Marcia's comment quoted at the beginning of this thread:

• it bothers me when people bend the meanings of words in deceptive ways (perhaps deceiving themselves, too, that if they call something a "gift" then it is one)

implicates that well-known marketing maxim,

• Pissing off your customers within the first paragraph of the copy is often not the best marketing approach.

People in general do not like to be mousetrapped, and I would not be surprised if the "gotcha" factor kills some sales that might otherwise be made.

As far as "benign bending" (described by Peter) is concerned, I think it is important to consider whether it involves something that is primarily subjective ("This shrimp scampi tastes fabulous!") versus objective ("this remarkable pill allows you to leap tall buildings in a single bound"). Almost anything is probably more acceptable in the subjective areas, particularly if no one's health or safety is at stake.

Typicality is a different, though related, issue. Marlon Sanders's approach ought to satisfy the typical government agency, although I am sure what they would really like to see is a statement along the lines of

• Most people who buy this program never get past chapter 2 and never listen beyond Tape 1. Of those who do, virtually none of them actually take any action based on the program. As a result, none of the results promised actually take place. While the people buying this program get some psychological satisfaction from the misguided belief that merely buying the program means they have "done something" about their desolate and inconsequential lives, the reality is that nothing has actually changed except that we now have some of their money.

In truth, I think that normal disclaimer copy is not dangerous. Many readers will encounter it and say, "That's not me." Even though it actually is.

Peter: Do you see anything wrong with the claim: "If you follow the techniques Tony Robbins teaches, your life will change for the better"?

1. This statement will be technically true even if only a tiny aspect of the person's life changes for the better, and even if only in a tiny amount.

2. Consider whether it might not be more credible to say "your life can change for the better."

Tim: I think the gray zones start turning darker shades when innocence is preyed upon by the use of very well thought out psychological manueverings and almost cultish brainwashing kind of techniques.

It took me months to get my 86-year-old father-in-law unplugged from all of the bogus sweepstakes, lottery, horoscope, and other scams that were clogging his mailbox. Some of these were blatantly illegal (the FBI became involved); others skated just this side of the law.

This is one area where I would actually be happier if fear of prosecution had a greater chilling effect. You need a law degree to decipher the fine print on a lot of these solicitations going to the elderly.

Tim: God forbid if someone (like the government) tries to come out with the "marketing moral handbook" as a dogma for all to follow. I think some restrictions do need to be made, but forcing "gray zone" issues into a black or white pair of underwear will only create hemorrhoids.

Actually, many chapters of this book have been written, in effect, by the many guidelines and rules published by the FTC and others, and the many enforcement actions brought by government agencies.

The moral argument often comes down to something like this:

One side: "It's wrong to separate vulnerable people from their money. They need it to live on."

Other side: "For the very reason that they are vulnerable, they are going to be separated from their money by someone. My refraining from doing so won't help them, because they'll just give it to someone else. Therefore, since they're going to part with their money anyway, why not give it to me?"

GLB

As far as government involvement goes, I heard a story on the radio just today that may be entertaining if not thought provoking.

Two missionaries were prohibited by a tribal law that stated people couldn't teach matters of the spirit to those older than they(wd?).

Everyone wanted these guys to teach, so instead of unsettling tribal traditions, they proclaimed the two missionaries "old".

In isolation, the word can is more credible than will. In relation to the guarantee, will gains credibility - "...will make you money or I'll pay you $50.00 out of my own pocket and you have a year to decide". Add testimonials as social proof... -- So, "will" can and "can" will... be credible.

As our former pro-wrestler, former Governor, Jessie Ventura used to say: "You can't regulate stupidity".

Peter Stone

Ciao Geoff,

You bring up some interesting points.

I think any serious marketer will try to avoid pissing off their customers in the first paragraph - but one point that I tried to make earlier is that I have found it nearly impossible to please everyone if we intend on writing emotional copy. If we do try to please everyone - then sizzle becomes tepid, and CR (conversion rate) becomes RC (rotten copy).

I think Peter was sincerely trying to examine how one walks this tightrope.

I agree with Marcia's perception of being turned off by deceptive practices. These kinds of practices are very short term in nature, they can't establish a long term trust, they are going for the quick sale. I just ignore them, in the long haul, they will fail.

You mention a word that I have rarely heard used before - "typicality" - I am not sure exactly what it means in this context. Do you mean it defined as (in this marketing context): standard guidelines of acceptable marketing behavior?

My comment regarding my fear of a heavy handed government set of rules stems from a perception that rules tend to eliminate all the shades of grey, and try to box up everything into neat black and white groups. Like giant Tuna fishing nets, a lot of Dolphins end up getting hauled in because there is no will or desire to look at individual cases.

Something that was meant then to be protective and helpful, all too often ends up being destructive and very counter productive.

Could you imagine a TV commercial that sells Yogurt (with a beautiful, semi-nude top model) suggesting that if you eat that yogurt, you will be like them (how many commercials are like this)... then at the end of the commercial, a nerdy lawyer type pops in saying, "this ad doesn't represent the typical results of consuming our product, in fact, only 1 in a million look like our model, and it has nothing to do with yogurt".

My example is extreme, but this is the direction that things are going in, because people are not taking responsibility for their own actions, and want to blame others for their own lack of results - especially if they can make a quick buck while doing so. America is particularly bad in this, and lawyers are continuing to have field days with the most absurd of situations.

Everyone wants something free and fast and life changing, yesterday or 10 times their money back. Many marketers play heavy on these desires, and end up getting themselves into trouble (because they want fast and effortless results as well).

I think Peter's and my perception was that we need to step back for a moment, and take a hard look at what our motives are - the faster we want that buck, the more likely we are going to run into trouble. How much are we really trying to help others along with creating a long lasting, and prosperous business? Not an easy question to answer, and even harder to live... but we have to try.

Society also has to recognize that the fast buck marketers are not the cause of the problem - it's the consuming desire of society for an easy ride to riches, glamour, and beauty... it's a two way street, and desire feeding desire.

Making rules that block only half the problem will not solve the problem - they might make it worse, like putting a band-aid on a tumor.

I agree with you that some protection mechanisms are good, I just feel that they should be applied with a full picture view, with the intent to really heal the disease, and not just a superficial band-aid approach.

Unfortunately, I see very few that recognize the actual problem, and even less that want to really heal it...

Just some reflections from a jet-lagged mind...

All my best,

Tim

Hi, Tim...

I have not been to Italy, but from what I hear it sounds like one of the better places to work off jet lag.

Actually, all I was trying to say was that deceiving people into starting to read the copy through a deceptive headline or e-mail subject line was likely to piss them off and kill conversion that might otherwise have been possible. Example:

• Free Prime Rib Dinner to Everyone
  Who Clicks the Link Below
  
  Dear Friend,
  
  My name is Armand, and in order to introduce you to my new restaurant, I would like to invite you to bring your family. Just bring any group of 6 or more people who order at regular prices, and a seventh person can order Prime Rib for free. Click the link below to make your reservation. ...

The only point I was making, echoing Marcia, is that people who are lured into starting to read the copy because the headline suggests that they simply have to click in order to get a free dinner will be angry when they read the copy and learn that there are significant additional conditions. This may cause people who might otherwise be good prospects as restaurant customers to turn away in disgust... because they have been tricked into reading. In other words, the strategy uses an A that sacrifices the IDA.

Here is a more extreme example:

• Major Sex Breakthrough
  Breathes New Life Into Every Marriage
  
  Hi there. Now that I have got your attention, I'd like to tell you about the special 2-for-1 one offer we're having down at Al's Car Wash. ...

I think it is possible to write headlines that work extremely well without resorting to deception or trickery that will make the reader feel cheated.

Agreed. In my view, this kind of thing is the mark of an amateur. A pro would make the headline congruent with the copy. Now, it might be that the headline and copy taken as a whole are promoting something fishy, but that is an entirely different question.

This has to do with claims and testimonials. The issue is, how typical are the results you claim for the average user? It is really step 2 of this sequence for claims:

1. Substantiation: Do you have some kind of credible proof that your gizmo did what you claim for at least someone out there?

2. Typicality: Was that result a fluke because of a hyper-motivated user or other uncommon circumstance? In other words, even though you can prove that this result occurred in one rare case, is it deceptive to make the claim generally because the odds are so high that others will never attain that result?

Remarkably, the marketer is largely free to use non-typical claims and testimonials as long as there are sufficient "results not typical" disclaimers.

Interestingly, though, sometimes the push for black and white "boxes" comes from industry itself. Reputable sellers want to know where the boundary lines are, so that they can stay safely on the good side of those lines. Grey areas can often chill activity, because no one knows whether venturing down what seems like an OK path will later be challenged by a government agency or a zealous attorney and, after an expensive process, declared legal or illegal by a relatively uninformed judge. The very uncertainty adds costs which must be built into prices.

I agree with the overall thrust of your point, however. I am not sure your example is as far-fetched as it may seem at first glance.

What all of this often results in is a reduction of choice and a reduction of benefits available to consumers. What the do-gooders persistently fail to acknowledge is that every regulatory scheme imposes costs, and those costs must be borne by somebody. Normally the costs will be added to the prices that consumers pay. If the market will not support those higher prices, then the seller will cease offering the product because it can be sold only at a loss.

There are really two issues here. Hooking into the emotions of the target audience is basic to the sales process. No 50-year-old guy "needs" a Ferrari; the reasons for having one are surely emotional, regardless of any purported logical reasons for owning the thing. The key here is that the buyer is getting the car that is being promised. It is when the marketer hooks into the emotions and then rips the buyer off that we have a problem.

I agree, and I hope it was clear when I posed my "one side / other side" statement about separating vulnerable people from their money that I was not suggesting that one outcome or the other was obviously more "moral."

Of course... otherwise the Nigeriam Scam would have ended more than a decade ago, and 3-card Monte would have disappeared from Central Park before I was born.

I could not agree more.

The problem is that rules of this kind come primarily from the political realm, and are designed to solve political problems and/or cater to political interests rather than actually cure the diseases at which they are purportedly aimed. Take the new CAN-SPAM Act. Here is the federal government rolling up a massive howitzer, firing it at point-blank range ... and missing! But... the pols can tell their constituents that they have "done something" about spam, and the DMA can at least rest easier because all of the patchwork state laws on the subject are now pre-empted.

Again, I think the real problem is the distance between the actual problems you raise and the political realm from which solutions come. The alternative would be for marketers to decide on their own that enlightened self-interest should lead to better practices. The problem is that getting any kind of consensus is almost impossible, and made even more difficult by the fact that antitrust laws prevent many kinds of agreements that might otherwise be made.

Sorry this got so long.

Cheers,

GLB

I don't think the question has an answer, per se. That's if we know the question.

When we talk about the negative side of marketing, it's sort of like asking, are drugs, dealers, or users to blame. I don't think it works that way.

The negative side is part of human nature, too. I don't see a target for blame.

Politicians might say we should destroy all parks because "X"% of drug deals occur in parks. I just don't think we can look to politics for that sort of answer. I don't think there is an answer. "Don't do that" doesn't cover it.

So, we've got "benign bending", "bending that's a lie, but is still relatively benign" and "taking advantage of those who have limited capacities".

That's a lot for one conversation, I think. Now, there's some language, definition and reference points. A little, but it's there.

This might be a classic case of what happens when people say we want one thing, but in actuality, it's something other that we want and our actions betray that.

The get thin, get rich markets are evergreen and always productive. Interesting, as they aren't always dependant on ignorance to sell. We learn they don't work to their obvious reason for existence, but invest in the process of investing in the product.

I say, it's the process many people invest their money in and not to actually buy the 37th product they've bought with little results and temporary results at that. "Maybe the 38th time will be magic and keep the weight off". Maybe we do invest and then claim we're naive -- I think this is at the bottom of why emotional copy works. It takes advantage of the "conversation in someone's head" to paraphrase Collier. Now, what's the conversation?

That's what I'm working on, but that may be better as another conversation. (There's a huge product in reporting the true nature of that conversation).

One way I've found helpful to work on the morality stuff, is ethics modeling. An example: What if I work in a direct mail, fund raising organization and discover they are actually bilking the elderly out of their money and keeping large sums of their contributions?

What if I know where the only copy of the list is located? Do I steal it? Do nothing? Would either/both be right, moral, just, ethical? What options do I have in such a situation?

That's a snippet of an elaborate, ever changing model I work with to work some of this out in advance of the occurance of opportunity. Opportunity and temptation will happen, I would like some preparation for when those time come around.

Geoff and I have discussed the right V. wrong question, copyrights, etc., via email.


Peter Stone

Hi guys - great stuff here!

Well, I've been here for 11 1/2 years, and like anything, when you become overly familiar, the grass seems greener somewhere else... brilliant dreams rub dull in time, and even the most extraordinary of circumstances can fade.

I live in a virtual paradise, but even here the vipers can strike... there is no hiding from oneself and life's tribulations. This perspective is teaching me the beauty of living the moment, and appreciating life's little pleasures and letting go of the constructed "dream life".

Fully agree - the bait and switch is lame, immature, and unprofessional - a complete insult to a visitor's intelligence.

I'm with you now - it's the selling of the dream. Isn't the government one of the biggest offenders with the lottery?

I think everyone knows what kinds of ridiculous odds are against them with the lottery, but it doesn't seem to kill sales of lottery tickets. Complete transparency of "typical" results might even help sales - this is just my guess. As Peter suggested, people aren't buying the product or service, they are buying the dream. If they trust you as being a real dream provider (despite the remoteness of success), would they be more likely to buy? I think so. Being transparent will only help this trust. The lottery cranks out a millionaire once a week like clockwork - it's guaranteed, it doesn't matter that there is more of a chance of getting hit by lightening while being attacked by a shark, than winning the thing - it happens, and that is enough to keep the dream alive.

I think we have an inherent contradiction of terms with "political realm" and "solutions" ... and regarding most marketers, there is definitely "self-interest", but very little "enlightened" - it is no wonder that it is impossible to gain a consensus. Try to put "self-interest" and "consensus" together in the same room and you end up with a violent explosion or a brainwashed cult following!

The problems and challenges seem so vast and impossible to correct that I think the general reaction is: Screw it! I've got my own problems. That is, if ever the problem is even recognized and addressed. I battle this tendency within myself all the time - the sense of helplessness can be overwhelming, but in the end an underlying conviction remains at the importance of each individual's role - the more individuals play their part in integrity and truth, the more we will eliminate these problems.

The culprit is ignorance. The belief that things outside ourselves are going to bring us happiness, and the almost desperate race to optain these "things" at any price or compromise - whatever they might be in any given moment for any given individual. We invest our happiness in these "things" and decide that we won't be happy without them. This is the source of all mischief, because we are NEVER satisfied with outside things.

I agree with you Peter - they are buying the "dream" that is going to make them a happier person, not the product.

There are many wonderful schools of thought that already describe the "conversation in someone's head" - I personally prefer to read what the Saints have to say about this conversation, but this too is a HUGE SUBJECT...

I do know what they ALL SAY we need to do with this conversation in the head though... we need to learn how to shut it up. This allows us to taste an even greater Joy from within that breaks the hypnosis of ignorance that keeps trying to convince us that things outside ourselves are going to make us happier.

Sorry for sounding preachy - it's just how I sincerely see it.

How can this apply to Copywriting then?

Well, the way I see it is that once we shut up that head conversation, and taste that Joy, all of our actions (including copywriting), are less influenced by outward pulling desire, so there is more of a natural inclination towards helpful, NOT harmful behavior. Helpful ALWAYS beats harmful in the long haul of success.

Just ask yourself, where are the Copy "bends" pulling you, while you are "bending" away "benignly"...

On another note, Peter, it is really refreshing for me to hear your hypothetical or not so hypothetical ethical challenge questions...

Who knows what the right answer is, maybe there is no real "right answer", just experience. I know I tend to react dramatically to such challenges, and have had my life turned upside down more than once because of them, but my conscience is clear and that has no price tag for me.

I would probably steal the list and confront whoever was responsible for such behavior, possibly even turning them in to the authorities (I have very little tolerance for such abuses) - but this is purely hypothetical, and I rarely get such black and white situations... what if you discover a close friend and collaborator doing this?

All the best,

Tim

Tim,

I really like your ideas and your attitude on this one.

I haven't entirely followed all of the points raised in this thread, but my sense is that as marketers or copywriters we have a choice to:

1) Deliberately mislead the audience or make exaggerated claims for products, whilst remaining within the law
2) Speak of the facts without embellishment (which may not have much pull as a marketing message)
3) Provide the facts in as positive a light as possible, whilst maintaining a desire to sincerely assist our audience

If we don't think that we can genuinely assist the market with the product or service, and it's just another "fix me up quick" product that never really works, then perhaps we are better not to market it. And I don't think there is any right or wrong answer here, except where something is blatantly misleading or over priced or deliberately preying on vulnerable people.

However, I see nothing wrong in pointing out all of the virtues of the product in as favourable a light as possible. The product may not be right for everybody (in which case, hopefully there is a refund guarantee), and we can choose to point this out, if that helps. In any event, consumers/businesses have a responsibility to themselves to spend their money as wisely as possible. Yes, some sharp marketers will prey on the greed and desire to live a dream of their target audience, but if your product can genuinely help people in a meaningful way, when used appropriately, then I don't think it's unethical to use a few "hot buttons".

Tim, I fully understand that happiness is within and not without. If we take this to it's ultimate extreme, then we might all become yogis or buddhist monks living a life devoid of consumerism. However, most of us won't reach this level of enlightenment in this lifetime, so I guess we must just get on with things as they are.

I think it is lamentable that most people in society are basically driven by fear - fear of not having enough, fear of being unattractive, fear of loss of any kind, fear of terrorism. And greed. The media plays a huge role in the instilment of these values. Most of us will never attain the beauty, status or wealth that we are encouraged to aspire to, so we end up constantly searching for it where it is not. This creates a fertile ground for the sharp marketers to pitch their products.

I, for one, would like to live in a world that is less dominated by big business and consumerism. Where appropriate attention is paid to issues such as the environment and renewable fuels, but that is a whole other topic which I won't go into here.

In the meantime, I rather like the ideas in Joe Vitale's "Spiritual Marketing". It's a while since I read it, but I think it basically boils down to: if you have a product or service that is genuinely wanted and needed by your market, and you craft your marketing message with heartfelt sincerity and confidence, then your honesty and trustworthiness will be communicated to the target market. This will make selling effortless, and the right clients and customers will be attracted to your offer. This presumably also means that you will spend a lot less time dealing with tire kickers and a lot more time dealing with clients and customers that you "click" with.

I also think that a lot of the ethics of selling will depend on whether you're trying to sell to as many millions of people as possible ie. the lowest common denominator, or whether you only want to sell to a few highly targeted people. Presumably in the former case, you will end up with considerably more dissatisfied customers or people who cannot take full advantage of the product, and in the latter case you are aiming for maximum satisfaction for all customers.

If we take the example of the Anthony Robbins seminar - I know people who have been to his course and had a revelation. It may not have changed every aspect of their lives, but something definitely changed. I also know people who have been and had a fun time, came away all hyped up and gung-ho about life, only to come back down to earth with a crash a few weeks later and carry on exactly as before.

So should the marketers say that it "can/will change your life"? Well, that depends. Is any lasting change caused by a random or unidentified element? Does everyone who sincerely follows the practices create lasting change? Are there particular personality types and learning modalities that "get it", and others who are highly unlikely to? If they know what the factors are that predetermine the usefulness of the seminar, then it is disengenous not to point these out at the outset. If, on the other hand, they neither know nor care who benefits long term, and people continue to flock to the seminar based on recommendation from friends and colleagues, plus advertised claims of walking on hot coals, then I expect they are just as happy to keep earning their money.

I am loosely connected to an organisation that sells seminars, tapes and books etc. They make a number of unsubstantiated promises in their marketing. Some people feel a bit uncomfortable about some aspects of their marketing (although they are nowhere near as bad as other organisations) - I think they sense it is not entirely ethical. If I'm honest, the claims are a bit exaggerated. However, the results will be realised by those who persistently practice the techniques. Your level of success with it is almost entirely dictated by the amount of time and effort you put into learning, practicing and getting support from other people. They encourage people to set up their own support networks and groups and do not try to sell you endless, expensive post-seminar support.

However, it seems to illustrate the point that some "saleman's bluster" is required in order to get people to even take a second look at it. And yes, they are appealing to people's laziness, desire for the perfect life and greed. But if that is the only thing that works, then maybe they are forced to market that way. I don't know?

Their entry level product is a set of tapes. Some people get very good results with the tapes. Most do not, and like me, they end up attending a seminar to really "get it". Some people make extraordinary changes in their lives. Some make marginal changes. The differentiating factor seems to be the amount of dedication and time spent practicing the techniques.

But how would sales be affected if they said "the tapes are OK as an introduction, but if you don't get it first time, then you should really come on a seminar". (In fact, the problem with the tapes is they probably only appeal to people who relate to certain words and who are more auditory lead). And if they then said "you will achieve results, but the caveat is that you have to practice for at least 2 hours a day if you want to make rapid progress". Who would buy this? Certainly not the lazy, greedy and "I want results NOW or my money back" mob.

So it begs the question - should it be marketed this way to the lowest common denominator, or should they make their marketing a little bit more ethical and only appeal to those who genuinely would put in the effort? What about those that start off wanting quick results, and convert into those who realise that dedication is required?

I haven't got a clue. It probably just boils down to what their copywriter advisted them at the time.

Very interesting thread by the way.

Jane

Here's the simplest part of how I define ethics and what guides my ethical behavior.

It is having the highest moral regard for all involved in a given situation, circumstance, or scenario - including me.

Those words imply that the application of ethics is event driven. In my life, that's pretty accurate. Ethics are something I call upon, rather than something that I use as a constant guiding force. (I'm not suggesting that's 'right', just reporting an observation).

Modeling helps assuage reactionary behavior. Putting yourself at risk in the name of something higher may be noble, but under the definition I go by, isn't ethical.

"I" am included in the group for whom, ethically I must consider with the highest moral regard right along with the list owners and the targets of the list owner.


Peter Stone

What a thoughtful thread, nice work all.

Sometimes life is indeed full of gray areas and tricky
border line questions.

As I read all these fine posts I found myself searching for
some intellectual leap that could sweep the tricky and
troubling questions off the table and replace them with a
simpler writing environment where I can communicate
enthusiastically and passionately without the distraction of
worrying about wandering off a moral edge.

One path to this simpler copywriting life may be to change
my writing perspective from that of persuader to that of
informer.

If I surrender the idea that I need to convince someone of
something and instead focus my writing skills being a source of useful facts, and making the purchasing experience
highly convenient, then I am liberated from a swamp of
complicated gray area moral questions.

This paradigm shift solution doesn't make me a better person
than anyone else, but the simplicity and clarity of this
writing space may liberate energies and attitudes I wasn't
able to access in a more complicated persuasion based
environment.

My sense is that we don't need to look to each other, or to
experts, for the answers here. Perhaps all we need to do is
look within and very honestly ask ourselves, "What kind of
buying environment do I prefer when _I_ am shopping?" Forget
about the client and the customer, years of sophisticated
marketing theory and so on for a bit, and just ask myself:

"What do _I_ want?"

Once I have an honest and clear minded view of what kind of
presentation works for me then I can set off with full
enthusiasm, and few distracting energy sucking moral
reservations, providing this same buying environment to
others.

As I see it, the first job of any sales person is to sell
themselves. Really sell themselves. If I'm wrestling
with moral questions then I haven't fully closed the sale
on myself yet and that limits the impact I can have on
others.

I'm not saying giving folks what I myself would want is "the
way" or is a new system anyone should memorize, only that
something along these lines may be of interest to those with
a passion for the kind of enthusiasm simplicity can nuture.

There are various kinds of wealth of course. In the end
each of us only has so many years to do whatever it is
we're going to do. Finding a place from which one can go
full steam ahead without reservations and complications
is the kind of luxury that appeals to this writer.

Phil