« Copywriter & Furey-ous Guy Tackle The New Addiction | Home | Secrets Of Article Marketing Exposed »
Update On "The Secret" Study
Following up on the previous post about “Mr. Fire’s” fantastical and frankly, imaginative claim. It ain’t over yet folks. If you’re late to the party, catch up by clicking here to read it.
But there are larger implications for us all, when two high profile figures in the self-development field make such . . . unsubstantiated claims. You see, consumers and professionals suffer when this type of creative . . . truth is played on the public. The professionals in marketing (like me) are adversely affected because we have to work that much harder to overcome the target audience’s (in this case) justified skepticism.
And it makes it harder to the public to buy or believe what they hear and see. Because there are so many (especially online) playing fast and loose with the facts, well I don’t blame people when they throw up their hands and just don’t buy anything.
Consider this, when a public figure with something to sell, has a vested interest in you believing what he says because he stands to directly profit from your willing suspension of disbelief, and when that person hides the entire truth or even part of the truth, or outright fabricates “proof” — two things happen inside the discerning mind:
- You reject the argument. It’s so plainly self-serving that you don’t even bother looking further at the facts.
- You wonder what else he’s not telling you. If he neglects to provide astonishing proof (in the hope, I suppose, that we don’t notice), you (naturally and rightfully) start wondering what other aspects of the way he does business might not quite be what they seem.
And btw, just wondering — doesn’t every direct response marketer worth his salt know that the greater the claim, the more PROOF you have to provide to overcome innate skepticism from the buying public?
I thought that was a 101 level marketing skill.
I know I spend large chunks of sales copy real estate building credibility and establishing proof for my clients’ products and services. Maybe we should all take a page from Vitale’s book and make the copy shorter by telling the reader, “Details are for left brains. The idea is to get into your heart and TRUST.”
Wonder what that would do for our numbers?
****UPDATE****
When Bob Proctor (also in “The Secret”) appeared on Larry King Live on November 2, 2006 — he also cited the elusive phantom study and yet he also failed to source it. Is there a trend here, or am I just imagining the pattern? And as I stated in the previous post, Larry King is such a softball interviewer that he utterly failed to ask the logical follow-up question any good interview should ask, “And who did that study, Bob?”
By Walter |
Topics: Pet Peeves, Pro Analysis, Schadenfreude |