Geoff,

Remarkably well said.

Sure, we all hate "being sold to." But most people also fear "selling others." Is it some kind of moral dilemma or ethical issue? Yes and no.

We fear doing to others what we fear ourselves. And this complements what Phil said. We don't want to do to others what he hate ourselves. But that's where Geoff also makes a great point: Is the offer or the product? Or is it the approach (i.e., selling or persuasion itself)?

A sidenote.

There is underlying psyche, which is what I'm personally against. Some people feel that selling, marketing and any other form of promotion is distasteful, aggressive, overbearing, etc. Even simply presenting "useful facts," for some people, falls into that category -- because the end result is still to make a profit. And this gives rise to overzealous, anticonsumerist fanatics trying to persuade US their side of the story... Go figure.

Anyway, my point is this: Another reason why "we fear selling" is self-esteem. Do we want to persuade someone on something that is undeniably in their best interest, and, in the end, be rejected? Do we want the proverbial door slammed in our faces? Or better yet, do we want to sell something we don't believe in? Something we know is NOT in their best interest? Of course not.

Which brings up a couple of points.

Geoff said it all too well: When we believe in something -- deeply, wholeheartedly and passionately -- we tend to impart that excitement, that passion, that belief system, onto others. Consciously or unconsciously. Morally or immorally. Good or bad.

Look at politics, religion, sports, communism, terrorism, environmentalism, etc. Sure we can define what is good and what is bad. Laws help, because they try to make something subjective objective. What may be good for one is bad for the other.

But the crux of my point is this: If we truly believe in something, we will argue about it. We will be emotional about it. We will be passionate about it. We will try, as sales trainer Zig Ziglar once noted, "to transfer that excitement we have about our product [or idea, belief system or views] into the hearts and minds of the prospect."

So Geoff's issue makes sense to me. Is it the process? Or is it the product? If we fear "selling," perhaps we fear selling something we DON'T believe in. Something that is unethical. I wouldn't. And I'm sure most of you wouldn't, either.

Zig also said, "We can get everything we want in life if we help enough other people get what they want." And indeed, there is a difference between "need" and "want." People never buy what they need (objective). They buy what they want (subjective). And subjectivity requires emotions, beliefs and opinions.

... And a lot more than just "useful facts."

Sales are largely based on faith. Faith in the company, faith in the product and faith in the delivery of the promised benefits. And as Peter Stone once said all too well, belief requires the suspension of _critical thinking_.

If we only write cold, factual, unemotional copy, we leave the product and the perception of the product to the reader's own devices. Thus, critical thinking causes the reader to think too much -- and they will think of things that are irrelevant, untrue or unsubstantiated, which will negate the sale. Why? Because fundamental fears, doubts and concerns take over, eventually leading to the greatest killer of sales: procrastination.

It's Maslow's pyramid of human motives kicking in.

If your product is truly good and ethical, and it really is in the best interest of your prospect, then when you stop short of being emotional and describing the benefits of your offering simply because you're afraid of insulting your audience's intelligence, you're actually doing more harm than good.

Some people say, "My clients are not idiots," "the benefits are obvious," "they can think for themselves" or "they can figure it out on their own."

Technically, that's true. But leaving the copy to the reader's own devices will also open up a can of worms. They will ponder on those "useful facts" but also think about other needs, concerns and preoccupations they have at the same time. More important, they may think about other, more important things they can do with their money. Because money is SECURITY.

So they procrastinate.

In my estimation, we are not trying to persuade or manipulate others into buying something -- especially into buying something they don't want. We are trying to persuade them to NOT think of the wrong things. We are doing the thinking for them. We are trying to persuade them NOT to procrastinate.

Unlike a face-to-face sales presentation, you're not there to answer any questions or objections. So your copy must do that for them. Copywriter David Garfinkel says it best:

"You must do the thinking for your reader and tell them why your offer is so valuable. Of course, they may 'get it' in the abstract. But going from the abstract to the reader's specific situation requires thinking on their part. A prospect considering your offer wouldn't dare do that thinking. You have to do it for them."

Exactly. And people who try to make this kind of sales model (or copy strategy) fly are likely to have skinny kids.

GLB

My first interest past the obvious and blatant, already covered - taking advantage of those with diminished or limited capacities, blatant lies... is my client. They pay me to deliver numbers. Maybe they pay others to nurture relationships or brand or... I deliver numbers.

My use of the word "client". It means someone who comes under my protection. In this case, in the marketplace, they are under my protection.

I apply my expertise to the protection of and subsequent benefits to my client's welfare. That means - numbers.


Peter Stone

Again, great threads guys.

Couple of points in reply.

I'm interested in alternatives to a persuasion point of view
in sales writing not because a persuasion point of view is
somehow immoral but because in my view it is just too
painfully boring. We live in a *very* commercial culture and
are relentlessly pounded by persuasion based commercial
messages from every possible angle. There is little more
ordinary in our world than the attempt to convince someone
to buy something.

The two concerns I have are that 1), writing from this
overused perspective will be so boring for me as a writer
than I won't be able to tap in to my best energies, and 2)
readers who see me coming from this angle will immediately
and instinctively file my words in to a box in their mind
labeled "read it all a million times before."

Ultimately, if we want to be read we have to have something
to say, or at least a way of saing it, that is not already
being said by every third person on the planet.

David Garfinkel said, "You must do the thinking for your
reader." Well folks, I'm writing this post. Are you reading
it because you want me to do your thinking for you? Or is
it more likely that the harder I might try to do your
thinking for you here the more likely you are to develop
intellectual and emotional resistance?

A collision of ideas is useful in the kind of intellectual
discussion we are having here. But collisions of any kind
seem unproductive when the goal is to close a business
transaction that all involved would be happy to repeat.

Geoff wrote, "And people who try to make this kind of sales
model (or copy strategy) fly are likely to have skinny
kids."

Certainly this is one possible outcome, but it's not my
personal experience. I have the time to come here and
pontificate because I was able to close the biggest sale of
my career, against a variety of competitors, by ruthlessly
editting the "cleverness culture" of the Net out of my
presentation to this buyer. So long as this buyers
money is still clogging up my bank account no one is going
to convince me that persuasion is an essential ingredient
of sale success.

I'm not saying this conceptual approach to sales is the only
way, or the best way, but it is one way that can work.
It is possible to build a business around the kind of
people who find an info rich, persuasion poor approach
to be refreshing.

The reason I bring it up here is that setting aside the
persuasion point of view in sales writing could be one way
to neatly extract oneself from the moral quandries and
unproductive diplomatic controversies being explored in
this thread.

The formula is simple. Give other people what you yourself
would want in regards to both the product _and_ the
presentation.

Phil

At some point, however, the reality cannot be avoided that people reading the copy must buy the widgets (or take whatever action is called for) or else the entire exercise is a complete waste of everyone's time and money. The people in the audience don't care whether you are bored by the copy or stimulated by it. They don't care whether your client is bored by the copy or likes it better than anything the client has ever seen. They don't care what kind of transcendent experience you may have had in writing it. None of these issues would ever occur to them.

The point of copy is neither to please you nor to please your client. The point is to produce results. If your copy produces results, then God bless you, and you have every right to take whatever approach gets you there and to label it as you wish. If it does not produce results, then your client will either go out of business or decide to clog up the bank account of someone else who can generate results. This will not mean that you are a bad person; it will just mean that the stuff you wrote didn't do the job.

If I understand what you are saying, you contend that any moral problems with writing about a flawed or unethical product will go away so long as the copy does not seek to "persuade" anyone to buy it (or contribute money or whatever).

It also sounds like an acknowledgment that "an info rich, persuasion poor approach" is inherently weaker than more conventional approaches, and, as such, less guilt-inducing when used to promote something questionable.

I can't speak for anyone else, but this kind of rationalization would not solve the problem for me.

GLB

I think this thread is about the consideration of possible complexities experienced when a contract might involve selling to people with limited or diminished capacities, bad products and lies, and clients with criminal intent. Not persuasion, per se. I might like to keep that direction going rather than shifting focus to the Phil school of writing.

One fundemental difference between me and "other" schools is that constituants of other schools define themselves as writers and I define myself as a salesman.

The premise you hold forth isn't new. You speak as though you're doing a concept introduction.

If you hold their feet to the fire, Nick Usborne, Debbie Weil, Robert Middleton and others will all agree with what style is more productive. Not that they would know, they're writers. Regardless, they don't agree with you.

So Phil, not to be clever, but isn't using the "biggest contract" ploy a bit of a contradiction of the premise you promoted in your post?

I mean, that falls somewhere between $1.00 and $1M, doesn't it? No need to answer because that's just feeding your jumping of this thread.

Isn't the implication of your post that if I switch back to a style I abandoned 30 years ago, I'll "clog" my bank account with cash, have clients lined up around the block, and enjoy plenty of spare time? Phil wrote:And why would I want to convince you of anything? Keep your beliefs. Stay as you are. Just please stop being disruptive and going after people's personal morals, values, ethics, beliefs and intentionally, methodically trying to make them look bad.

Again, not to return the rudeness, if you persist in jumping this thread, I'll probably bail and you can take credit for sidetracking another thread that has some substance to it. This thread has probably run its course, anyway.

That which you hold out as your priority to preserve and protect, sacrificed in the name of selling, pushing and persuading me and others toward acceptance of your agenda by what appears to me as misleading information about the results you're achieving nets you a "no thank you".

No Phil, no, no, NO.

Feel free to use the first post in this thread as a model for how to spin off one discussion from another. That way, you won't be disruptive.

Thanks gents, but it appears that the original discussion is over.


Cheers,
Peter Stone

I am particularly troubled by the first category -- people with limited or diminished capacities -- after seeing the unbelievable, relentless onslaught of unethical (though legal) sweepstakes and other mail that my father-in-law was receiving until my wife and I stepped in and put a stop to it all.

These mailings were, in my opinion, highly deceptive. However, they are 1 nanometer this side of the boundary line of legality.

Universally, they are designed to look like official-looking communications from some official-sounding entity. Some of them actually were in the form of specimen checks payable to the recipient (though not negotiable).

They always proceeded with the format of "you've won all this money" or "this check is for you" with extremely fine print saying "provided we draw your name in a drawing that will be held 18 months from now."

Then, "here's something for you to buy" (usually some worthless coupon book with bogus discounts on useless products and services). In the finest of fine print, the statements, "No purchase necessary to enter sweepstakes. Purchasing will not increase your chance of winning."

Finally, an order form filled with reasons to order the worthless $20 coupon book (though with the bare minimum legal disclaimers about no purchase being necessary), or an option to just enter the sweepstakes worded in such a way as to make the person think they had committed a crime.

This kind of thing victimizes elderly people. I have spent a lot of time in their company. It is too easy to confuse them. They get these things and treat them like bills. They believe they need to send the money in when people ask for it. And, by the way, one of the biggest tricks of the people who prey on the elderly this way is to send a wide variety of totally different-looking solicitations, from totally different official-sounding entities, all of which point back to the same sweepstakes. Thus, the victims merrily send in coupons (and money) thinking they are entering a bunch of different sweepstakes when in fact they are simply taking a bunch of different paths to the same one.

What is worse, then, is that these people sell their lists to outfits that are engaging in schemes that are actually illegal, such as foreign lottery schemes conducted through the mail. Eventually the names get to the boiler-room operators in Vancouver and Montreal who fleece the elderly out of thousands of dollars with fraudulent telemarketing schemes.

Now, I realize that sweepstakes and official-looking documents have been used for many years as a vehicle for non-profit fundraising and for magazine subscriptions. I'm not crazy about them there either, but the overall level of abuse is far less. Thus, I am not condemining sweepstakes, and I am not condemning officlal-looking documents, as direct response tools. I condemn their use only when it is glaringly obvious that they are targeting a particular market that does not understand what they are and are massively misled by them.

Sorry for the lengthy diatribe. I would not have to spend much time thinking about whether to offer services to this kind of activity.

I take a completely different view when it comes to people who are in full possession of their faculties, still able to earn money, and the only issue is whether they are going to spend $27 on a widget I have that could actually help them or they are going to blow it on a movie and pizza. I would not want to associate with people hawking bad products or pursuing something with criminal intent, but that is as much a matter of enlightened self-interest as ethics because I don't want to end up in the slammer. There is plenty of honest money to be made without stepping over that line.

Just to clear things up a bit:

Mike Fortin personally invited me to join this forum in
response to an email I had sent him, in response to an
article he published. My email to Mike contained a
condensed version of the basic points I've made here so Mike
knew who he was inviting to his forum. I believe Mike
invited me here not because he agreed with my points, but
because he recognized the value of a forum containing a
broad range of perspective.

Mike, if I misunderstood you, please just PM me and let me
know, and I will go in peace. This is your board, not mine,
or anyone else's.

Many, most or maybe all of the posts here are in regards to
the tool box of persuasion. There is nothing wrong with
this toolbox, assuming as we usually are, that it is applied
to legitimate ends.

There is a business world beyond this toolbox, which I have
tried to point to, so as contribute to a constructive wider
perspective of the kind of moral issues that keep coming up
over and over in many forums regarding business writing.

I never said or implied that going a certain route will make
anyone who does so rich. I did say, and offer example,
that it _is_ possible to succeed along that path. It's an
option. Use it, lose it, or abuse it, it's each reader's
call of course.

Peter, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't aware
that this forum, or this thread, were your personal property
and that someone put you in charge of defining "disruptive"
here. I don't wish to see you go, but if that is your
wish, no one is holding you back. Wouldn't it be easier to
simply use the scroll bars when you encounter posts that are
not of interest to you? My posts did not refer to you
personally in any way, so I see no reason why you and I
can't disagree over this or that intellectual point and
still be friendly, or at least mutually respectful.

I'm sorry if my choice of words has offended anyone, but I
really don't see what is so controversial about suggesting
that one might be able simplify the moral issues being
discussed by providing prospects with the kind of sales
presentation we would like to receive ourselves.

Phil

As a moderator, I often feel like hitting the "delete post" button. But then again, I stop, step back, re-read, and am actually quite fascinated by not only the views expressed but also the subtleties, nuances and hidden messages conveyed -- be they intentional or not.

Which comes back to Peter's original point: about bending words to convey not only messages but meanings. And often, we must bend words in order to convey what we can often do easily in, say, face-to-face encounters... But cannot in plain text.

Regardless if such an approach works or not, I think Geoff made the best point that clarifies it all: we must be careful to differentiate between process and product. Otherwise, it's a matter of personal preference.

And speaking of preferences, this thread is showing exactly that: That sometimes words alone can convey so many different meanings -- and wrong ones, too, even if the product AND process are ethical. To paraphrase the Chinese proverb, "A word is worth a thousand pictures."

I'm always fascinated by communication and psychology. Things like Kinesics, Haptics and Proxemics -- the "sciences of subtleties" -- are topics about which I often find myself reading a lot. In other words, how the meaning of a message can be completely changed with body language, voice inflection, verbal and non-verbal cues, personal space between individuals (and how that space, in itself, conveys a message on its own). Etc, etc, etc.

And most importantly, how our choice of words can change meanings. Those subtleties, those hidden messages, not only convey a message of their own but also can change the meaning of the message (i.e., they can emphasize, support or contradict a message).

Here's a great example that appeared in John Forde's recent Copywriting Roundtable ezine.

There was a piece about waiters and tipping, and how to increase tips. One technique talked about the fact that waiters get bigger tips when they give after-meal candies to their clients. But what's more, it also talked about a technique where the waiter purposefully gives less candy, pauses, and then gives a few more -- and how that small ittle act actually increases tips by about 25-35% (if memory serves).

Theorize all you want. But the point is, there was a hidden message in that "act" -- or what behavioral scientist Tony Alessandra, calls "meta-message."

Which brings us back to the original point Peter brought up. About bending words to convey not only the message but also the meaning of the message -- the richness, depth, emotion, passion and even credibility and belivability symbolized by our choice of words. (Whether they are used ethically or not is not the point.)

I think we all agree on some level. We're just not, errr, choosing our words right