Imagine you sat on a damp chair.
And the water seeped through your jeans.
Right through your underwear.
Enough so you could feel the dampness on your bum.
What would you want to do next?
You know the answer. You’d want to change those jeans. And the underwear as soon as possible.
Obama knows this damp feeling. And he’s hitting one note: Change.
Because yeah, yeah, everyone on the planet wants health insurance, and a great economy and yada, yada. All that stuff is nice. But when your jeans and underwear is wet, all you want to do is change. You don’t care what you change into, as long as you change.
Obama seems to know the real attractor.
He seems to know below all the yada, yada, is the desperate need for change.
And he’s in the unique position to be a complete newcomer. Someone that stands for change.
As a marketer, if you understand what your public wants (despite the yada), then you can give them that word. And you’ll increase your results based on that one word alone. Of course, once they buy into you, you’ve got to deliver. But we’re not talking consumption. Just attraction.
I wish I said it this eloquently, but Fast Company said it instead. So as you can quite clearly see, attraction and conversion are not enough.
Gorgeous as Apple’s products are, people aren’t buying them for their inherent technological superiority. For half the price of a Mac, you can pick up a PC that does pretty much the same thing. There are MP3 players that produce superior audio to the iPod. The iPhone has Wi-Fi and a beautiful touch screen, but the phone itself is middling, as is its cellular network. Even the security of Apple’s operating system, a theme the company returns to frequently, is overstated: As most hackers will tell you, it’s security-by-obscurity, a function of tiny market share, not inherent uncrackability. The CIO at one major Silicon Valley company told us that Apple’s vulnerability on this front made it unlikely that he would ever switch. (See “iPhone Insecurity” for one security expert’s sobering experience with the iPhone.)
No, it’s the interface–the user’s interaction with the devices–and the exquisite wrapping that have separated Apple products from the great unwashed. And give Jobs his due: He brought the personal computer to market, after all. He has an unerring eye for design and functionality. There’s an intuitive humanity to his machines, and that has helped Apple forge an enviable bond with its legions of fans.
But when you get down to it, the Apple phenomenon is as much about fashion as it is about technology. You might say that Steve Jobs is the Marc Jacobs of computers (minus the heroin), betting the house his products will be, season after season, cooler than anyone else’s. Yet fashion is, by definition, fickle. Lose the buzz, and you’ve got trouble. And for the first time in years, there are signs that Apple is not infallible and that Jobs’s reservoir of goodwill with his followers is not bottomless.
LOS ANGELES (AP) – Radiohead let its fans decide how much to pay for a digital copy of the band’s latest release, “In Rainbows,” and more than half of those who downloaded the album chose to pay nothing, according to a study by a consumer research firm.Some 62 percent of the people who downloaded “In Rainbows” in a four- week period last month opted not to pay the British alt-rockers a cent. But the remaining 38 percent voluntarily paid an average of $6, according to the study by comScore Inc.
Now it’s easy to gloat. But that’s not the point here. The point isn’t about gloating, though you can be sure the recording industry will be stupid enough to do so.
But let’s do an analysis
1) What did Radiohead do right?
2) What did Radiohead do wrong?
3) Why did people pay $0 for it?
4) What are the chances of consumption?
5) Etc questions?
What did Radiohead do right? Radiohead did a lot right. If they wanted the world to know about them, this is the exact way to go about things. There would be thousands, even millions of music lovers (if you want to call it music) that didn’t know about Radiohead. Now they do. And that alone sets it up, for the next level. Because if their music is indeed as good as their fans/and to-be fans expect, then the tour circuit is extremely lucrative.
They could make diddly squat on their songs, and make a fortune on their tours. Is this phenomenon uncommon? Yes, in the recording industry it is. But not in the publishing industry.
Every author knows one thing. Or should know one thing. You make diddly squat for your books, but you make a whack in services and speaking. Radiohead, if they play it right, are now officially in the speaking business. If they sit around and do nothing but curse, that’s their first mistake.
What did Radiohead do wrong?
As I predicted (and believe me, you can do this test a million times, and you’ll almost always get the same result), the payoff was little or nothing. People have no value, unless there’s value specified to them.
And the reason why people paid $0, is because they don’t have an understanding of value. But you may protest. You may say: Well, a CD costs $15 or $20 and people know that. Yes, they do. But so what?
You know that a computer costs $500 or $1000. If someone said: Pay what you like, what would you pay?
Your brain is always looking for value. But more than that, it’s looking for a deal.
So you pay what you think it’s worth? No you don’t. You pay whatever you think is a nice deal for you. And a 50% off or a 100% off on an album is a very nice indeed. So hey, people did what came natural to them. They cut a good deal for themselves.
But waitasec. The deal’s not over. At least 2% of those who got the nice deal and didn’t pay, will pay in future, given a chance. So they’ll pay for different packaging e.g. a live concert.
Why? Two reasons: 1) The Reciprocation Principle: 2) The Comfort Factor.
The reciprocation principle is simply wanting to pay back. And just as we have the greed factor in built into us, we tend to reciprocate as well. So if the 2% found the Radiohead album good, they are going to come streaming back to buy concert tickets, and future albums (even at full price). Now is 2% a bit low? Yes it is, but it’s enough to generate profits. And 2% is probably at its lowest.
It could be 5% or 20%. That doesn’t depend on us. It depends on how closely Radiohead has understood its audience and given the audience what they want.
And then there’s the comfort factor. If their songs are way cool, then the audience will sing along. They’ll want to go to their concerts and be comfortable knowing the lyrics and knowing the tunes. Audiences go to concerts to listen to the same song they could hear at home. There’s a reason why. It’s a different experience. And it’s a fun experience. It’s very unusual (even weird) to go to a concert where you don’t know the band, the lyrics and the tunes. So by releasing their album in full, they’re increasing that comfort factor. Plus, it will lead to back sales of their previous records. So it’s not just future sales, but back sales that will kick in as well. So why did people pay $0 for it?
Well, we already know that they want a good deal. But think about it again. There’s still a risk, right? If I go into the store to buy a Radiohead, I’m going to do some checking around. I’m going to check out some reviews, play some songs, make sure I hear some songs on the Radio etc. And only then would I tend to buy. So I like The Police, and I like Garth Brooks, and I like Jack Johnson. But hey, you’re not going to get me to go like a robot to the store, and simply pick up the new album.
No way Jose.
I’m going to make sure that I’ve got the risk covered, by doing at least some homework. And when it’s free, what’s the risk? Zero. So I’ll take that zero risk, thanks. And I’ll pay zero. I’ll be really grateful, but that doesn’t mean I’ll pay. Besides it makes me look really, really stupid when I’ve paid say: $10 and the dude down the road has paid $0. So I’m going to play smart-ass, and pay $0. Risk. Peer pressure. Hmmmm..
So what’s consumption going to look like? Free is a hard sell. Consumption is higher when something’s paid for, and when that consumption is driven home. In our private studies, we’ve found that consumption is dependent on several factors. Media and free are two of those factors. The medium in play here is mp3 audio.
And therefore is pretty darned good, because it will be instantly playable in the eardrums of most of Radiohead’s audience. The very same medium used for say, Barbara Streisand fans, would probably drop consumption like a rock. Free. Ah, free.
Now that’s a problem isn’t it? Because paid goods tend to be consumed faster, and more often than unpaid goods. So if someone actually did some research between those who paid their $6 and those who paid $0, you’ll find that consumption is much higher with the $6 fans. You may also find that they’re more likely to buy future concerts, audio, video.
The freeloaders aren’t all freeloaders, but a good chunk of them will not pay, and it’s also likely to reduce both present and future consumption. This isn’t an issue about whether or not they will consume.
There will be consumption, because this system of pay as you like is a novelty. But imagine if every band did the same. Then the consumption will drop like a rock, because now we have too much choice.
So when the Internet was just embracing e-commerce, you could have a teleconference and hundreds of people would show up for your free teleconference. When Hotmail launched their free mail service, the masses came thundering through. But launch a free teleconference now, and see who comes.
And launch a free email service and see who comes. That’s consumption for you. And while the consumption may be slightly higher at this point in time, it will–without a doubt–be higher in those who paid vs. those who didn’t pay.
Etc. Questions: So was Radiohead smart? Or dumb? Hey, nice question, but unless they had a strategy, they were just doing stuff because it seemed cool. The future will tell. If you see a rollout of events, and other Radiohead stuff immediately, then they were really smart.
And then again it depends on how the audience likes/dislikes the product. If they put out a top class product, then they’ve got it spot on.
At 4am on a Sunday morning, I found some startling data. It seems almost that sites are attracting less page views. What could be the cause? And how is it that the sites that seem to be attracting lesser page views, are still making bigger profits than before?
Have you ever sat in a seminar where the speaker drones on for an hour or so?
And do you remember the exact moment you dozzzzzzzzzzzzzzed off? Well, what you were running into wasn’t a boring speaker. The speaker could be amazingly entertaining, but you’d still be nodding off. Why? Because it’s a factor of consumption.
Your brain can’t handle too many facts at a time
It needs to take a break from time to time. Just so that things can settle in a bit. So if you look at presentations.
Or chapters of books.
Or paragraphs in your sales copy.
Or breaks at workshops.
The concept stays the same. Your brain needs to take a break. Then it needs to move on to consume what it’s just seen/learned.
So how do you increase that consumption?
You increase the consumption by first instituting the break, then allowing the customer to chew on what they’ve just consumed.
In a book, you can do this by putting in a little exercise at the end of the chapter.
In your sales copy, you can do this by putting a summary of facts at the end of the copy.
In a presentation, you can have a question and answer session.
In a workshop, you can have a break out session where clients apply the lessons–and then come back to discuss the issues all over again.
You may think it’s great to give out the information…
But the giving of the information is only part of the issue. The next really important stage is the factor of consumption. If you really want your customer to consume, factor in a break. Factor in a discussion. Or a summary.
It’s the smartest way to get the customer to learn–and move ahead.
Would you give away $1000 worth of goodies away free?
Surely there’s a catch.
Surely the value of those goodies are way 0ver-hyped.
Hmmm…run out of objections yet?
Because instead of simply telling you how to attract, I’m giving away a bushel load of goodies absolutely free. And technically, they’re worth more than $1000 (more like $1700), but hey, $1000 sounded hypey enough.
And these just ain’t some flippant fillers
No siree. Each set of notes is professionally designed and produced. Each audio is recorded in great detail, with drama and music. And each transcript and mindmap is detailed down to the last word.
Why give away so much free?
Because you can talk about the ‘bikini concept’ till you turn blue.
Or you can demonstrate it.
Well, here’s the demonstration. http://www.psychotactics.com/protege.htm
P.S. If you’d like to post this on your blog or send it onwards to your friends, or to your list, please be my guest.
Each step is important.
The opt-in.
The language on the opt-in page.
The email that follows the filling of the form.
The landing on the sales page.
The bonuses that get emailed to you within a few days.
The structure of the consumption, and how you don’t get it all at once.
And yes, the information itself, which is rich and structured in detail.
Ask any copywriter how many headlines they write for a single sales letter or ad, and they’ll come up with a fanciful number.
Something like 75 headlines.
Or 150 headlines.
Or worse, 200 headlines.
So pray, why would you need to write 200 headlines?
I’ll tell you why. You need to write 200 headlines, because you don’t have a clue who your audience really is. Ooh, did I say audience? I didn’t mean to say audience. Because when you start to think of your customer as an audience, you’ve already mucked up your headline writing.
Is this Steve Jobs, or Steve Jobs, or Steve Jobs?
Because the concept of target audience is a myth
And yet, every single day a discussion between copywriters and clients goes like this:
The writer (stupidly) asks, “Who’s your target audience?”
And the client (stupidly) says: “Mothers who juggle home with a growing business.”
And then (stupidly),they go about merrily writing headlines for ‘young mothers who juggle home with a growing business.’ And this exercise seems perfectly logical, until you start to slice and
dice that so-called audience.
Are we talking about Lisa?
Are we talking about Aditi?
Are we talking about Gulnar?
Are we talking about Katie?
Are we talking about Britney?
Because Britney (as in Britney Spears) is indeed juggling home with a growing (or shall we say, dwindling) business. And so is Lisa. And so is Aditi. Not to speak of Gulnar or Katie.
And when writing that headline they’d all be clumped together
Which of course, is a mistake. Because while they form a tidy demographic of young mothers juggling homes with a growing business, they’re not at all alike.
They don’t exactly have the same problems, and most certainly don’t have the same priorities. And yet, like dumbos, we’re off to write a headline that encompasses the lot. We’re writing for 200
mothers. Is it any wonder we have to write 200 headlines?
Ok, so how do we get to writing a single headline?
We dump the ‘target audience’ concept, that’s for sure. And we look at ‘target profile’ instead. So instead of Lisa, Aditi, and yada, yada, we look at one person. Like Katie.
So instead of looking at every single mother who’d wander into that category, we’d look at just one. And we’d see what’s important to her. What does she want from life? What does she want
from her business? And when we start to look at this one person, the fogginess goes away.
Because we’ve stopped looking at this ‘fictional audience’ of nameless, faceless people, and are now concentrating on one person.
A person we know.
A person we can talk to.
A person we can relate to.
And more importantly, a person who can shoot down our headline in a millisecond.
Because we could go to Katie and ask her:
Would Katie take a 20% cut in profits to spend 20% more time with the kids?
Would Katie not tolerate any cut in profit, and still want to spend 20% more with the kids?
Would Katie be quite happy to concentrate on her growing business and grow it by 20%, or even 50%, knowing it will be better for the kids later on.
Aha, now we aren’t tramping around 200 headlines are we?
Because Katie would tell us. She’d tell us what she really wants.
And then she’d go so far as to tell us what her specific problems are. And instead of sitting in our nice, fuzzy headline brain, we’d actually be talking to a real person, with real issues, that
a million Katies would respond to.
A million Katies?
Yup, uno million! Writing a headline just for Katie seems like marketing suicide, but actually it’s quite the opposite. Because a million mothers with the very same problem will look at your
headline and say, “That’s me! This is exactly the service I wanted.”
Weird, huh?
You write for one, but gain the attention of squillions of‘Katies’. Because while the problem may be universal, the terminology that Katie uses will hit the hot buttons of um, squillions of mothers just like her. And when they see that ‘specific product or service’, they’ll instantly realise the ‘specific product or service’ is just what they wanted.
But did you notice I said ‘specific product or service?’
Don’t make the silly mistake of building your entire business around one person. You can only build ONE specific service or product around that person. Why? Because let’s assume we took
Katie into consideration. Let’s assume she chose to spend 20% more time with her darlings, and was quite happy to take the 20% pay cut, as long as the business stayed steady.
Well, the Katie of the year 2007, isn’t the Katie of 2008. And neither is she going to be the Katie of 2009. And we see this with Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computers as well. If you gave Steve an
iPod in the year 2002, he’d want a completely different iPod in the year 2005, and quite a different one in 2007.
In effect, Steve Jobs isn’t Steve Jobs
Katie isn’t Katie.
And your customer is not the same customer, year after year, after year. So each product or service responds to a specific customer need at a specific moment in a customer’s life.
Which means you need to sit down with every one of your products. Every one of your services. And allocate specific ‘target profiles’. And these ‘target profiles’ should be real, live people. If you’re writing for Aditi, you should know Aditi. If you’re writing for Gulnar, Gulnar better be around. If you’re creating a product or service for Steve, you’d better be getting Steve’s input.
And then you won’t need 200 headlines
Or 75 headlines. Or whatever.
Because ‘Katie’ will tell you exactly what her problem
is, and how you can solve it.
And that my friend, is the only headline you’re ever going to
need.
Ok, so Apple is getting smarter by the minute. Instead of sitting around and watching Windows take over the world, the iPod is now combining the power of extremely well connected strategic alliances, and continuously emerging technology to create even more trouble for us in business.
Trouble, did I say?
If you had any doubts about where wi-fi and video was going, this new iPod kinda puts those doubts to rest. The iPod is now literally a salestool in the hands of businesses. With Safari (Apple’s browser) directly connected to You Tube, and with Starbucks rolling out free wi-fi access in several of its gazillion stores, we have a situation where your ‘ad’ can be seen everywhere.
And blogs and websites will be relevant.
But videos will be more relevant.
And if you don’t have video, and relevant video as a means of marketing, you won’t be creamed. But you’ll surely be disadvantaged. Of course, it’s not all about video. If you use video to do a pitch-fest, then no one will pay attention. But use video to educate and then push clients to your website or um…iPhone number and you’ll start to see a torrential river of clients headed your way.
Video has existed as a viable medium for well over 30 years. But now it’s sitting next to your coffee. Are you prepared? http://www.psychotactics.com
Which means all marketers should shake in their boots if they want to add something new and improved, right? Or all of us should stop adding features, no matter how badly they’re wanted.
Which is simply impossible, but here’s what’s possible
You can’t beat feature creep, because it’s the customer themselves that demand the features, but of course, once they have all the features, they don’t know what to do with all of them. So they return the product, and bail out of the service at the very worst. Or they don’t use the product/service at the very least (lack of consumption). So what’s a marketer to do?
Tell the customer what’s important
Tell me what’s important in that product/service I’ve bought. Focus on the stuff that gets me up and running. And then I’m more than happy to use your products’ core features. And explore the rest when I have the time.
