Buck Flogging

Outrage with stupidity to milk info out of cagey or indifferent adversaries

by

Two years ago, just as the whole world was shutting down due to the first wave of corona, the president of the UFC, Dana White, got trolled into revealing a highly guarded secret.

A bit of background:

The UFC hosts mixed martial arts fights, and in April 2020 they were supposed to host the biggest and most anticipated fight in their history, between Khabib Nurmagomedov and Tony Ferguson.

These two fighters were both on 12-fight win streaks in the UFC, and they were scheduled to fight four times already. Each time, the fight was cancelled at the last minute for some reason.

This time around, as sports organizations around the world cancelled events because of corona, Dana White refused to give in. “We’re going ahead with the fight!”

The only problem was they couldn’t figure out where to host it. It was originally supposed to be in Brooklyn, but that was out. In fact, any other location in the US also became untenable.

“The fight is still on, guys!” White would repeat whenever asked, though he wouldn’t give any more details.

So as the fight date neared, speculation kept increasing. Fans were alternating between getting resigned to the inevitable fifth cancellation… and hyped when some new possible location for the fight surfaced.

Meanwhile, even Tony and Khabib, the fighters who were supposed to be fighting, didn’t know for sure if the fight was still on.

So that’s the background. Would the fight happen? Would it get cancelled a fifth time?

The answer finally came when somebody created a fake Twitter account, mimicking a well-known MMA journalist, and tweeted:

“#BREAKING: Dana White and Vladimir Putin have reached an agreement on travel arrangements for UFC Lightweight Champion Khabib Nurmagomedov to come to the United States. He will fight Tony Ferguson. It’s happening folks. #UFC249 will go on as scheduled April 18.”

To which Dana White, big goof that he is, immediately blasted out a Tweet saying that it ain’t so, that Khabib is not fighting, and then to prove it, he finally revealed the whole card that was scheduled for this corona-infested bout.

Which brings us to an eternal truth, something called Cunningham’s law:

“The best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question; it’s to post the wrong answer.”

The sad fact is that in business, in love, and on online forums, there are many times when people are unwilling to answer your questions. Maybe the person you’re talking to is indifferent, or cagey, or hurt, or they just don’t like the implied power dynamics that come with you asking and them answering.

So if you ever find yourself in this situation, swallow your pride, and publicly make a dumb, completely wrong assumption about the right answer. If Cunningham is right, and I suspect he’s at least a little bit right, then your outraged adversary will jump in and say, “No! You’re so wrong! Let me tell you how it really is…”

But I think this Cunningham and his law go even farther. If you just swap out “right answer” and you swap in “response,” you get a good recipe for how to get yourself publicity and an audience online.

Of course, unless you want to be just a troll, you’ll have to figure out a reasonable argument to justify a seemingly “wrong” opinion that you use to attract attention. But it can be done, and guys like Matt Stone (aka Buck Flogging) and Ben Settle prove it. Outrage and reason are a powerful combination. Aloe vera on its own is pretty bland and slimy, but it sure feels good once you burn your hand on the stove.

And if you want less outrage, not more:

You might like my daily email un-newsletter. I avoid outrage, even though I know it’s good for business. Instead, I try to make my ideas appealing in other ways. In case you’re curious, you can give it a try here.

Being authentic is overrated

by

In 1976, David Bowie got accused of supporting fascism. How could anybody say that of Bowie?

After all, a few years earlier, Bowie claimed he was gay. Then he was an alien. Then he became one of the few white singers to perform on Soul Train.

This certainly doesn’t sound like your typical fascist. Why would anybody think different? Well, there is the following quote:

“I believe very strongly in fascism,” Bowie said in a 1976 interview with Playboy magazine. “Rock stars are fascists, too. Adolf Hitler was one of the first rock stars.”

People are always telling you, be authentic, be authentic. That’s how you will connect to others. Share your geeky stories. Be vulnerable. Be true to yourself.

And yet there’s David Bowie, who became a huge star by striving to be plastic, artificial, and impossible to pin down. He made up stuff and he lied for his own amusement and profit. He provoked and played the media. Bowie again:

“The only thing that shocks now is an extreme. Like me running my mouth off, jacking myself off. Unless you do that, nobody will pay attention to you. Not for long. You have to hit them on the head.”

And it’s not just Bowie or his rock star spawn like Madonna and Lady Gaga who get away with this. Look at the world of online marketing.

​​Ben Settle has admitted he consciously plays up his crotchety persona online. ​​Matt Stone has an oversexed alter ego he writes under, named Buck Flogging. The greatest copywriter of all time, Ross Manly, is not even a real person.

Fact is, authenticity is overrated. It’s much better to be entertaining, or at least interesting. If you are boring or unpleasant by nature, there’s no need to push that pollution out into the world.

​​Rather than being consistent with your “authentic self,” assume a new, more exciting viewpoint and unflinchingly defend it — for as long as you find it amusing or valuable to do so. ​​As Bowie put it:

“The only way I can be effective as a person is to be this confoundedly arrogant and forthright with my point of view. […] 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.”

Email newsletter. I have one. Every day I write an email and share ideas that are not consistent with each other. But you might find it interesting anyhow. It’s available here.

The good, the bad, and the ugly of product names

by

What’s in a name?

Quite a bit, my young Shakespeare.

I should know, having been blessed with an almost unpronounceable, unreadable name for all but a small part of this planet’s population (“John” is just my “professional” name).

As for people, so for products: names matter.

Yes, sometimes a great product can sell even in spite of an awful name (hello Psycho-Cybernetics).

But why not give yourself the best advantage by having both a good product and a good name?

Let’s look at some products I’ve bought in the last year to see what makes a good name:

“Quit in 6”

Buck Flogging’s course on making it with your own business. Buck says a good name will say what a product is, while a great name will say what a product will do for you. I guess he took his own advice.

“Email Client Machine”

Ben Settle’s product explaining how to get booked with clients using his email tactics. A good name in my opinion: it also says what it will do for you, and the word “machine” draws attention because it’s unusual in this context.

“Energy Blueprint”

Ari Whitten’s course on increasing your (physical) energy. There was a spate of these “blueprint” courses over the past decade. Today I think “blueprint” products have become cliche, putting this name into the good-but-not-great category.

“Dartboard Pricing”

Sean D’Souza’s product on how to set and raise your prices. It’s named after the methodology — how to set your prices — rather than the outcome. However, it definitely gets bonus points for the unusual, attention-grabbing term “dartboard.”

“Email Players”

This is Ben Settle’s monthly newsletter on email marketing. I think the “Players” bit is a reference to Gary Halbert and the way he used that word. If that’s true, then I don’t think this name is really about what the product will do for you… rather, it’s about the identity of the kind of people that Ben wants to assemble as his customers. Knowing Ben’s emphasis on building relationships, this would make sense.

So what makes a good name? I’d say you have two options:

Appeal to self-interest.

Or appeal to identity.

The decision will depend on what kind of clients you want to get, but that’s a topic for another day.

Either way, you get bonus points if you can make the name fresh (of course, without making it confusing).

Here’s why I bring all this up.

I’ve been playing around with the name of my upcoming book on email marketing for the health space (the ugly “Health Email Splash” has gone out the window).

Whatever the final name will be, the offer remains the same. If you sign up now, you can get a copy for free when it comes out. Here’s the link:

https://bejakovic.com/profitable-health-emails