Talking about blind copy

I like using a "stick" campaign via an autoresponder series.

Each message reinforces why the person bought the product.

For example a message could points out some lesson, take-away or hidden nugget in the product along with how/why this is important to the buyer.

Kevin Rogers has an interview with Carlton on one of his sites and they go a bit into answering your question.

I think there is a link to it someplace on the forum here.

Test your blind offer against the same one only without a guarantee. You might be surprised at the results.

Using blind copy in a way that makes sure your customer is satisfied with the purchase is a lot about shaping expectations. You made a point to that regarding saying that your idea is not new and shiny, even if it is. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about, although I would probably go more with a line about the core of it isn't new or shiny but you've found some new twist, etc.

I mean you can look at a bazillion self-improvement books today that are saying the same things said in Psycho-Cybernetics, Science of Getting Rich and Think & Grow Rich. They're just putting a new spin on it or saying it a different way.

I think generally, people aren't as concerned about the actual process or technique as they are about whether they learn something new and if it works.

Now, that's a big generalization. Because if you're selling a product all about some specific technique (like there are some wso's about using Twiends or Animoto) it's harder to avoid the issue of people getting it and being dissatisfied because they already knew about that.

But that's also a product creation issue--hopefully the person has taken the time to differentiate what they're saying about it or how they're presenting it in some way.

Overall though, I think blind copy can go gangbusters if you're making sure to set the right expectations in the copy. Not just about what they'll get or what the "trick" is--but also about how what they're going to reveal is different from other similar items, the results they can expect, the experience of using the product, etc.

In my mind, blind copy is fundamentally flawed when being used for sales copy. The reason it will always lead to large refunds is because it leaves a HUGE gap for the prospect to put their imaginations into. The likelihood of meeting that broad a range of expectations and satisfying it is very slim.

And I don't think it's all just automatic refunders like Kevin's talking about, but rather normal, perfectly reasonable people who legitimately guessed incorrectly about what you were selling BECAUSE you specifically avoided telling them.

It's very much like you asked them to make a bet and they lost, and no one will ever feel good about that.

Now, that's not to say that blind copy can't be used effectively. What it's GREAT at is driving an action to satisfy elevated curiosity. I think if you use it in situations where you're getting feedback, or conditioning response, or gathering comments, it can be very beneficial.

In other words, you're inviting them to make a bet, but they're not losing anything like money if they guess wrong.

I pretty much agree with everything you said there Colin.

I think that you should put curiosity into your copy, it sells. Hell when I was 16 years old, way back in 1993ish my best friend and I decided to get into the mail order business with a product for "hard gainers" and the first to to make money type product I ever bought did a great job of building curiosity right into the title: "The Greatest Advertising Secret of All Time" by Carl Galletti. Hell I can still remember stalking the mail mail for about a week waiting for it so I could find find out the secret!

That having been said I think that having a mix of blind copy along with things telling what the product is, that is the ideal mix. I believe Carlton talks about that in an interview that Kevin Rodgers has done with him.

At the end of the day in order to reduce refunds I think smart business people have stick strategies, and the best stick strategy of all is not to put out ****ty products!

Onto something slightly different. I was doing demographics research today, and I can't help but wonder if all of the BS copy, hype, obvious lies and dreams we see in IM are not due to the very nature of the buyers.

I'll get a bit into this.

I'm getting ready to do a Forex product, so I was doing some research on Quantcast of the top Forex products, signals services, educational services, robots etc.

I was shocked!

If you look at the general stock market, even "Day Trading" which is as close to get rich quick as the stock market gets, you will find your dealing with a rather sophisticated demographic. A majority have at least a BA, and a much higher % vs average have gone to graduate school.

You will also find that the portion of those making over 100K a year is about twice that of the Internet Average. Hardly anyone makes under 50K a year. They are older, the majority being over 40. And for whatever reason a lot of Asians too. I've also found this all to be true in my own interaction with my customers.

Now contrast that to Forex.

The majority have a high school education. They are also over 50 - but here is the kick: two and a half times above the Internet average make LESS THAN 30K a year!

I got to thinking about this and wondered how closely IM's demographic was to that of Forex because the marketing styles are almost identical. I found that they are nearly identical with the exception that the education profile of the average WF member is the same as the average internet user.

But overwhelming, financially, the average warrior, at least according to the quantcast data, is for lack of a better term, a failure. People making under 30K per year on the WF, and on most of these CB launches, make up 165% more of the average user vs the internet as a whole.

So your dealing with people who's financial reality, frankly, sucks. They are 50+ years old, making less than 30K a year. It's not easy to see why they fall for a scam so easily. That's not a knock of them, that's just simply saying that their finances suck and when things are going bad it's easy to dream, and hope, and wish. It's easy to believe that success and good fortune come almost by accident (the guru dropped a disk, and lucky me, I was there to pick it up!), almost like poor people overwhelming are the ones playing the lotto.

Anyway, there is probably a lot more to say about this, but I'll stop.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I hope I didn't by making just some general and seemingly obvious observations based upon the data available.