Heated Discussion Leads to Target Audience money comparison

4 replies
Ok, so I was having a heated discussion with my brother, lets call him the "optimistic product creator", for this discussion.

The basics go like this:

Based on a WSO that happened here, he was trying to state that a person creating a product could indeed make more money to market it directly to consumers then they would to market it here to the Warrior Forum.

His argument is that if you create "product A" and market it directly to consumers then you can make more money then "selling product A to marketers (lets call us distributors for this ),

After much debate, I finally made this point to my brother.

When creating any product, you have to sell your product to the "known audience" not to the "largest" audience. The analogy I used is shooting a gun or bow and arrow.

When target shooting or hunting you aim for a specific target. Anyone who simply goes into the woods and starts shooting randomly is not likely to hit anything worthwhile.

While I agree that there is a POTENTIAL to earn more money marketing one product to everyone on the planet, the truth is that you have to aim for a much smaller audience, especially if it is a new product or you are a new marketer.

Potential alone is not the same as actual earnings.

Imagine if you will the target on a wall. You aim for the bulleye, and are happen to hit any ring on the target. An arrow into the wall is still a miss.

You don't need to hit a bullseye everytime, just hit the target.

This applies directly to IM. Many people want to create a "one shot center bullseye" on the first shot. It just won't happen.

At the same time, you cannot just randomly take shots in the dark hoping to hit something that is worthwhile.

In truth, you must narrow your sights in on a target that is small enough, but not too small.

For instance, target your product too narrowly and you limit your sales potential because not enough people need your product. Target too large of an audience and you risk never really getting noticed by the actual target audience. Think of this as being a drop of water in an ocean of products. It could easily be missed.

By targeting a product to a known target audience, in this case we were discussing an wso being sold here, the point is you are marketing to a known market. Those who need the product can use it.

Focus on making your products meet specific needs of a specific market audience. If your not earning money, either consider making your focused niche even more specific or potentially less specific.

It is easier to sell a product to a "known market" compared to an unknown market. No one starts a company today and has it as a mega power tomorrow. By starting out small, you can market to your audience, build upon successes and earn some money.
#audience #comparison #discussion #heated #leads #money #target
  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
    I think your brother's argument is flawed. In many cases, the products offered (via sigs, WSO, Warrior Classified, etc.) ARE being offered to the end consumer. Unless it's some Resell Rights deal, WF buyers are not going to be distributors, they are going to be users.

    Even if you could sell one product to the whole world, you could not offer it the same way.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3186806].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ObsidianKnight
    John,

    Not sure if I was clear.

    MY prother was trying to point out that a person selling a product, in this argument was a software program. His argument was this:

    If a person were to make a software program, and sell it directly to "the end user masses", he would make more money then selling it to warrior forum members "who are in the specific niche".

    In other words, the person selling the WSO had a target audience (Warrior forum members), and my brother was trying to argue that this market was too narrow and that this person would make more money if they simply "sold directly to the niche the product was in" and never sold it to other marketers.

    for example:

    If Joe marketer creates a program to "Train pets" (just an example). Joe marketer could either sell it here to "warriors in that niche" or sell it outright via other avenues. My brother states, "Joe marketer could "potentially" make more money by not selling anything to the warriors and instead marketing only by himself direct to people needing pet training.

    My brother fails to see that in many cases, by selling something to "a specific audience", in this case other marketers, that those marketers who "resell" a product are "Acting" as a form of distribution for the products.

    He was stating that Joe marketer should "just sell to the masses". So instead of getting lets say 200 or so sales on a forum, sold to marketers, that joe marketer should create his own site and sell it himself.

    (I understand most marketers sell directly as well, but trying to keep out the entire competition argument)

    He did not understand the basic concepts of things such as MRR, affiliates, and that even large companies sell "distribution rights" in order to move their products. (M-Soft, may sell Win7 directly, but they also have a distribution network of resellers)

    The example I gave to him was you can make the best software ever. But if you try to sell that software to everyone on the planet at once, In the beginning, even though the potential to make more money is there, the likelyhood is that until you get some "proof" under your belt, people may not buy it.

    This showcases a lot in IM. For instance, sales letters with proof sell more copies, then sales letters without proof, (or testimonials).

    **
    Let me be clear he was not arguing against the warrior forum. He was trying to convince me that "by selling to a small market the Joe marketer loses money".
    **

    This point I conceded. There is truth in that if only a small market buys a product I would not make as much as a larger market all buying. But just having a larger market available does not make it "the right market". As evidenced by the fact that we do not just spam "dog training" to everyone on the planet, we aim for dog owners.

    *
    He was missing the entire point of "narrowing in on a target market". By narrowing in on a much smaller audience, you increase your chances of selling and converting.
    *

    If I sell a 100 copies of a $10 product here on WaFo, he sees me make $1000. And then he states, "you could make more if you sold it to everyone".

    I was trying to get across to him, that by selling stuff here, to other marketers, you get yourself established. And that by passing on things like MRR a person could sell 100 copies of something here, and make more then $1000 when other marketers sell (distribution method) more copies to their given niches.

    *
    Distributors was not meant to mean exact "distributors" as in a retail example. But was referenced to mean that even warrior forum members that are "using a product" are also in a role as a "distribution method". I would rather have sold 100 copies of MRR and then have other helpers sell 100 more each while splitting the profits, then to try to sell 10,000 copies myself.

    This benefitial "Affiliate" arrangment was one my brother could not fully grasp.
    *

    In this case a person selling to the warrior forum is selling to a specific "target market" (warriors). Those warriors in turn use or disseminate that product to "the general population".

    This method is still pretty much just like a normal software company, who would create a product, then distribute it through retailers, who then sell to consumers. Along the way, both a "retail distributor" and a "warrior member" act as a middle point between the creator of the program and the general population. In both cases the "middleman" earns a income during the process.

    While yet in both cases, the original creator (software vendors) can and still does "allow the general population" to buy their product, the usage of a distribution avenue such as selling to warriors, (or putting software into any other distribution method), CAN actually increase profits as compared to trying to market that same product alone.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3187299].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      His argument is still flawed. He's trying to use logic to do simple arithmetic.

      And it's very common.

      "Why should I pay affiliates 50% commission when I could sell it myself and keep all the money?"

      This leaves out the whole confusion about selling to Warriors, or even other marketers.

      The flaw comes in your brother assuming that he can reach the same pool of buyers that a group of affiliates can and, once reached, sell them as efficiently.

      I'll pass along an example handed to me in my mlm days...

      This was back when hotel meetings were the next big thing. You'd get a bunch of people to bring guests to a big meeting, where the main speaker extolled the virtues of the company and the pay plan.

      In this case, the presenter was your basic clean-cut, suit-and-tie type. The prospect was a "biker chick" type, complete with ink and multiple piercings. The suit was telling her to bring her friends to the next meeting so he could sell them on the deal.

      She reacted by telling him that her friends were far more likely to buy from her, because she "was" them. He was just another guy in a suit, a group not held in particularly high esteem by her friends.

      The same logic applies here. Affiliates and resellers can, and do, connect with buyers that the product creator can't connect with.

      Here's where the arithmetic comes in...

      Which would he rather have?

      100% of 1,000 sales, or 100% of 1,000 sales and 50% of 10,000 more? He could forgo the first 1,000 sales altogether and still come out far ahead by taking the second deal...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3187754].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ObsidianKnight
        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

        His argument is still flawed. He's trying to use logic to do simple arithmetic.

        And it's very common.

        "Why should I pay affiliates 50% commission when I could sell it myself and keep all the money?"

        This leaves out the whole confusion about selling to Warriors, or even other marketers.

        The flaw comes in your brother assuming that he can reach the same pool of buyers that a group of affiliates can and, once reached, sell them as efficiently.

        I'll pass along an example handed to me in my mlm days...

        This was back when hotel meetings were the next big thing. You'd get a bunch of people to bring guests to a big meeting, where the main speaker extolled the virtues of the company and the pay plan.

        In this case, the presenter was your basic clean-cut, suit-and-tie type. The prospect was a "biker chick" type, complete with ink and multiple piercings. The suit was telling her to bring her friends to the next meeting so he could sell them on the deal.

        She reacted by telling him that her friends were far more likely to buy from her, because she "was" them. He was just another guy in a suit, a group not held in particularly high esteem by her friends.

        The same logic applies here. Affiliates and resellers can, and do, connect with buyers that the product creator can't connect with.

        Here's where the arithmetic comes in...

        Which would he rather have?

        100% of 1,000 sales, or 100% of 1,000 sales and 50% of 10,000 more? He could forgo the first 1,000 sales altogether and still come out far ahead by taking the second deal...

        I agree with you that his argument was flawed. That's what I was trying to get across to him. During the process of the discussion with him, I also found myself thinking that others might have a similiar confusion with regards to how this all works.

        Thanks for your math variation.

        It's funny that you mention the MLM, as he was trying to bring up that "AHEM-way" model. In his attempt to convince me that his argument was valid.

        He would point to mlm and then quote the whole "pyramid issues". And then go onto the issues of "questionable elements" who only serve to take advantage of the consumer.

        I felt like he was blaming the "process of marketing" for the fact that there are people who will "take advantage of other" who just happen to be within the process itself.

        I told him just because there are "bad people" who sell stuff, does not make the "process of selling stuff bad".

        Thanks for your discussion. I was just hoping it would help open a few eyes for those who may still have confusion with regards to how this all works.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3187843].message }}

Trending Topics