I was 11. It was the perfect mix of adventure, romance, and self-aware humor for 11-year-old Bejako.

I guess I’ve never really matured past 11.

The only thing that’s changed for me over the years, as I’ve continued to re-watch this movie, is that I appreciate how it doesn’t talk down or moralize to you.

“Life is pain,” is the core message of the story. In the end, the bad guy goes free. And the main character, Westley, dies. Though ok, miracles do sometimes happen, as do happy endings.

Bejako starter pack ingredient #2 (TV show): Twin Peaks

David Lynch, who made Twin Peaks, died a couple weeks ago. There aren’t many celebrities whose deaths I care about… but I cared about Lynch. He was hinting there might be a season 4 of Twin Peaks, and now it will never happen.

Season 2 of Twin Peaks, which came out in 1990, was largely atrocious.

Season 3 of Twin Peaks, which came out 25+ years later in 2017, was surprisingly good.

But the best is still the original season 1, which Lynch directed and co-wrote.

It has the usual Lynch blend of mystery, sex, horror, weirdness, and quaintness. Plus beautiful shots of wind blowing through the trees.

Bejako starter pack ingredient #3 (book): Dune

I had the most trouble choosing a book for my starter pack.

That’s because, as I wrote a few weeks ago, I don’t particularly enjoy reading, even though I’ve read a lot my whole life.

I also wasn’t sure how to choose a book here. A book that influenced me? Or that I enjoyed reading? Or that I thought was particularly well written?

I ended up going with enjoyment, and picked Frank Herbert’s Dune.

I first read Dune when I was 20, and then a couple more times since.

The story is familiar enough after all the TV shows and movies made based on it in recent years.

I guess what I like in it, beyond the familiar but rousing story of the arrival of “The One,” are the elements of religion… the formation of legend… plus simply the promise of a drug you can take, which makes you so smart you can literally predict the future by seeing all possible outcomes in parallel.

Bejako starter pack ingredient #4 (album): Station To Station by David Bowie

I like a lot of Bowie albums. This one is my favorite. I like the style, sound, strangeness of it, all mostly fueled by cocaine and paranoia.

By the way, coked-up Bowie from this period has inspired the central tenet of this newsletter. In an interview with Playboy, Bowie said:

“Nothing matters except whatever it is I’m doing at the moment. I can’t keep track of everything I say. I don’t give a shit. I can’t even remember how much I believe and how much I don’t believe. The point is to grow into the person you grow into. I haven’t a clue where I’m gonna be in a year.”

Maybe in a year, I’ll have to do another, different starter pack.

For now, this one will give you more insight into me than most people who know me in person have.

As you can probably guess, today’s email was based on the Daily Email Habit “puzzle” I sent out today.

Sometimes it’s good to write emails like this, to surprise people, and to simply let them a bit into your own world.

But other times, entirely different emails are called for. And that’s what I make sure Daily Email Habit puzzles do, day in and day out.

If you’d like to get started with your own daily email habit, starting with tomorrow’s puzzle, which is entirely different and much more difficult to guess at than today’s, here’s where to go:

https://bejakovic.com/deh

It’s not an OPEN loop, it’s an OPENED loop

by

A while back, marketer Daniel Throssell wrote an email pointing out the nonsense of the term “open loop.”

An open loop, as you might know, is a technique in copywriting where you start a story and then cut it off to talk about other stuff, basically leading the reader on and sucking him deeper and deeper in.

I was a tad irritated by Daniel’s calling out “open loop” as nonsense, because I always thought the term sounded somehow poetic. But really, I had to admit I couldn’t make sense of how an “open loop” makes sense.

Well, I found out yesterday where “open loop” actually comes from and what it actually is — a corruption of a term from computer programming.

Computer programs have constructs known as loops — “for” loops, “while” loops etc. – where an instruction is executed over and over while some condition holds true. So you open, say, a “for” loop within a computer program, and then you specify what happens next. (What happens next can actually include opening a new “for” loop — so you end up with a hierarchy of embedded “for” loops, one within the other.)

This analogy between computer program loops and a technique of communication was first made by Richard Bandler and John Grinder, the creators of neurolinguistic programming or NLP.

In the 1970s, Grinder and Bandler were at the University of California Santa Cruz (my alma mater), a school that combined such interests as computer programming, linguistics, and dropping acid. It was natural that Bandler and Grinder would make the loop analogy, not only because it was in the water at UCSC, but because of the nested nature of both kinds of structures.

Ultimately, Bandler and Grinder got the idea for this technique from psychotherapist and hypnosis innovator Milton Erickson, one of the most effective therapists of all time. Bandler and Grinder sat at Erickson’s feet and recorded Erickson’s unique patterns of communication, which then became formalized as NLP techniques.

This really gets to the core of this email. The core is my answer to the daily puzzle from my Daily Email Habit service, which you can sign up for at the link at the bottom. Because one thing that Bandler and Grinder noticed was that Erickson would often embed suggestions in the middle of a story.

Embedded suggestions supposedly work better than if you just tell people to do something outright. And if you tell a bunch of nested stories, and embed a suggestion at the center of them all, it supposedly works even better.

Who knows though? Maybe it just worked for Milton Erickson, because the guy was unusually skilled, observant, and charismatic.

Besides, Erickson enjoyed constantly experimenting and inventing new techniques and new means of allowing people to make the changes that they wanted to make. He didn’t seem to be particularly wedded to any one technique, which is something I admire him for, and a credo I live by myself.

Grinder and Bandler, on the other hand, took Erickson’s improvised, free flowing, one-time experiments and formalized them into set rules and templates with catchy names.

Rules and templates with catchy names tend to sell well, which is why NLP ideas, effective or not, have become so widespread and influential, from corporate training, to copywriting, to pick up artists.

Along the way, of course, a lot has been lost, and even more has become corrupted. Which brings me back to the term “open loop.”

Now that we know where the term comes from, it’s clear it’s not really an “open loop.” Rather, it’s that you “open a loop,” or maybe you have an “opened loop.”

In Ericksonian hypnosis as in computer programming, you eventually have to close your loop to have a program that’s syntactically valid. (And if you’ve nested multiple loops, one within the other, you have to close each one, in reverse order to how you opened them.)

All that’s to say, I have to admit that Daniel Throssell was right and that the term “open loop,” poetic though it sounded to me, doesn’t really make sense. And now you know what term really does make sense — an OPENED loop — and maybe you’ve learned something else along the way.

And as for that link I promised you, it’s below. Maybe it could be valuable for you to take a look at it now:

https://bejakovic.com/deh

Seeing is believing

by

Try this little experiment right now:

Stretch out your left arm so it’s straight in front of you. Do it so the thumb of your left hand rests on the screen (of your phone or laptop, where you’re reading this email), right next to the X below:

X

Try it, right now. It will make the rest of this email much more impactful. Litterally stretch out your arm, and put your thumb next to the X above.

Next, look at your thumbnail. Focus on it. Make sure it’s nice and clear in your mind’s eye. And then, if you can, without moving your eyes, shift your attention to the X.

Ok go. follow the instructions above. And when you’ve done it, keep reading below.

Done?

If you’ve done the experiment above, you’ll find it’s surprisingly hard to not move your eyes when you focus on something else, even a few millimeters away.

But if you can switch your attention to the X while keeping your eyes on your thumb, you will also find that the X, close as it is to where your eyes are looking, is blurry and out of focus.

You might know this fact already, but seeing is believing:

Human vision is remarkably low-fi.

Only about 1-2 degrees of our visual field are in high definition and in focus. (That’s about a thumbnail’s worth, at arm’s length in front of you.) The rest of your visual field is blurry and devoid of detail.

The reason it doesn’t FEEL like that is because what we look at is always in focus, and because our eyes are constantly flitting from one place to another, without conscious control, based on what we find interesting in the moment.

When I was a kid, and probably for a good part of my adult life, had somebody told me that pretty much all my vision is a blur, with one tiny thumbnail’s worth of detail and “truth,” I would have rebelled, argued. All my experience and intuition spoke against it.

So could somebody have changed my stubborn mind?

Explanations of the fovea… quoting scientific experiments… testimonials from other people who say, “Yes, my vision is super low-fi”… none as these would be as effective as simply getting me to simply stretch out my arm, make a thumbs up, and experience for myself how, if I focus on my thumbnail, I can’t see anything else clearly, even half an inch away.

All that’s to repeat a fundamental marketing truth:

Demonstration is the most valuable kind of proof.

You might know this fact already as well. But seeing is believing.

And on the topic of demonstration:

I can tell you that the past couple of days, I’ve been doing demonstration of my “Heart of Hearts” system. That’s a system I’ve come up with to figure out what people in my audience really want and how to best present it to them, with the ultimate goal of more consistent success with new offers.

At the end of my last couple emails, I’ve been polling for interest in the Heart of Hearts system. Polling for interest is definitely one part of the Heart of Hearts system. But it’s not the first part, and it’s certainly not the last.

There’s stuff behind the scenes that won’t be obvious if you’re simply reading my emails.

But I will make you a deal:

If more consistent success with new offers is something that you’d be interested in, then hit reply and tell me a bit about who you are and what you do.

In turn, I will add you to a private announcement list.

That way, you’ll have the opportunity to get my Heart of Hearts system when I release it later this month. And even if you choose not to get it, you might get a further bit of live demonstration about how my Heart of Hearts system works.

Looking to get a little off the coaching ship?

by

In response to my email yesterday, a reader and former coaching client (not sure he wants me to share his name) wrote in to say:

===

Hey John,

Hope all is well.

Good news – having a daughter by end of the month 😊

This sets an exciting challenge for me to dive further into low ticket product sales, ascension, repeat customers rather than clients.

So I can get a little off the coaching ship and buy back time.

===

The good news is if you are a coach, and you actually have clients you work with, then you are one lucky skunk.

That’s because coaches have personal contact with their best customers/clients, and the chance to really listen and ask a ton of questions — even very probing stuff.

A coach can get insights into what sucks for his or her prospects now… what they are really after… what they’ve tried before that didn’t work… what possible solutions would be unacceptable to them on religious, political, or dietary grounds.

All this info can go into the meat mincer, out of which comes a beautiful and shiny new offer-sausage that people actually want to buy.

That’s the high-level picture. I have much more to say about the specifics. But about that:

As I’ve been writing in my past couple emails, last year I came up with a new system for myself to help me get more predictable success with new offers.

I applied this system when I had the idea for my Daily Email Habit service. It worked great.

So far, I have only shared my system with the people inside my Daily Email House community.

This month, I will make this system available a bit more widely. I’ll be sharing it with a few people on my list, if I think it can actually be useful to them.

I will make you a deal right now:

If you’re looking to get a little off the coaching ship, then hit reply and tell me a bit about who you are and what you do. In turn, I will add you to a private announcement list, so you have the opportunity to get my system when I release it later this month.

Trump whale research intelligence

by

This past November, right after Trump won the election, the WSJ ran a story about a “Trump whale” — a mysterious trader, known only as Theo, who had made a series of very large bets on the Polymarket prediction market.

Theo had bet $30 million of his own money that 1) Trump would win the election, that 2) he would win the popular vote, and that 3) he would sweep the “blue wall” of swing states.

Against the predictions of all pollsters, and against even the betting odds on Polymarket, all three things came to pass, and Theo collected $50 million as a payday.

The WSJ managed to get in contact with Theo. He explained some of his reasoning for why he was confident enough to put down $30 million of his own money on bets against what both experts and the wisdom of the crowd were saying.

That’s how I learned the following:

The normal way to poll people is to ask them, “Who you gonna vote for?” That produces certain results, which as this past election and previous elections have shown, can be significantly off from reality.

But a less normal way to poll people is to ask them, “Who your neighbor gonna vote for?” For whatever psychological reason, this tends to produce poll results that are significantly different than the normal way to poll.

Theo looked at a couple of these “neighbor” polls done in September alongside normal polls. The neighbor polls were all suggesting that support for Trump was several percentage points higher than everybody was saying.

This became one of the data points that gave this guy the confidence to make his ballsy bets, and the info to bet right and win $50 mil.

I’m telling you this for two reasons.

Reason one is if you’re trying to get info out of your readers, it might make sense not to ask them, “What do you want,” but to ask, “What do you think other people would want?” I tried it while initially working out the right pricing for Daily Email Habit, and it gave me useful info.

Reason two is simply that this neighbor polling thing is just another example of how much our own self-centered thinking tends to color how we see the world and how we behave.

I’m telling you this specifically in case you are ever plagued by thoughts like, “Nobody would want to read what I write,” or, “Nobody would want to pay money for this offer I have.”

The sticking point there is the old, I Me Mine.

If you find yourself ever thinking thoughts like — convincing yourself that you can predict what other people think, when it comes to what you are doing or could be doing — then take a lesson from the Trump whale:

The next time you are sure that you know what other people think, take yourself out of the equation. Ask yourself, “Would there be people who would want to read or buy this… if my neighbor were offering it?”

Do this, and you might win bigly.

And btw, today’s email was based on my daily puzzle that went out via Daily Email Habit. If you enjoyed today’s email, maybe you’d enjoy writing emails following daily email habit? Or maybe your neighbor would? Here’s more info in either case:

https://bejakovic.com/deh