Persuasion

I’m banging my shoe on the desk right now to convince you to opt in to my bullets mini-course

by

On October 12 1960, Nikita Khrushchev took the podium at the UN General Assembly. Khrushchev was a short, round, combative guy. He was also the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and one of the two most powerful men on the planet.

“Mister President of the Assembly,” Khrushchev shouted in Russian, “you must bring these proceedings to order! What the previous speaker just said is completely false! He is a stooge! A lackey! A toady of American imperialism!”

Khrushchev then took off his left shoe. He started to bang it full force on the podium. “I refuse to have the great name of the Soviet Union blackened in this way!”

Well, I’ve just taken off my own left shoe. And though you can’t see me, I am ready to start banging it on my desk.

For the past two days, I’ve had a hidden offer at the end of my posts. The offer is for you to sign up to get my free “How to write bullets” email mini course. Here’s a bit of what’s inside that course:

* Halbert’s crucial bullet secret (almost unknown among copywriters) (email 4)

* How A-list copywriters stab you in the heart, and then twist the knife (email 3)
​
* What never to omit in a bullet. Never. (email 1)​
​
* The #1 technique for bizarre bullet mechanisms. Take a piece of paper and write these 5 words across the top. (email 9)

* How women can write more exciting bullets (even if the source material is boring) (email 7)
​
* Genuine weird payoff bullets (email 11)

* A simple 3-hour “trick” which 100% makes your bullets better (email 13)

I put out this free mini course only once before, last January. Eventually, I expanded it significantly, made it interactive, and turned it into my Copy Riddles training.

So here I am now, shoe in hand, giving you a chance to bring your own proceedings in order, and get the original free course. Today. The last day it is available.

You’ll have to sign up to my email newsletter first. And then, you will have to write me an email to ask to be put on the free bullets email course. If you’re willing to jump through all those hoops, here’s where to get started.

5 (+ five) easy ecommerce pieces

by

See if you can spot the one green “5” in the picture below:

Wasn’t hard, was it?

But if I asked you how many 5’s there are in the above picture, that wouldn’t be as easy. In fact it might be a pain in the ass, and you might give up rather than count.

Counting doesn’t come natural to us. Our eyes and brain have to work at it.

Not so with contrast.

We’re kind of like that T-Rex in the original Jurassic Park. “Don’t move… it can’t see us if we don’t move.” In other words, create enough contrast, and your prospect immediately sees the message you want him to see.

Of course, marketers have long known about this. And they have long used it to make more sales. As Rich Schefren likes to say, different is better than better.

Anyways, that was my little intro to try to sell you on watching the video below. It’s a recording of a presentation Stefan Georgi gave a few weeks ago. And it’s all about split tests he always recommends performing in ecommerce funnels.

I’ve done a lot of work on the direct response side of ecommerce. And I knew some of Stefan’s split tests. But most were new to me.

And while it’s not guaranteed that any of these split tests will win for any specific funnel, all of them sound reasonable. Because all of them are based on fundamentals.

Stuff like contrast… or reason why… or guiding your prospect’s attention… or cutting down his confusion.

So if you’d like to see all of Stefan’s split tests, along with his breakneck explanations for what exactly to test and why, you can find it at the YouTube video below.

But be careful. Because the first two-thirds of Stefan’s presentation are all about these split tests. But then Stefan shifts gear.

​​And he gives a soft pitch for the Copy Accelerator live event that’s happening in Scottsdale at the end of this month.

I say be careful because you can get sucked into Stefan’s pitch. For example, it happened to me.

After watching Stefan’s presentation yesterday and hearing his pitch, I found myself excited abuot going to the Copy Accelerator event. Even though I’d have to fly halfway around the world to do it (what a contrast and a pain)… and even though I’d have to laboriously count out a bunch of simoleons for plane tickets, hotel rooms, and for the event admission itself.

We will see how that ends up. ​​

In the meantime, if you’re already planning on going to Stefan’s event, let me know. So far, I’ve only met 2 people in real life who read my email newsletter. I’d like to maybe bring that up to 3, and meeting you there might sway me to go.

(Whaat? You’re not signed up to my email newsletter? You can fix that here.)

And if you’re not going to Copy Accelerator (yet), or if you just want to see Stefan’s ecommerce optimizations, here’s the money-making video:

The power of accusation

by

Yesterday was the first time I ever got excited to watch a sales message. But I wound up bitterly disappointed. Aye, even offended.

Quick background:

I talked to a friend the day before. He’s a doctor. “We’re headed for a new round of corona lockdowns,” he said. He gave me reasons why, based on Israel and the rise in infections there. All this was news to me.

Then yesterday, I got an email with the subject line, “COVID’s return.” My ears pricked up because of my friend’s warning. I opened the email.

“Corona is all about control,” the email said. This tapped into my recent interest in mechanisms of control. So I clicked the link and found—

Ron Paul! Telling me the truth about corona!

Now in my eyes, Ron Paul is a genuine celebrity. He’s a former U.S. Congressman… a well-known libertarian figure… and three-time presidential candidate.

So that’s the quick background. New corona lockdowns… mechanisms of control… Ron Paul. That’s why I was excited to watch this sales message. For the first time ever.

Sure, the message came from Stansberry Research. So I knew what the conclusion would be — buy our newsletter and protect your money, or even prosper while the rest of the country goes to hell.

Still, I thought I might hear something new and interesting along the way. Something that would give me context for puzzling things I’ve been seeing. Something that might make me say, “A-ha, it makes sense now!”

But I didn’t get any of that. Even though the email promised to tell me “what’s actually going on in America”… and even though the sales page warned “Something BIG Is Coming”…

All I got was a bit about Ron Paul (it turns out he’s a doctor by training)… and then a bunch of stuff about out-of-control government debt… and how we are giving too much money to stupid things like the National Endowment for the Arts.

“But there’s nothing new here, Ron!” I finally yelled at the screen. “Why are you wasting my time with this? But don’t answer, I know. Because they are paying you. Still, Stansberry’s been saying this same thing for what, 20 years? Why should I buy it now? Couldn’t they come up with something a little fresh? A little stimulating?”

Hm.

Maybe you agree with me that Ron Paul and Stansberry should both go to the Devil, where they came from. Maybe you’re glad I finally voiced that.

Or maybe you’re puzzled by my negativity, and you’re wondering why I’d yell at my own computer screen.

Or maybe you’re put off. “All right, Bejako,” I hear you saying, “since you’re so holy, what fresh and stimulating thing did you say with this nasty email?”

To which I could pretend I’m not selling anything here. But you and I both know that’s not true.

So let me leave you with a quote from Arthur Miller’s The Crucible:

“Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God’s fingers? I’ll tell you what’s walking Salem – vengeance is walking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law!”

The Crucible is a morality play about judging and accusing others. But it’s a morality play because it’s not just about a bad episode in Massachusetts in 1692… but about something fundamental in human nature.

So here’s the new and maybe stimulating bit I offer you:

I’m not suggesting you blacklist people. But if you set yourself up as an accuser in your market, at least some of the time… there is power in that.

Power?

Yes, power. The chance to write the law.  The keys to the kingdom. Particularly if you accuse somebody new… and if you are genuine in your outrage and your vengeance.

By the way, I know of several other direct response companies that are guilty of deadly marketing sins. I’ve seen them at night, walking with the Devil. And I will name them. But if you want to read more about that, sign up to my newsletter here.

Obvious one-time product placement inside

by

“Mona, I am drinking my milk right now.”

He pours out a full glass of milk with an ice cube in it. He tops it off with vodka from a Smirnoff bottle. And he drinks it down.

I saw this scene from Mad Men once, probably 15 years ago.

I thought it was great. It still sticks in my mind. But I never did buy a bottle of Smirnoff. And if I were to ever buy vodka, Smirnoff wouldn’t be my first choice.

So product placements — do they work?

Professors in business schools trip over each other to answer this question.

They take real TV shows. They splice in different kinds of product placements. They show them to students. And then they ask, “By the way… what do you happen to think of Smirnoff?”

As a result, these marketing professors come up with conclusions like:

1. If a product placement is subtle, then repeated exposure actually improves attitude towards a brand.

2. If a product placement is obvious, then repeated exposure hurts attitude towards a brand.

Interesting, right? Except you can’t really tell what it means in the real world.

After all, like my Smirnoff story from above shows, a product placement can “work” great. And yet still no sale.

But here’s a surprising bit from the same research, which might be more useful. These marketing professors also asked students, “Oh, and even more by the way… what did you think of the show?”

Same show of course, just different types of product placements spliced in. Result:

1. People liked the TV show the most if it had a SINGLE OBVIOUS product placement…

2. Next came the show with MULTIPLE SUBTLE product placements…

3. Next, the show with a SINGLE SUBTLE product placement…

4. And finally, far down in last place, MULTIPLE OBVIOUS product placements. People really didn’t like the show in this case.

Which fits my beliefs about how we all go through life.

We like buying stuff. We also like shortcuts that cut down our work of making buying decisions. But we want to feel we are in control of those decisions… even when we are not.

Whatever. I thought this might be useful to you, in case you have your own TV show, whether that’s an email newsletter, or a YouTube channel, or your own Facebook group.

It’s not clear that an occasional clear plug will be optimal for your sales. But if your biz is built on relationship first… and sales numbers only second… then the above academic result is something to consider.

And in that spirit, let me say I found out the above while doing research for my upcoming book. It’s called The Gospel of Insight Marketing. And it’s all about the most powerful way to persuade people to buy… even in markets where people are jaded, hostile, or frankly indifferent to your pitch.

The book isn’t out yet. I’m working on it now. But I won’t bring it up again, at least not obviously, until it’s ready for reading. After all, I care my relationship with you… and science says this is the way to go.

Finally:

If you’d like to find out when my Gospel book is ready for reading… sign up for my email newsletter.

Free self-assessment: Which ad won?

by

Do you want a little self-assessment? If you do, take the A/B test below:

VERSION A

[Illustration: Panel containing a list of symptoms of nervous trouble]

Headline: Thousands suffer from sick nerves and don’t know it

VERSION B

[Illustration: Photograph of a nerve specialist]

Headline: Have you these symptoms of nerve exhaustion?

One of these ads was a big flop and ran only once. The other was a big success and ran over and over.

So which is which?

Think about it…

… think…

… take your time…

… all right. You ready?

The winner is B. But the right answer is less important than what you yourself thought the right answer was. Here’s what I’m thinking.

According to John Caples, who reported this A/B test in his Tested Advertising Methods, headline B won because it has the word you. On the other hand, says Caples, the losing headline is “simply a statement of fact.”

It certainly could be that. But maybe it’s the word these in the winning headline. Or maybe it’s the picture of the nerve specialist.
​
Or maybe, and this is just my guess, it’s that word thousands that killed the losing version. Because dig it:

One of the fundamental needs we all have is to feel special. That need is so powerful that sometimes, we are willing to hang on to our pain because it allows us to keep feeling special.

“Thousands might suffer from sick nerves… but that’s not my case unfortunately. My case is unique.”​​

So if you chose Version A in the self-assessment above, here’s a diagnosis:

You might be too truthful and direct with your marketing. You could benefit by protecting your prospect’s specialness a little more. At the least, don’t bluntly say, “I’ve seen your case a thousand times before. Here’s a cure.”

And if you chose Version B above, you probably have an intuitive understanding of the value of making people feel special.

​​In that case, remember there are simple and easy tactics for making people feel special. But you probably already realized this — since you’re a Type B.

Finally:

Here’s a special offer for you if you guessed A on the test above.

But you say you guessed B instead? How unusual. In that case, here’s a special offer for you also.

Unmasking the real Ellen (and everybody else in your life)

by

“Thanks very much. This is exciting, isn’t it? This is really great. I’m happy. You seem like a great crowd. Of course, you never know. Never can tell.”
— Ellen DeGeneres, One Night Stand

A few days ago, I watched a bunch of episodes of One Night Stand. That was the half-hour standup show that ran on HBO in the early 90s.

One of the One Night Stand specials from 1992 was Ellen DeGeneres. I’d never seen her standup before. In fact, I’d never seen her talkshow. I only knew her as the TV “Queen of Nice” who was unmasked as being a bitch in real life.

Whatever. I was surprised I liked Ellen’s 90s standup. Here’s a bit about her going for a mud bath:

“You submerge in mud. You’re naked. They always want you to be naked to be rid of stress. Ever notice that? To me that’s more stressful actually. You’re naked around people you don’t know who are naked… and you have no pockets. You don’t know what to do with your hands. [She does a little pantomime of covering her crotch, crossing her legs, crossing her arms.]”

After watching Ellen’s One Night Stand, I found it very credible that she is not a nice person in real life.

In her comedy special, Ellen is very smiley, blonde, and cute. But she doesn’t hide her snarky, judgmental nature. Or who knows, maybe I’m just reading into it, since I know the stuff that’s been said of her recently. But I don’t think so. Because there’s this general truth:

People are often talking about themselves, regardless of the apparent topic of conversation.

And all you have to do is to be aware of this fact. You can then get a lot of useful information without asking any prying questions. Maybe, if you’re curious, you can even go look over this post and find out things about me. Stuff I didn’t mean to reveal. You never can tell.

Anyways, if you want more advice on figuring out the true nature of your friends, family, and sales prospects, it’s stuff I occasionally talk about in my email newsletter. If you’d like to try that out, and see if you find it entertaining and educational, click here.

The strange story of three girls who became one

by

“We can’t go anywhere without each other!” said the first girl.

“It drives us crazy! But we can’t split up no matter what we do!” said the second.

“Can you help us, doctor?” asked the third. “We still want to be friends, but this is too much!”

In 1972, three college girls showed up to a therapist’s office. They were suffering from what psychologists call fused identity. It’s the personality equivalent of leaving a bag of gummy bears in the sun until they all melt together.

The girls were aware of what had happened. They wanted to change. But they couldn’t. So they were seeking help.

“I understand,” said the therapist. “There’s an important first step I want you to take. After that, I can recommend a course of action.”

“Tell us!” said girl one.

“We’ll do anything!” said girls two and three in unison.

“First, I want you to make a list of your planned activities for tomorrow,” the therapist said. “The ones you expect you will do together.”

The girls nodded and did as he asked.

“And then tomorrow,” the therapist said, “it’s extremely important that you do each of these things together, as you just told me you would. Don’t deviate from this plan one bit. You have to be at all of these activities, together. All three of you. Then the day after, come see me again.”

This case was reported in a paper titled, “Dissolution of fused identity in one therapeutic session.” Because one session was all it took. The girls lost interest in spending all their time together… after they were told they HAD to do it.

This is a core part of human existence. Your prospects have it inside them also. They have a problem… they might even want help… but they are repulsed by being told what to do.

So here’s an important first step:

Forget what you just read. And it’s extremely important that the next time you craft a persuasive message, you do NOT think of clever ways to deal with your prospects’ stubborn resistance to outside influence. Particularly if you sell in a really skeptical, jaded market. Then the day after you do that, come and see me again.

Do you think you’re smarter than average?

by

I think I’m pretty smart, and I’d bet you think the same about yourself. I mean that literally. I would bet money on the fact that you think you are smarter than most other people.

I’ll tell you why in a second. But first, let me tell you how I broke a nonsensical law a few days ago.

There’s an intersection near the apartment where I’ve been staying for the past week. It has a stop light. There’s never any traffic in the cross direction, or even the chance of traffic in the cross direction.

To top it off, the red light stays red very long… and the green light only appears for a flicker.

So a few days ago, following a few other cars, I drove through that intersection. Even though the light had turned red right before me.

A trivial thing, right?

Well, it turns out I got lucky. Not because of any cross traffic. Like I said, no traffic there, then or ever.

But every time I’ve walked by that intersection since, I’ve seen a lurking cop car on the side, watching the intersection like a cat in the grass watching a mouse burrows.

Gulp. I must not be the only one to think that traffic light is stupid.

And that’s my point for you for today. People act and think in predictable ways. And this can be useful to you when persuading. Or giving out traffic tickets.

And now, let me tell you why I’d bet on you and your smarts.

It’s the same reason I’d bet you think you’re more curious than most other people… that you change your bedsheets less than other people… and that you have sex less often than other people.

Here, check it out. You might learn something about yourself, and about how to persuade others too:

https://thanaverage.xyz/

(Oh, and since you think you’re so smart, you might like my email newsletter. It’s the thinking man’s source of ideas about persuasion, designed for smart people like yourself. You can sign up here.)

The vulnerability myth

by

Ron was waiting in his wheelchair, looking up the stairs.

The necklace he had just bought was wrapped up on the table in front of him.

Finally, he saw her.

She was coming down the stairs, laughing and talking to another man.

At the bottom of the stairs, she kissed the man on the lips and grabbed him by the crotch. She then noticed Ron from the corner of her eye.

Ron quietly pulled the wrapped present off the table.

The woman came over. “We get married today?” she chuckled.

“Oh yeah, yeah,” Ron said. “That would be great.” He slumped down in his wheelchair. And he wheeled himself away.

That’s a scene scene from Oliver Stone’s Born on the Fourth of July. It’s a fictional look at the real-world horrors that paralyzed Vietnam vet Ron Kovic went through, both during the war and after.

I thought of this scene today when I heard yet another recruiting pitch for the cult of vulnerability. “Wear all your hidden handicaps on your sleeve,” the cult leaders say, “and people will love you for it.”

I want to offer you another point of view. It’s a simple formula:

Charisma = Power + Liking

I read that a long time ago in a book called The Charisma Myth. It’s stuck with me ever since.

It’s why a brutal, undefeated knight makes hearts beat faster with small acts of chivalry…

But why a vulnerable “nice guy” with flowers and gifts gets a pat on the head, at best.

Good news is, there’s a way out.

For example, at the end of the Oliver Stone movie, Ron speaks to a crowd of millions. People hang on to his every word. They absorb his anti-war message. And they applaud and cheer him.

But here’s the crucial point:

This only happens after Ron and a bunch of other vets make a scandal at the Republican National Convention… after they storm the convention hall… and after they get on TV.

So my pitch to you is to work on your power and your authority first.

​​Once you’ve got em in buckets, then bare your stories of self-doubt and failure.

​​People will listen then… they will feel good about following such an effective and yet human leader… and they might even love you for it.

In other news:

I’ve got an email newsletter. Full of effective marketing and copywriting ideas, and occasional personal stories. In case you’d like to sign up, here’s where to go.

They tried to bury this information… but I believe it

by

Here’s a sneaky story about the things they don’t want you to know:

Back in 2013, the European Union wanted proof that online piracy hurts sales of movies, books, and computer games. So they had a big study done.

The 300-page study was complete in 2015. It was then used for a second academic paper by two European Commission members, which came out in 2016.

The conclusion of that second paper was that piracy hurts movie sales by about 4.4%. “Our findings have important implications for copyright policy,” said that second paper.

The thing is, nobody ever saw the original 2013 study. It was never published. Not nowhere. Not until 2017.

​​That’s when Julia Reda, the Pirate Party member of the EU Parliament, got her hands on the missing study. And she published the results on her blog.

“With the exception of recently released blockbusters,” the 2013 study said, “there is no evidence to support the idea that online copyright infringement displaces sales.”

Hold on a second…

So was the EU hiding this study… so they could cherry pick results that fit their desired “important implications for copyright policy?”

It sure sounds like it. Sneaky governmentses, right?

But here’s the bigger truth in all this:

I found out about this yesterday. An article about it was published in an online tech news site. It then went viral on a news aggregator.

But this story has been public since 2017… and yet we’re talking about it now, in the middle of 2021. There’s something there.

As you probably know, if a bit of information is scarce, we tend to value it more. “Long-lost study from 2013” piques our curiosity. But maybe not all that much, and not for all that long.

However, if that bit of information was suppressed, we tend to value it much more. “Long-lost study from 2013 that the government worked hard to bury.” That’s something worth discussing even years later.

“Fine,” you might say. “But I kind of knew that already. It sounds like the lead of every health VSL ever.”

All right. But let’s see if you knew this:

Bob Cialdini’s Influence lists a bunch of evidence that censorship doesn’t just increase desire for censored info…

But censorship also increases belief in that information. Even if you don’t actually see the information.

For example, I haven’t read the original EU study about piracy. Come on, it’s 300 pages. Who’s got time?

But I believe the conclusions. Why else would the EU try to censor it? I bet a bunch of people on that news aggregator thought the same, and that’s why this story went viral.

My takeaway for you is this:

Desire and belief are really two sides of the same coin.

Whether you’re using specificity… or a new mechanism… or even secrets… if you juice up one side of the coin, the other side gets bigger too.

And I’ve got evidence to prove it. Evidence nobody has seen before. I hope to publish it one day soon… if they don’t get to me first. If you want to read that secret report when it comes out, here’s our underground communication channel.