Continuing with our look at the decision-making process which, as we’ve seen, is emotion-based and logic-rationalized, how does this play out in the process of selling?

After reading one of the recent posts, my great friend, Jennifer Kushell, co-author (with Scott Kaufman) of the NY Times Bestselling, Secrets of the Young & Successful and Co-founder of Young & Successful, wrote:

“Interesting Bob! Very true too. Are emotional decisions backed with logic such a bad thing though? Especially in sales? I’d imagine that connecting with the audience/user/client would be good, right?”

Thank you, Jennifer. You’re correct. Not necessarily a bad thing. It is simply a fact of life; not good or bad; just is. The key is whether we are aware of this “while in the process” of making an emotional decision (I was coming at this from the viewpoint of “we the buyer – not the seller”). To the degree that we are consciously aware, that’s the degree to which we can know we are acting out of strength; not weakness.

And, Jennifer brings up an excellent point. In sales, we must absolutely be aware that while facts tell, emotion sells. There’s an old saying that “facts tell and stories sell” but – as John David Mann suggests, “While that saying is easy to remember because it rhymes, it’s not entirely true. Stories don’t necessarily sell. What they do is connect.”

And, they connect with your prospect on an “emotional level.”

While providing your prospect with the logical facts helps them to have a better understanding of your product or service and how it might be able to help them, it most likely will not connect with them on an emotional level. And, since people buy on emotion, there’s a good chance that the sale will not be made and your prospect will not enjoy the benefits that he or she could have, had they made the purchase.

The key is for you to discover, through authentically asking the right questions and doing your diligence, if the purchase of your product or service is indeed in their best interest. If so, then it is indeed up to you to set the context for the sale.

If they know, like and trust you (i.e. they have an emotional connection with you) and are emotionally connected with the benefits of your product or service, the odds of the sale taking place are extremely good.

And, as long as we approach this ethically and with the best interest of the buyer in mind, we are totally on the right track.

Your thoughts?

Tags: General

Last week I wrote to you explaining how the world had turned topsy-turvy. How – thanks to easy credit and money-creating banks – the idea of working for reward had been replaced with the idea that you can have your reward now, and then work later to pay it off.

At other times we’ve argued that housing is not a productive item, that it’s simply a very expensive consumer item.

Sure, it may be used multiple times but it is still a consumer item. It’s just that it’s ‘consumed’ over a very long time frame. The fact is, a house doesn’t produce anything, all it does is provide a dwelling and shelter.

Proof of that is in the size of houses. As we’ve pointed out before, a 50 square house that provides a dwelling for one person isn’t more productive than a 15 square house that provides a dwelling for one person.

In fact, it’s less productive as it has drawn resources away from other areas of the economy.

But somehow, in the weird and whacky world of the Lifestyle channel, and the equally whacky world of what can only be called ‘Lifestyle Channel’ Economists, housing has taken on the guise of a productive good.

It has morphed from a consumer item into an item that is now seen as the lifeblood of an economy. Housing has been changed from being considered as a dwelling or as shelter, to becoming the fountain of wealth.

If you believe the ‘Lifestyle Channel’ economists, housing is the ultimate barometer of the health of any developed nation.

But what we ask is, how can this be true?

The fact is it can’t be true and it isn’t true. Let me explain in a way that should dispel the myth of productive housing once and for all.

Let’s imagine a village of 10 people (a butcher, a baker, a shoemaker, a tailor, a barber, a builder, a doctor, a farmer, a cook, and a carpenter). Each of whom owns their own home. Each home is worth the same – $100.

All of these people earn an income from making and/or selling consumable items or from providing a service to other people.

Now we’ve set the scene, consider this. The carpenter offers to buy the shoemaker’s house for $110.

The shoemaker has just made a $10 gain on his house. How easy was that? What’s to stop him from making more money from real estate? In fact, he finds out the carpenter is in the market to buy more houses and is prepared to pay up to $120 for each house.

The shoemaker spots the opportunity to make a quick buck. Knowing this, he offers to buy the butcher’s house for $105, which the butcher accepts. The shoemaker then offers to sell the house to the carpenter for $120.

The shoemaker is ecstatic, how easy is this? Cobblers to the cobbling, the shoemaker can make easy money simply buying a house from one person and selling it to someone else.

And it doesn’t stop there, on he goes to the tailor and offers to pay him $105 for his house. Then quick as a flash he’s off round to the carpenter’s to collect the $120 from selling the house to him.

That’s another $15 in profits, simply from buying and selling houses. In fact, the shoemaker is so happy with his new venture that he decides to completely pack in the shoemaking game and take up property investing instead.

Anyway, we could carry on with this example forever. But let’s finish it there. We’ll finish it on a happy note. Everyone seems happy, there is a boom in property prices, and no one has been harmed.

But here’s the point. Take a look at the scenario above again. It’s a very simplified version of what happens in any property market. If housing is as productive as we are led to believe, exactly where in the example has anything of any value been added to the economy?

To be honest, we can’t see it. That’s because there’s no productivity from buying and selling houses. There’s no more productivity in buying and selling houses than there is buying and selling shares.

Look, I’m not saying that everything that happens in an economy must be productive. It’d be a pretty boring life if that was the single driver behind every action. But what I am saying is that if something isn’t productive it’s pointless – and potentially dangerous – to pretend it is.

The buying and selling of things doesn’t necessarily create productivity. Buying and selling shifts capital and goods. It doesn’t automatically produce anything.

Making a pair of shoes is productive, or slaughtering animals for meat is productive. The shoemaker selling his house to the carpenter is not productive. It doesn’t add anything to the economy that wasn’t already there.

Sure, at this stage the buyer and seller of the property are both satisfied. The seller is happy with the price he’s received, and the buyer is happy with the price he’s paid.

However, as our example shows, the buying and selling of houses has actually had a negative impact on the economy because the shoemaker has packed in shoemaking. The town will now have to import shoes from another town – which isn’t necessarily bad, but what can our town export in return? Not houses.

The shoemaker is now gambling on someone being prepared to pay a higher price for houses in the town. If they stop doing that, what happens?

So, not only is housing unproductive but it simultaneously takes resources away from elsewhere in the economy. Rather than the shoemaker investing in leather and shoehorns, he’s using all his capital and resources on buying houses and selling them to someone else.

That harms the leather manufacturer and also the shoe buyer as there is no one in the town to take the leather and turn it into shoes.

The lure of making money from houses has taken money and resources away from the manufacturing industry and other industries and instead invested it in housing.

And that’s exactly what Australia’s banks have caught on to. You can see it in their lending numbers. They’ve tapped into the idea that property prices always go up and are therefore helping to pump up the property bubble.

They’ve seen the soaring house prices over the last thirty years and are now determined to keep the market going. As far as they’re concerned there’s less risk in housing because they know what the attitudes of consumers are towards it.

But make no mistake, contrary to popular belief, that doesn’t mean a bubble won’t pop.

As the example above shows, the ability to make money from the buying and selling of houses is all based on the willingness of someone else paying a higher price – the Great Fool Theory we believe it’s called. Without that the profits disappear.

Look, don’t take my word for it, think about it for yourself. Think over the numbers. How does the buying and selling of a house contribute anything to an economy? I’ll have something else to say on that in a moment.

But let’s leave our fictional town and return to reality. Last Thursday’s Australian Financial Review and The Weekend Australian Financial Review laid bare the desperate story behind property investing, and the confirmation of what we’ve said all along, that property investors invest solely in the belief that house prices always rise.

We were scorned by some investors who claimed that wasn’t true, that income generation was a big part of it. Well, let’s take a look at some of the numbers…

According to last Thursday’s paper, there are 1,705,683 landlords in Australia. That’s roughly 7% of the entire population. But here’s the amazing thing, of those 1.7 million landlords 69.4% of them are making a loss based on the income received versus outgoing expenses.

That doesn’t surprise us. We’ve pointed out before that rental properties are a money pit. More money goes in than comes out. And with average rental yields in Melbourne under 4%, it doesn’t take a Doctorate from the Université Paris Sorbonne to work out that your costs will exceed your income.

The Weekend AFR, lays out the details. Based on the numbers, $22.9 billion of rent is received each year by landlords, yet total outgoings come in at $31.2 billion, creating a loss of $8.3 billion.

Call us mad if you will, but we’re yet to find anywhere in our investing textbooks where it says making a loss from your investments is a good idea.

Now, we’re assuming that property investors aren’t dumb. They must be taking the hit on the income for a reason. And the simple reason is that they believe the price of housing will continue to rise, and that the rise in the price of the property will more than offset the loss from the income.

Therefore reader, it’s unarguable that the primary reason that property investors invest in property is for capital gains rather than income. There’s no denying it. In which case, prices have to keep increasing in order for the investors to make any money.

And there’s the problem. As we know from every other asset class in Australia and around the world, it’s just not possible for the price of an asset to continually rise without a major correction.

Take it from me, whatever excuses the property spruikers come up with, the Australian property market isn’t immune from this outcome.

As you can see from our make-believe economy, resources have been skewed towards one area, the buying and selling of houses. All other industries are potentially suffering as no one wants to invest in those industries.

As we say, it’s exactly what the Australian banks are doing, investing in houses and mortgages at the expense of other productive sectors of the economy.

But I wanted to mention one other thing. Referring back to the risk/reward attitude, housing is a perfect example of the cart being put before the horse. If you’re like me, and you see housing as a consumer item then it makes sense you only buy the consumer item as a reward for your productivity.

It’s should be the same with housing.

However, thanks to leverage and the ingrained impression that house prices always go up, housing has changed from being a ‘reward’ for productivity to being treated as the source of productivity – it is of course, nothing of the sort.

It’s not helped by all the ridiculous stories about buying a home being the “Australian dream”, and “rent money is dead money”, etc…

But this attitude explains why housing is now seen as a leading indicator. How many times over the past year or so have you heard economists looking for positive signs from housing? Almost every month from what we can recall.

There’s a simple reason for that. And it’s exactly what happens with every asset bubble. Buyers overestimate future price rises and scramble to get in early. You saw it with the dot-com boom, and you’re seeing it with the housing boom – “buy now before it’s too late.”

The overestimation leads to anticipatory buying. Only, not everyone can afford to pay up in advance to get onboard so they have to borrow in order to get a piece of the action. This pushes prices up further and necessitates further borrowing.

Again, does that sound familiar?

In reality and absent price and market manipulation, housing should lag the economy not lead it. Housing is the reward paid for by the productivity of the economy, it’s not the driver of the economy itself.

The idea that the housing market can lead an economy out of recession, or to grow the economy is false. Housing is a consumable item. When it is bought or built it is consumed at that point. It provides no further benefit to the economy.

To claim it does is false.

If anything, a positive housing market indicates one of two things. Either people are rewarding themselves for their past productivity, or they are anticipating future productivity and price rises by buying houses now.

The trouble is, if the economy is skewed towards the buying and selling of houses, guess what? There won’t be the necessary future productivity to pay off today’s anticipatory buying of houses.

With all the credit and investment going into the housing market today, you have to wonder about the future state of the lopsided Australian economy. The simple fact is, buying houses today in the hope that others will pay a higher price for them in the future, isn’t the recipe for a sustainable and healthy economy.

Rather, it’s the recipe for a boom that is set to bust.

Cheers,
Kris.

Tags: General

Tags: General

Over the past two articles we’ve been discussing that, as human beings, we tend to make decisions (even – and perhaps, especially – major ones) emotionally. We then support those emotional decisions with logic or rationalization. In the previous article, I told a story on myself that – while it happened a long time ago – followed the same basic principles of decision these things most likely always have and always will follow.

Much of the feedback and questions came to me via email and Facebook. Today, I’d like to discuss one letter I received because I believe the very thought brings up an important question.

Jean asked:

“Does that mean I shouldn’t have bought my new car? LOL! Just kidding! If you are going to drive you might as well enjoy it! … or is that more of… oh well!”

While I think Jean meant that at least somewhat “tongue-in-cheek” I’m bringing it up here because several people wrote with a variation of that question and were completely serious.

My response:

Not at all, Jean. As mentioned in the article, the fact that we buy emotionally isn’t necessarily good or bad; it just is. As long as we’re on top of it, recognize it, and are ultimately in control of our emotions, it’s fine. If you can afford it and you want it, if it will bring you joy, and its purchase won’t infringe upon the rights of anyone else, why shouldn’t you have it?

My friend, Randy Gage, who publishes the Success & Prosperity Blog, covered something similar in two of his recent posts, discussing the fact that there is a difference between spending money you don’t have in a way that will be counter-productive to your financial health and well-being…and enjoying the fruits of your labor, treating yourself as you should be treated and enjoying your life to the fullest.

That was very much a paraphrase of Randy’s excellent advice. The point, though, is that the fact that your decision to do or not to do something was based on emotion is not – in and of itself – a negative thing. Nor is it a positive thing. It just is what it is; a natural part of the human decision-making process.

I’m more concerned about the emotional decisions we make that we don’t recognize and/or acknowledge are emotional and happen to not be in our best interests. As adult individuals we are responsible for our decisions and the positive or negative results they bring. Thus, it is imperative that, while we act out of emotion, we don’t use that as an excuse for doing something that might feel good now and come back to haunt us later. And, saying that “it seemed logical at the time” – while it might allow us to feel like a victim, it sure won’t allow us to come away feeling like a winner.

In the next article, we’ll continue along this line and look at it from a seller’s perspective.

Now, I’ll take that Banana Split please…with a Diet Coke on the side.

Tags: General

Well, you don’t need a crystal ball to look into the future these days.

You can rely on something far more accurate (apologies to crystal ball manufacturers). Such as the history books and what’s going on around you.

Three headlines over the past few days caught our eye:

“Baby boomers face going into retirement saddled with debt” – The Age

“Britons Cling to Services, Despite Debt” – The New York Times

“Mark Webber takes swipe at Australian nanny state” – The Age

Webber said, “dodging the ridiculous speeding and parking [rules] and all the nanny-state country that we have down here in Australia.”

He was partially referring to Formula 1 racer, Lewis Hamilton’s hooning escapade that saw Hamilton’s road car – not his F1 car – impounded by the ‘old bill.’

We couldn’t agree with Webber more. But if he thinks the Australian nanny-state is bad, he should take a look at where he spends his working week, the UK. But more on that in a moment.

Not surprisingly, the Victoria Police have come out with the usual mumbo-jumbo. Deputy Commissioner Ken Lay said:

“I make no apologies for our aggressive approach, there’s probably a few Lewis Hamilton and Mark Webber fans who are alive because of our approach. I think Mark needs to take responsibility for the road safety message.”

Our response is, no he doesn’t. I won’t labour the point on this. I’ll quickly skip over it to get on to something more important. But we will say this…

It’s always amazed us how obsessed people are with the road toll. According to the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) website, 290 people were killed on Victoria’s roads in 2009.

That’s down from 343 in 2004. And down from a recorded peak of 1,061 in 1970. Although, by the time the TAC was established in 1986, according to the stats, the road toll had already dropped to 669.

The thing that amazes us as we drive the 40-odd kilometres into Fitzroy Street every day, is that more accidents and deaths don’t happen on the roads. Think about it, you’ve got hundreds of thousands of cars tearing around the streets at between 50km/h and 100km/h every day.

I mean, even our tiny Hyundai Getz weighs in at over 1,000kg, or one metric tonne. That’s millions of tonnes of metal, plastic and rubber hurtling around.

And how many vehicle journeys do Victorians make each day? We can’t find the stats, but our guess would be a total number of well over one million vehicle trips per day – well over. Yet sometimes days will pass without a single road death.

The old saying is that air travel is safer than road travel. It’s a nice saying, however the comparison is unfair. Millions of vehicles pass within centimetres of each other every day. Cars following each other with just a few metres distance.

Cars travelling in opposite direction separated by nothing more than a white line.

Yet there are only a very small number of fatalities each year.

Think about it, if two planes get within 10kms of each other the civil aviation authorities are up in arms, and the press screams about a “near miss.” Yet on the roads, there are millions of ‘near misses’ every second.

But anyway, we digress. But continuing with the idea of nanny-states…

At least we can say things aren’t quite as bad as in Blighty. Because as far as nanny-states go, the UK is on the verge of becoming the Mrs. Doubtfire of nanny-state nations.

As The New York Times explains:

“While government spending is up in many parts of the world, it is the pace at which it is growing here that really sets Britain apart. Spending has increased from 44 percent of gross domestic product in 2007 to a projected 52 percent in 2010, the largest jump among wealthy nations.”

As we recall from our number-crunching exercise a few weeks ago, Australia’s total government spending accounts for around 40% of GDP. And even if the UK’s jump to 52% is only temporary, it’s still an extraordinarily large number.

It’s pretty much telling you that half of the services that the British use is in some way provided by the UK government. But apparently, the Brits are happy for things to be that way.

According to the press reports, the government is determined not to cut any services, only increase taxes. And the trade unions are prepared to go on strike to prevent job cuts.

If only Lenin was still around to see how things have panned out. He’d realise the best way to achieve fully fledged socialism isn’t to do it by physical force, it’s to use another form of force – taxation and government regulation.

It might take longer but the overall effect is the same.

But as for the Brits, why wouldn’t they be happy for the government to keep on spending. I mean, why do things for yourself when you’ve got a great big lumbering government to do things for you.

Even if the government does things worse, it still seems to be a lot easier if Gordon Brown will do the stuff for them rather than doing things for themselves. But what’s happening in the UK should be a grave warning sign for Australia.

The creeping influence of government is growing the world over – UK, US, Europe, and indeed here in Australia.

And locally, the biggest threat comes with the tax and super reviews. Over the coming months, the idea will be forced down your throat that you’ll be unable to survive in retirement without the help of the government.

The sad thing is, in most cases they’ll be right, but only partially right. Because while there’s been all the talk about cutting the fees of fund managers from say, 2% or 0.5%, almost everyone has ignored the fact that the biggest fees are levied by the government – the 15% contributions tax.

And don’t forget all the other taxes such as income and capital gains taxes. The amount the fund managers take out is tiny in comparison – not that we’re sticking up for fund managers by the way.

The fact is, most retirees will have no choice but to rely on the government because the tax system has made it impossible for people to save. And relying for the government to fund your retirement is the surest way to the poorhouse.

A picture of just how impossible it’s been for people to save for retirement was painted by the article in The Age: “Baby boomers face going into retirement saddled with debt”.

Get this, “the median [super] balance for men… is $33,000 and for women it is zero… at least half the women in this age group [60-64] have absolutely no super.”

And don’t think, ‘oh, these people wouldn’t have had long in the workforce since super was introduced.’ Because that’s not necessarily true. For people in that age group, they’ve had nearly half of their working lives where they’ve contributed funds to superannuation.

What have they got from it? Not much if these numbers are anything to go by.

So for a hypothetical median couple, they’re looking at a retirement fund of $33,000 to get them by. How long will that last? Well, if we take the numbers in the Westpac-ASFA survey, a couple living a modest lifestyle will need $28,080 per year.

So the median 60-64 year old retiree will have just over one-year’s worth of savings. And that’s the median number. Half of the population have even less in retirement savings!

But don’t worry, they’ll have their house to fall back on. Really? Not so fast. Even if we take the national median house price of somewhere around $400,000 is that really enough to support two people who could have another 20 or 30 years under their belt?

Besides, if they sell the house then you’ve got to add either rent onto their living costs, or you need to subtract some of the balance from the capital if they decide to downsize to a smaller home.

And after they’ve got their hands on the lovely ‘lolly’, what are their options then? Well, annuities are being pushed right now. Which as we see it, is the pre-cursor to a government provided annuity – a Super Aged Pension, or SAP if you like. Very appropriate.

According to the Weekend Australian Financial Review, “Only CommInsure sells lifetime annuities. For a basic policy costing $100,000, a 65-year-old man would be guaranteed a lifetime income of $7276 a year.”

For our couple with $400,000 from the sale of their property that’s $29,104 each year. Just $124 more each year than the amount Westpac-ASFA believes a couple needs to live a modest lifestyle.

The only problem is, our couple now has nowhere to live. A quick look at the rents in our stomping ground of Frankston (by no means an expensive area) show you’ll need to spend $180 a week to get a 1-bedroom unit.

That’s $9,360 a year in rental payments, reducing their annual income to just $19,744.

The other choice is for the good old reverse mortgage. But even then the reverse mortgage provider – as far as we’re aware – isn’t going to lend you more than 50% of the value of the property.

Plus you’re paying interest on the loan, which will reduce the annual income by a similar amount as the renter.

The upshot is, the majority of the first wave of Baby-Boomers is hurtling head-first towards perennial poverty. And the outlook for the second and third wave isn’t likely to be much better.

Sure, there will be plenty of retirees that have built up a good asset base and savings outside of superannuation. They will be plenty that bought BHP Billiton shares or ANZ Bank shares for $3 a pop, and will now be sitting on a handsome return.

But our guess is, they’re in the minority. And we’re certain it won’t be enough to add more than a few hundred dollars each month to the retirement income.

The fact is, most baby boomers are approaching retirement with only one risky asset to retire on – the family home. A family home that won’t provide them with the big dollars they thought they’d have.

Which is why, the good old nanny-state will have to step in to save everyone’s bacon. Unfortunately, as has been proven with the woeful state pension, any new government sponsored annuity or SAP will provide nowhere near the income retirees will need.

The fact is, the government won’t be able to afford it. And as the nanny-state creeps ever further into the lives of individuals, increasing taxes and wasting money along the way, more and more people will become even more reliant on the government for support.

The more the government provides, the more it needs to take in taxation. The more it takes in taxation the lower the incentive for people to achieve anything for themselves.

The less that people achieve, the less there is for the government to take. It’s a vicious circle that knows no bounds. Until of course, the West completes its transformation into a carbon copy of the socialist system of the former Soviet Union.

We know it doesn’t paint a very bright future, but as I say, we don’t need a crystal ball to see what’s ahead. We can simply look at the experiences of Eastern Europe, and the direction of Western Europe to get an idea of what the future holds.

The only solution to avoid this is for governments to do less and allow individuals to plan for their own retirement without being handicapped by burdensome and immoral taxation.

Cheers,
Kris.

Tags: General

You’ve probably seen and heard the regular “Guru” pitches about how copywriting is the most important skill you’ll ever use in your online business.

If you’ve been a follower of this blog (or any of my other small or home-business sites and articles) for any length of time, you’re also aware that my typical response to such claims is a blunt “hogwash” or “horsefeathers!”

Those claims are ALWAYS made by someone who wants you to BUY something from them… usually an over-priced copywriting ebook, course or program of some kind.

I realize that the word “ALWAYS” may seem a bit of a stretch, but after 40 years as a professional copywriter, working in the trenches in ad agencies, media organizations and for my own marketing clients, I can tell you, unequivocally, that NO professional copywriter with any degree of honesty and integrity will make that claim about copywriting. And anyone who does make it falls into one of just two groups:

• They don’t know what they’re talking about.
• They DO know what they’re talking about — and they’re willing to LIE to you in order to get you to BUY from them.

Neither of these groups inspires me with enough confidence to part with any money to learn from them. I suggest that holding onto your money when these characters pitch their copywriting courses, reports, etc, at you is your smartest move.

Why is copywriting NOT your most important marketing skill?

The advertising industry has been collecting data about advertising effectiveness for close to 100 years now. One of the most important results of that research has been the identification of the Four Performance Factors that determine the success or failure of every visual advertisement. In fact, we even know by what percentages each of these Four Performance Factors can improve your results when you know how to get them right:

1. Audience targeting — up to 2,500% better results.
2. Your Offer — up to 2,000% better results.
3. Copy — up to 250% better results.
4. Layout — up to 50% better results.

Can you see why this claim about copywriting being your most important skill is utter nonsense? (Getting your offer right is up to EIGHT TIMES more important than your copy, and targeting the right audience is up to TEN TIMES more important than your copy. Layout? Forget about it. At only 50% potentially better results, it’s worthwhile having, but it pales into insignificance against the first two factors in importance. And I say that as an experienced advertising art director, too. The figures don’t lie.)

Can you spot the real problem here?

It’s also why copywriters so often claim that copywriting is the #1 marketing skill, especially online. It’s not that they’re all liars and charlatans. It’s because they belong to that first group I mentioned above: the ones who don’t know any better!

The answer is exquisitely simple, when you know it.

Take a close look at those Four Performance Factors again. The first two — Audience and Offer — are about MARKETING.

The last two — Copy and Layout — are about SELLING!

Copywriting is commonly defined (by copywriters themselves) as “salesmanship in print”.

Most sellers don’t really understand marketing. They think “marketing” is just a less objectionable word for “selling”.

WRONG! (Big time!)

By their definition, their claim that copywriting is the most important skill is actually right: the most important selling skill.

But that’s a very limited context. It’s like claiming that the most important medical skill is getting the instructions for the patient on the medication pack right. It ignores more important skills like…

• accurate diagnosis of the illness, disease, condition or injury
• effective prescription for treatment of the illness, disease, condition or injury

The difference?

One set of criteria applies to a DOCTOR. The other criteria apply to a PHARMACIST.

Pharmacists are prevented by law from diagnosing causes and prescribing treatments.

In the marketing context, the Marketer is the doctor. The seller is the pharmacist.

So it’s hardly surprising that a SELLER will claim that copywriting is your most important online skill. (Copywriters are SELLERS, remember? They’re very rarely trained marketers.)

So what should you focus on?

At 8 and 10 times higher potential than copywriting, respectively, your OFFER and your AUDIENCE TARGETING are where you should devote your time and effort. The right offer, to the right target audience, will deliver far more profitable results than the best copy and layout will ever produce from the wrong offer or the wrong audience.

Like to learn more about these critical differences?

Download these two FREE Insight Reports right now from http://marketingmasterclass.net.

They apply just as much to network marketing as they do to conventional businesses.

Then pay a visit to http://copywriting4homebusiness.com and register for our mailing list for information, insights and ideas to use to get faster, more measurable and more profitable results from your promotional activities.

The PearlMaker Sponsoring System is unique in many ways from any other system on offer. But the first BIG difference is the fact that it targets MULTIPLE audiences with relevant, tightly-targeted OFFERS for each of those audiences. (The typical lead generation system uses a “one-size-fits-all, all-things-to-all-people” approach that tries to cram pegs of every shape and size into a single, fixed-size, fixed-shape hole. It’s worse than useless. It actually drives people away. So much for “attraction”!)

Discover this best-kept secret weapon that’s not only more effective than anything else, but more affordable and more relevant — and far, far broader in scope!

http://mypearlmaker.com

Tags: General

Tags: General

Sam Caster ended MannaFest by reading a few excerpts from the Great to Good Manifesto by Umair Haque as featured in the Harvard Business Review. Here are the five main concepts the article details:

• First how, then who
• The Yoda Concept
• Ethical accelerators
• A culture of meaning
• Confront reality

Tags: General

Associates who were among the Top 100 income earners from around the world participated in the Top 100 parade which opened Saturday’s general session.

Tags: General

Associates who have earned commissions of at least a million dollars during the course of their association with Mannatech qualify for club membership. Pictured are new members of the Million Dollar Club recognized on stage at MannaFest.

Name in bold indicates New members and
* indicates representatives of Glyco Platinum

Tags: General