Psychology Behind Advertising

Marketers are from Mars, prospects are from—?

by

John Gray catches a lot of flak for his 1992 best-seller, Men are from Mars, Women are from Wenus.

But I’ve personally gotten a lot of use out of this short idea from Gray’s book:

“The most frequently expressed complaint women have about men is that men don’t listen. Either a man completely ignores her when she speaks to him, or he listens for a few beats, assesses what is bothering her, and then proudly puts on his Mr. Fix-It cap and offers her a solution to make her feel better. He is confused when she doesn’t appreciate this gesture of love. No matter how many times she tells him that he’s not listening, he doesn’t get it and keeps doing the same thing. She wants empathy, but he thinks she wants solutions.”

The thing is, it’s not just men who prematurely jump to solutions. And it’s not just women who will ignore offered solutions, even when they are perfectly good.

We are all like this, much of the time.

When we are frustrated, most of us hate having suggestions tossed at us. “Don’t you think I’ve thought of that? It would never work in my case! Why don’t you just listen for a second?”

I know I’ve reacted like this, at least internally, while keeping up a stoic front. And I’ve seen plenty of other guys — some of them manly, practical-minded men – nervously shrugging off good solutions to their ongoing problems.

The question to me is why? Why do women and men both choose not solve problems for which there are good solutions?

I’ve spent a bit of time thinking about this.

My conclusion is this isn’t a trivial human quirk, or like Gray says, just a hysterical cry for a bit of empathy.

Instead, my feeling is it goes back to fundamental human needs, like those I talked about yesterday.

Specifically, the need for uniqueness… and the need for meaning.

​​It might not seem very rational from the outside, but it makes perfect sense from the inside:

People will hold on to their problems just so they can keep feeling unique. “I might not have much… but I’ve got trouble like nobody’s ever seen.”

Or they will cling to pain and failure, even when there’s an easy way out. Because if there really is an easy way out, then what was the purpose of all that suffering they’ve experienced in the past?

In other words:

You might be selling your prospect a shiny new chrome pipe. And your prospect might desperately need it — the old pipe is rusted out and the basement is filling up with water. But what you don’t realize is that installing that new pipe might undermine the very foundations of your prospect’s house.

So that’s the problem that you face.

It’s tricky.

And it’s definitely unique.

But don’t worry. I won’t irritate you with any pigheaded suggestions for how you can solve this problem. At least I won’t do it here.

I’ll save that for an upcoming paid product. Maybe I will call it Marketers Are From Mars, Prospects Are From— but where exactly? I still have to work that part out. In case you want to get notified when this mansplaining guide comes out, sign up for my email newsletter.

Hating and loving in love and copy

by

A few years ago, I was walking along the street when I saw a queer sight:

An elderly couple was walking towards me, together but not together.

The woman was walking on the sidewalk.

​​Walking parallel to her, but about 10 feet away and in the actual road where the cars go, was her husband.

“That’s a strange way to walk with somebody,” I thought.

As they passed, I heard the woman speaking to the man, without facing him:

“That’s good. The further you are, the better. I don’t want to see you or hear you.”

Like I said, these people were elderly. I guess in their 60s or 70s. They’ve probably been married for a few decades, or maybe a half century.

How fitting, I thought. It really sums up the human condition.

The woman can’t stand her stupid husband. And yet they are together. If anything happened to him, she would probably be lost.

I had a suspicion about this kind of thing for a while.

It didn’t become clear in my head until I heard a Tony Robbins talk on the matter.

All human beings have a few fundamental needs, says Tony. And all our problems surface because half of our needs directly contradict the other half.

Turns out we are all rather complex bundles of different desires.

And though we say we want one thing, the exact opposite urge is also lurking somewhere, not far below the surface.

So when you write your copy, keep this in mind.

Promise people excitement and novelty… as well as certainty and control.

Offer to make them unique and outstanding… as well as beloved and part of a community.

People want magic. They will go through their whole lives wanting to believe it’s true. All you have to do is to tell them it is in fact so.

The BYAF compliance method

by

“Can I move? I’m better when I move.”

There’s a sexy scene in the 1969 classic Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid:

Butch and Sundance are American outlaws who have run away to Bolivia. They’re trying to get work at a Bolivian silver mine.

The boss at the mine wants to see if either Butch or Sundance can shoot a gun. What a joke. Sundance is the fastest and deadliest gun in the West.

So the boss throws a rock 30 feet away. “Hit that,” he says.

Sundance straightens his arm… takes aim… fires and misses.
​
The boss spits on the ground. He turns around and starts to walk away.

“Can I move?” Sundance asks.

“Move?” the boss says. “What the hell you mean move?”

In a split second, Sundance squats down, pulls out his gun, shoots the rock and then shoots it again while it’s midair, splitting it in two.

In other words:​​

It’s not common sense… but sometimes you get better results if you give people some space to move.

A while back, I read an academic paper about something called the BYAF compliance method.

​​BYAF = but you are free.

​​You make a request, and you tell people they are free to say no. It’s supposed to double the number of yeses you get.

It also goes against all copywriting dogma.

​​Copywriters will tell you that you should close off all doors… conclusively answer all objections… and PUSH PUSH PUSH for the sale.

So who’s right?

The BYAF crowd has 42 scientific studies on its side.

​​The “slam all the doors shut” copywriters have hundreds of millions or billions of dollars worth of sales behind them.

You might think the conclusion is clear. But I think it really depends on who you’re dealing with.

For example, Jim Camp was a negotiation expert who worked with Fortune 500 execs while they negotiated multi-billion-dollar deals.

One of the big tenets of his negotiation system was allowing people to say no.

​​It didn’t mean ending the negotiation… in fact, no was just the beginning.

Because Camp said that in the kinds of negotiations he was involved in, “slamming all the doors shut” so your prospect feels caged in and only has the option you want him to take… well, that was a recipe for an abrupt end to the negotiation, without ever being welcome back for round two.

Does this apply in copywriting?

I definitely think so.

Sure, there are markets where people need you to be a German Shepherd, barking at them so they make their way into the fold in an orderly fashion.

​​But there are other markets, equally as profitable or more so, where it’s better to allow people to move before you ask them to shoot.

And now, if you’d like to sign up for my newsletter:

Click here and fill out the form that appears. But of course, you’re are free to do whatever you choose.

My guilty-pleasure morning ritual gets an ugly update

by

I sat down a few moments ago for my guilty-pleasure morning ritual. The coffee was ready, I flipped open my laptop and—

“Oh what the hell is this,” I said out loud.

The game was still the same. But the background of the site had changed from dark gray to white.

I checked the URL. It was no longer some weird .co.uk domain. It was now nytimes.com.

Perhaps you’ve seen the same.

After all, millions of people around the world have all been playing this game each day, and millions more have been joining them week by week.

The game is a word-guessing game, called Wordle, created by a guy named Josh Wardle.

Wardle created Wordle some time ago as a game that just he and his girlfriend could play together. His friends and family got in on it too. Then Wardle released Wordle publicly on his website last October.

That first month, a total of 90 people played it.

Two months later, in December, the number of people playing Wordle each day had grown to 300,000.

By January, it was millions each day.

On February 1st, the New York Times bought Wordle from Wardle, for a “low 7 figures” sum. And today, here we are, with the stupid, white, failing NYT background.

Oh well. In the end, the corporations absorb everything. But let’s talk influence:

I can see many things that went into making Wordle a success. I want to point out just one. It might be relevant to you if you are interested in the creative or marketing side of reality.

Like, I said, Wordle is my guilty-pleasure morning ritual.

That’s because there’s only one Wordle puzzle each day.

Once you play — whether you win or lose — that’s it. You gotta wait until tomorrow, when the next one comes out.

This has a few key consequences:

One of course is scarcity. It makes each Wordle puzzle feel more valuable and interesting. It keeps you coming back day after day.

Two is that you can’t glut yourself.

With most games – and with things other than games too — I often keep playing to the point where I start to feel disgusted.

But there’s no risk of that with Wordle. It’s like a Spartan marriage. The two sides meet only rarely, and are full of desire for each other.

But maybe the most important thing is that each Wordle puzzle feels unique and real.

Wordle grew so quickly because players shared their results on Twitter. (Through a clever design, Wardle allowed people to share their results without giving away the puzzle.)

That worked because there is only one puzzle a day. Everybody in the world who played Wordle on a given day had that same puzzle.

In other words, it made sense to brag about your results, because other Wordle players actually shared your experience. It even created a sense of connection to other people playing Wordle.

But maybe you haven’t played Wordle yet, and you’re getting lost in what I’m talking about. Or maybe you’re wondering what this might mean for you, or how can you use this.

I’ll give you just one idea bouncing around in my head:

For a long time, I’ve been writing these daily emails, and then posting them to my website as an archive. This has helped me in the past because these blog archives were the main way people found me and my newsletter.

But that’s slowly changing. And so today I remembered an idea I had a while ago:

To scrap the archive, and simply post the latest daily email on my site. Each day, the email on the front page would be updated, and the previous email would disappear. Plus there would be a newsletter optin form for people who don’t want to miss out.

I’m not sure if this is smart. I’m not sure whether I will do it. But maybe.

Because Wardle’s Wordle success shows that in a world where everybody’s working hard to get you as addicted and engaged as possible… less can be more.

Anyways, if you have any advice for me on the technical side of how I could easily implement my latest-email-front-page idea on my WordPress site, please write in and let me know.

And if you haven’t played Wordle yet, you can find it on the white-background page at the link below. (I got today’s puzzle in two tries only — my best score yet.)

https://www.nytimes.com/games/wordle/index.html

Don’t listen to me, I’m just some guy

by

A lot of people dismiss my email newsletter because I’m just some guy. After all…

1. I don’t call myself a copywriting expert…

2. I don’t frame and hang up endorsements I’ve gotten from gurus in the field…

3. I don’t talk about how much money I make, or brag about my house, or car, or stable of racing mules…

4. I rarely talk about what sales results I’ve gotten…

5. I have no pictures of me on stage, with a roomful of people, facing towards me, pens and notebooks in hand…

6. I don’t work to position myself as “The World’s Greatest” anything…

7. I don’t have a string of control packages to trot out, or a bunch of marquee clients to keep referring to…

8. I don’t keep repeating that I care for you, and that I will take care of you, and that things will be okay, if you only do what I say and buy what I put on sale…

9. As far as I know, but my memory is dodgy, I’ve never put the adjectives best, uniquest, hardest working, most effective, or most interesting anywhere near my name.

And now, if you can, try to relax.

Because I’m not lashing out — or at least I don’t think so — against people who are more successful than I am.

I’m also not trying to signal my higher virtue or position myself as an outsider.

I’m not even trying to warn you about the evil gurus and their evil tactics.

And I’m definitely not promising that I won’t do any of the things on the list above, or that I’ve never done them before. Because I have, and I will.

So what’s up?

All I’m really doing today is what I what I like to do best in these emails. And that’s to find an interesting persuasion or influence idea… and then put it into practice.

Maybe you’d like to know what today’s idea is.

Well, here’s another self-defeating thing I sometimes do in these emails. I sometimes end my emails without leaving you with a clear soundbite to remember. But don’t worry.

I won’t leave you hanging completely.

You can find out more about today’s idea in the short post at the link below.

The post talks about one of the most influential and effective (and, I might add, best, uniquest, and hardest working) political ads of all time. In case you are interested:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dont-vote-negro-steve-silver

Oh, and if you want to join my email newsletter — but remember, I’m just some guy — you can do that here.

The man who kept falling out of bed

by

In the middle of the night, a man in a hospital bed kept falling out of bed.

Each time, the orderlies came and picked him up off the floor. They helped him get back into bed.

And then, a short while later — THUD. The man fell out again. The reason why is pretty incredible.

Today is the last day of my denial mini-series.

Over the past five days, I’ve showed you different ways that people deny unpleasant things in their lives.

I’ve been doing this A) because this denial stuff is fascinating… and B) because it’s something we all do all the time.

So my claim is that if you know how denial shows up in life, it can help you understand yourself better. And it can help you understand other people too, including the ones you want to get something from.

And now we’ve come full circle.

Because today’s final denial mechanism is projection.

I wrote about that recently. An Internet stranger sent me an email to accuse me of name-dropping in this newsletter… and in that same email, he rattled off the names of a bunch of copywriting gurus.

But that’s kind of fluffy, isn’t it?

There’s no way to prove that it’s really denial-by-projection that’s going on in such a person’s brain.

That’s why I’m telling you the story off the man who kept falling out of bed.

This story was reported in the book Phantoms in the Brain by Vilaynur Ramachandran. He’s the neuroscientist who studied people with paralyzed limbs.

Ramachandran found these paralyzed-limb patients sometimes engaged in ridiculous, obvious, impossible denials… in spite of otherwise being perfectly sane and rational people.

Like the guy who kept falling out of bed.

The doctor on the hospital ward asked him why he kept falling out of bed.

The falling man looked frightened. “Doctor,” he said, “these medical students have been putting a cadaver’s arm in my bed. I’ve been trying to get rid of it all night!”

In other words, this guy couldn’t admit the paralyzed arm belonged to him. So he assigned it to a cadaver.

And he kept pushing it away (rightly so, who wants to sleep next to a cadaver’s arm). But each time he finally got the arm out of the bed, he found himself pulled after it down to the floor.

You might say this denial borders between rationalization (my email yesterday) and projection (my email today).

Fine. Ramachandran has more straightforward projection stories.

Like the woman who claimed the paralyzed arm next to her was too big and hairy to be her own.

“Whose arm is it?” Ramachandran asked her.

The woman thought for a second. “It must be my brother’s,” she said.

So that’s all I got for you for denial and projection. Except one more quick story.

It’s by James Altucher, about an encounter he had with one of the most infamous people of this century.

James’s story features projection by that infamous person. ​And it might save you from making a huge mistake at some point in your life.

​​So if you’re curious to read the story, you can find it below.

But before you go, you look like the kind of person who wants to get more email subscribers. Am I right? Maybe I’m just projecting. Sign up for my newsletter in any case. And then here’s James’s article:

https://jamesaltucher.com/blog/im-the-worst-judge-of-character/

Flat-Earther accidentally proves deep truth about Reddit users

by

Over the past 24 hours, one of the top five post on Reddit has been:

“Flat-Earther accidentally proves the earth is round in his own experiment”

It’s a video of a guy, doing an experiment in his back yard, at night, with a lamp and a couple of styrofoam boards.

You don’t need to follow the precise thinking of this modern Galileo. The gist is this:

If the earth is flat, as the guy believes, then the lamp will be visible in one setup with the styrofoam boards.

But if the earth is curved, as the Illuminati want you to believe, then the lamp will be visible in a second, different setup.

Result:

The guy does the experiment with the desired, flat-Earth setup.

Nothing. The lamp is invisible.

The guy moves the lamp, to the control, Illuminati setup.

Suddenly, the bitch lamp becomes visible.

“Interesting,” the flat-earther says. “… interesting…”

Over the past four days, I’ve been talking about denial, and the ways we all do it all the time.

Today I got one more denial strategy for you. It’s the most useful one for marketers. It’s called rationalization.

That’s when we are faced with a fact we cannot or will not stomach, and so we explain it away.

Apparently, the flat earther in the Reddit video explained away his experiment results. Uneven terrain… twigs… branches… possibly a tear in the fabric of time and space.

Rationalizations like this are not particularly interesting. But like I said, they are most useful for marketing.

In fact, there’s a whole powerful school of marketing called reason why. It’s all about rationalization.

But this email is not about reason why marketing or making people believe what they already “know.”

Instead, I just want to point out that, when people fervently explain something away… they are probably denying a deep, uncomfortable truth.

Such as the millions of people on Reddit, upvoting that flat-earther post.

Some of those Reddit users are cackling (see my email yesterday about humor as a denial tactic).

​​But many are rationalizing. Like Reddit user ringhillsta, who wrote:

“The fact that there are people out there who actually still belives that the Earth is flat is scary and funny at the same time and i feel a bit sorry for them. Must be hard being that dumb lol.”

So what could be the deep and uncomfortable truth that ringhillsta is trying to deny?

Who knows.

Perhaps it’s that we’ve moved into an era where we have almost no direct experience with the “truths” in our lives.

Instead, we get them all second- and third-hand, through college textbooks… Neil deGrasse Tyson… and various mainstream subreddits.

And if anybody ever stands up to question that, there’s a ready-made rationalization to sweep away that person. “Dude what are you some flat earther? I feel sorry for you. Must be hard being that dumb lol.”

Anyways, this denial mini-series has been going on for borderline too long.

So I promise to wrap it up tomorrow, and bring it full circle to where we started from.

​​Or is that impossible? Maybe it’s all just a straight line… and we will fall off at the end.

Only one way to find out — read my email tomorrow. You can sign up here to get it.

I’ve thought this email over a lot, I wanted to get it just right

by

Picture the scene:

A man, wearing a pastel flower-print shirt and unmatching shorts, runs down the street after a stylishly dressed woman.

HIM: Um, look.

She turns around.

HIM: Sorry. I just… um, well this is a really stupid question, particularly in view of our recent shopping excursion [they had just been shopping together for the woman’s wedding gown]… but ah… I just wondered… if by any chance, um… ah… well obviously not, because I’m just some git who’s only slept with nine people… but I just wondered… I really feel… um… in short, to recap in a slightly clearer version… in the words of David Cassidy, in fact, while he was still with The Partridge Family… I THINK I LOVE YOU. And I just wondered if by any chance you wouldn’t like to… um… ah… um… no… no… no, of course, not. I’m an idiot. He’s not. Excellent, excellent. Fantastic. Lovely to see you. Sorry to disturb. Better get on.

The man turns to leave.

HER: That was very romantic.

The man turns to face her again and winces.

HIM: Well, I thought it over a lot. I wanted to get it just right.

That’s a scene from the 1994 movie Four Weddings and a Funeral. The man in the scene is played by Hugh Grant, in his typical 90s role as a boyishly charming uber-Englishman.

I bring this scene up because over the last few days, I’ve been talking about denial. When people are faced with a situation… or realization… or personal characteristic that they find unacceptable… and so they take various evasive maneuvers.

Such as for example, making a joke out of it.

That’s what’s happening in the last line of that scene above. Hugh has just put his heart on the line, he’s been tacitly rejected, and he’s made a donkey out of himself.

​​What better way to put it all behind than with a bit of irony?

Vilaynur Ramachandran, the neuroscientist whose book got me thinking about denial in the first place, says that denial explains why so much of humor deals with sensitive topics like sex and death.

​​And I guess it explains 90% of the life work of Woody Allen.

So the conclusion is, when you hear people making a joke out of something… well, um… ah… to put it more concretely, in the words of Eric Idle in fact, while he was still with Monty Python… WHEN YOU PURSE YOUR LIPS AND WHISTLE, IT MEANS YOU’RE CHEWING ON — but of course. How silly of me. Sorry, terrible. You must already know what I’m getting at. And you wouldn’t perhaps want to… but of course not. No. Excellent. Excellent. Lovely to see you. Better get on.

Five years ago, I was sitting on the floor of my bedroom, notebook in hand, surrounded by trashbags full of my old clothes… but then what happened?

by

Over the past few days, I’ve been telling you about different mechanisms of denial. So far, I’ve written about a troll to illustrate flat-out denial… I’ve had some pop science to illustrate reaction formation… and today I wanted to give you a personal story to illustrate a third mechanism of denial.

The trouble is, I cannot remember the personal story. Literally. I’m not joking or making this up.

Because that third mechanism of denial is repression of unwanted memories.

Of course, we all forget stuff all the time. But if you’re like me, you probably think you either forget stuff that’s unimportant… or you forget stuff at random.

Of course, there’s a third option, and that’s to forget important stuff on purpose, because it is inconsistent with the world as you want it to be.

I’ll be honest with you. While this repressed memory topic is definitely interesting… I’m not sure how it can be useful for self improvement, or personal power, or better marketing.

Perhaps it’s because I hate dwelling on the past. Or perhaps it’s because I did think of some useful option, but it was too unpleasant, so I forgot it since.

In any case, if you have any ideas for me on how to use this fact — that people can selectively forget stuff to suit their desired image of the world — then write in and tell me. ​​I’d love to hear what you think.

​​​And I’ll be back tomorrow, if I can remember to do so, with a much more cheery and productive way that people deny unacceptable facts in their lives. You can sign up here if you’d like to read that.

The denial theory of the fake female orgasm

by

Over the past few years, it’s become trendy to say, “Stop reading the news, it’s like junk food, bad for your health.”

Maybe so. But without The Daily McMail, where would I find tasty morsels like this headline today:

“Women who make more money than their partner are TWICE as likely to fake orgasms, study reveals”

The revealing study, which came out earlier this year, was pretty straightforward.

Researchers at the University of South Florida surveyed 157 women in sexual relationships with a man. And the researchers asked these women embarrassing personal questions.

Result:

It turns out women who earn more than their male partner (29.6% of the sample) were twice as likely to fake orgasm.

Like I said, that part of the science is pretty straightforward.

Where it gets more murky is the moral interpretation of this sensitive issue. According to Professor Jessica Jordan, the lead researcher behind the study, the interpretation is this:

“Women are prioritising what they think their partners need over their own sexual needs and satisfaction. When society creates an impossible standard of masculinity to maintain, nobody wins.”

In other words, society says that men should earn more than women… but some men fail at this and their egos crumble… and then their women are forced to coddle them as a result.

Perhaps. But perhaps there are other interpretations?

For example, here’s a personal confession:

Some 20 years ago, my mind was warped by reading a pop-science book called Sperm Wars. And ever since, I’ve been a bit of a science Columbo on all things female orgasm.

That’s why I remember a second study, one that came out in 2009, in the pre-gender-dismantling era.

This study was also based on a survey, in this case, of 1,534 couples. The results were summarized in the headline of a Business Insider article:

“Study: Rich Men Give Women More Orgasms”​

The author of the underlying​​ study, a certain Dr Thomas Pollet of Newcastle University, gave his interpretation of the statistics. From the Business Insider article:

“He believes the phenomenon is an ‘evolutionary adaptation’ that is hard-wired into women, driving them to select men on the basis of their perceived quality.”

Perhaps this could also explain all those extra fake orgasms in 2022?

Perhaps those faking women just find themselves horribly unattracted to their lower-earning partners. And that’s a problem — both personally and in the relationship.

So what to do?

The best thing really is to watch a little When Harry Met Sally… take notes on the restaurant scene… and put on a similar show the next time it’s time.

Because like I wrote yesterday, denial might just be a fundamental human activity. It might just be something we all do, all the time, in order to make life acceptable in our minds and bearable in practice.

And the fact is, denial manifests itself in different ways.

There’s flat-out denial, which I wrote about yesterday:

“No, of course not. I’m not bothered that you earn less than me. It’s certainly not any kind of turn-off.”

But another type of denial is what psychologists call reaction formation. That’s when you don’t just deny… but you claim or do the exact opposite:

“Yes, yes, take me, you low-earning animal!”

Of course, if my theory is true, it begs the question why these women would deny their lack of attraction in the bedroom… but break down and confess it when questioned by Professor Jessica Jordan.

My only answer to that is that there are different levels of denial.

Some denial is complete — we can’t face up to the fact at all, and we have to change our inner movie to fit what we want to believe.

But other denial is partial — we act as if, we claim as if, but on some conscious level, we are aware it’s not really as if.

Anyways, perhaps you say I’m completely off with my denial-of-unattraction theory.

But perhaps you feel there might be something to my idea. In that case, I’ve got two takeaways for you.

First, if you’re a guy, and the thought of your woman faking orgasm makes you shudder with feelings of shame and inadequacy… then the best thing to do might be to get better at sales and marketing, and start earning more money.

My second takeaway can be summed up by the following headline.

It comes from the tabloid The Daily Bejakovic. And it’s about a study performed at the University of Bejakovic, by a certain Dr. Johann Bejakovic. The headline reads:

“Study: Men and women who emphatically claim anything are TWICE as likely to secretly believe the exact opposite”

Anyways, if you want more ideas on denial, which you can use for your own research into your own mind or the mind of your market, then sign up for my email newsletter here.