Niccolo Machiavelli

Inadequate performance

by

Yesterday, my friend Sam wrote me that he had downloaded the presidential debates so he could watch the bloodshed.

This morning, my friend Peter forwarded me a New York Times editorial that’s calling for Joe Biden to drop out of the presidential race after his “inadequate performance in the debate.”

And then this afternoon, I met my friend Olga, who spent much of the day in bed, and who said the only thing she has done today is to watch the presidential debate.

Olga told me her impressions of the debate. And then she said, “Maybe the debate’s something you could write about in your newsletter.”

If you’ve been reading this newsletter for a while, the following will not be any kind of shock:

I am completely out of the loop. Permanently. Always.

I didn’t even know there was a presidential debate until friends started chattering to me about it via text and in real life.

I most definitely have not watched it.

And as for writing about the top news of the day in this newsletter… as I told Olga, I would never do that.

Well, obviously I’ve broken that vow with this email. But I didn’t know how else to get the following point across.

My theory is that you gotta pay the piper somewhere.

If you decide to talk about the immediately available stuff, the stuff that hundreds of millions of people are talking about right now on TV, on Facebook, on Twitter, on Reddit, among your friends and family, then you gotta try really really hard to have something unique and clever and hot-takey to say.

And even if you try really hard, and even if you expose yourself to looking like a tryhard, odds are good that most days you will fail to say something that hasn’t already been said, better, by a hundred other people, just a few minutes ahead of you.

That to me is an inadequate performance.

On the other hand, if you choose to spend your time and effort reading and watching less available stuff, stuff that’s not being talked about today, or yesterday, or last week, then you have a green, untrammeled field to play in.

For example:

Did you know that the problem of bloody, hateful, two-party elections was solved 2,500 years ago?

Two opposed tribes lived together inside one city’s walls.

They were highly suspicious of each other.

​​Each had a strong us vs. them mentality.

The city was ruled by a king from one tribe, who favored his own and harmed those from the other tribe.

​​Then the king died, or more correctly, he was made to disappear after he showed signs of serious cognitive decline.

How to choose a new king without devolving into civil war?

It didn’t look promising.

Each of the two parties was horrified by the leader of the other side.

Each party absolutely refused to accept the other side’s leader as the new king.

Tensions were rising. Weapons were starting to jangle.

​​So what to do?

Simple. It was the old, “you cut, I choose.”

Specifically, it was decided that the Romans, the party that had just lost its king, would choose a new king from the other tribe, the Sabines. The Sabines could not veto or influence the Romans’ choice.

The Romans chose a quiet, reserved man from the Sabine tribe, named Numa Pompilius.

At first, Numa refused to take command of the city. He liked his quiet life. But after being persuaded that Rome would devolve into civil war without him, he agreed to become king.

Numa reigned for 43 years in peace and prosperity. He founded some of Rome’s most important institutions, such as the pontifex maximus, the 12 month calendar, and the cult of the Vestal Virgins.

Two thousand years later, a clever politician, Niccolo Machiavelli, said Rome owed a greater debt to its second king, Numa, then it did to its first king, Romulus.

Good Lord this has turned into a long email.

​​Don’t write emails like this. Or do. It’s up to you.

If you do choose to write emails like this, I have something that might help. It’s my Insight Exposed course, about my notetaking, journaling, and media-consumption process.

I don’t normally sell this course, for reasons of my own.

But since I’ve already broken one law today, I might as well break two?

If you want Insight Exposed, the order form is below. I will close it down in exactly 24 hours, tomorrow, Sunday, at 8:31pm.

And if you have questions or doubts if this course is right for you, write me before you buy.

​​Here’s how to read stuff others are not reading, and make it useful for your marketing and your life:

https://bejakovic.com/ie/

Connecting the dots for the “good” class of prospect

by

“Because there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehended; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”
— Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

As Machiavelli says in the quote above, there are three classes of prospect.

The first will seek out your offer and figure out for themselves that this is just what they need.

The second will see the light with a bit of help from you.

The third really aren’t your prospects at all, and no amount of clever persuasion will get them to buy.

The trouble is that many marketers only speak to the first group. They present features and benefits of their offer as they themselves imagine them.

But expert persuaders take it one level further.

​​They connect the dots for people. They provide imagination and logic that the prospect himself won’t bother with — and they create a problem where the prospect doesn’t see one yet.

Copywriter Victor Schwab said this connecting the dots is “usually either completely ignored or underestimated by the preceptors of advertising and its practitioners.”

Don’t be among these lazy practitioners of marketing. Connect the dots for your readers, and do the work for them, because large rewards await you if you do.

But perhaps I’m not connecting the dots for you on how to do that. In that case, you might like to sign up for my daily email newsletter.

Machiavellian logic applied to your next sales letter

by

“Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you.”
– Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

Direct response marketing doesn’t expose you to the most noble parts of the human soul.

Fear… greed… shame… vanity… these are the lowest common denominators we appeal to reliably in order to close the sale.

Sometimes it’s clear which of these appeals you have to go with — your offer or your market simply says so.

But what if you have a choice? Are some of these snarling, slobbering, psychological gremlins stronger than others?

Well, Niccolo Machiavelli, who would probably own many direct response businesses had he lived today instead of in the 16th century, has something to say about general human nature in his quote above.

Men are fickle and swayed by the present moment, says Machiavelli. In other words, just because someone starts, say, writing a book today, that doesn’t mean he will continue to work on it next week. And vice versa. Just because a man will suffer from a hangover tomorrow, that doesn’t mean he won’t drink tonight. So let’s take that as the first axiom of Machiavellian mathematics:

Present >>> Future

Moving on. Here’s a second Machiavelli quote:

“And men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”

What is Machiavelli saying here? Maybe I’m reading into it, but it sounds like he’s saying people are motivated more by negative emotions than by positive ones. Or in precise mathematical notation:

Pain >>> Gain

Of course, there are going to be exceptions to this. Some individuals and some markets will be immune to these nasty Machiavellian laws. After all, people volunteered to cross Antarctica by sled 100 years ago.

But don’t bet the house on it. Most of the time, if you’re in doubt, remember the two axioms above. And in particular, remember it will take an enormous amount of future gain to outweigh even a little bit of present pain.