Ya, ya... I know -- this letter has been beat to hell on this board. But, strictly from a copy perspective... wouldn't you say this headline is stretching it JUST A BIT?

Top of page:



Bottom of page:

Hey J.P.,

Not only does it bump into the B.S. meter for believability, but it violates a big rule of copywriting.

It doesn't tell the prospect what's in it for them!

My 2 cents,

Mike

I"m glad someone mentioned this. I read it and quickly scanned the letter trying to figure out HOW he was claiming $250. I didn't find it and was similarly disgusted.

I want to go on the record (once again) for saying, "I thought Rich was really, really getting his "stuff" together recently."

I spoke out critically when he first hit the scene a year ago -- but, I also gave him credit for some pretty cool stuff more recently.

I don't understand this one ... or the desperation in his recent blog post. Revamped sales letter, etc.

It's in the toilet now in my opinion. The whole promotion...

Hopefully, he pocketed enough greenbacks to make it to the next "Watering Hole Doctrine."

I actually flew up to B-More, MD for his conference last month with my wife. Of course you had to pay $99 to reserve your seat of course, which is cool.

But of course, in Glazer/Kennedy fasion, they NEVER refunded my money back and I had to call to get them to do they job they promised they'd do.

I like Dan's stuff, learned a lot from it. I even bought Glazer's "Retail Business System". But as far as being on top of their game when it comes to customer relations and keeping their word, they are the worst.

I hope one day they decide to make customer service and telling the truth a priority.

I know of a company that recently offered a "FREE" seminar. But you paid $99 bucks cash. Then they refunded you a $99 credit to purchase their products at the seminar.

Is that really "FREE"?

Nope.

And I think they really hurt their reputation with their customer base with that one. It's playing semantic games to fool people into a seminar or product purchase.

Next to the definition of advertising as "Salesmanship in Print" I like another definition I ran across from an agency from the early 1900's. Advertising is...

"The Truth Well Told".

I've got a copy of legendary Ed McLean's "Basics of Copy". One point that struck me in the book was his emphasis on truth and the second sale. Better to underplay your promises and get a second sale, than create expectations that can't be met, and only get the first sale.

On a marketing note: One of the problems with positioning yourself as the "1 billion guy" (early Abraham) or the "4 Billion guy" is that it's only a matter of time before someone can come out and claim more. After a while the claims lose credibility.

I think Rich is telling us to order the course, pay the $250, then wig out on the other payments.

"Is this headline stretching it just a bit?"

Yes! I'm surprised anyone adopts that approach to marketing. Mainly because I'm surprised anyone would be enticed by it!

It's so tacky! It screams "my products/services are crap but I'm going out with a bang!".

Yep, that's audaciously dishonest, to say the least