WSO's and OTO's...

Kim,

I totally agree with you. With a proper OTO you shouldn't need to say things like...

"I am wanting to know up front what my total cost is going to be."

A properly executed OTO should not be something that you need to take into account upfront. The front end product should stand on it's own two feet and should still work just as well even if you were to not purchase the OTO. The problem is a lot of WSO vendors don't use them correctly and that is why so many people now have a foul taste in their mouth when ever they hear that word mentioned.

As I said in my original post, if you need to take into account the OTO when purchasing the front end product then it tells me the OTO has not been executed properly. I think that's a problem with the WSO vendors NOT One Time Offers in general.

I disagree. This is something everyone should ask because it is so abused.

Who cares what the proper definition of a OTO is? PLR doesn't mean you get to change the content, but that is what happens in the IM niche.

I saw a WSO with 7 OTOs.

There have been plenty of other threads where buyers are sick and tired of all the hurdles in the sales process. They just want their product and not some hidden extra just to make the system work.

Buyers are not "confused" about what an OTO is. They see it. Over and over and over.

They certainly don't need someone lecturing them to ignore the totality of the sales process.

Due to abusive sellers the question may not really be about an OTO, but whether the buyer is about to be put through purchase hell. You have a OTO, people want to know about it so they can just avoid your process.

Personally, I want to know. If you are about to lay 7 OTOs on me I frickin' want to know so I can avoid your offer like the plague.

* Buyer's do not want to be abused with a ton of requests just to get their order.

* They do not want a hidden "OTO" product that is necessary to make the WSO work - which is really irritating because they have not yet even got the WSO!

* They do not want to feel misled about the low price of a WSO, just to find out it is really much higher once all the OTO missing ingredients are included.

An "OTO" is simply one-time offer. There is no room in those 3 letters saying it must be "complimentary" or anything else about what it "should" be.

Instead of a high-pressure OTO presented before the buyer even has a chance to review the product, have some confidence in your product and simply have a special offer as a back end in the members area after purchase. No OTO.

So I say ask away. I will.

.

[QUOTE=petelta;6017902]

That's pretty much the entire reason to have an OTO in place to add and help the original process. That feeling you get that you are being "forced" to buy the OTO for the quickest results is the definition of what an OTO should be... QUOTE]

Then just dump the whole thing inside the package and sell them. Why must they mislead people by giving only three quarter of their system and hide anothe quarter so that they can squeeze more money from poor chaps who could be hoping to make some money online?

To me this is no good.

Zul

By unrelated I meant has got nothing to do directly with my main purchase. For exmple, I bought daredevil marketing 4hr product wso and I was offered a OTO which is about email marketing or list building.

This is what I meant by unrelated to the main product and this to me is OK. The main product is about product creation but the OTO is about email marketing or list building which is good example of an OTO should be.


Zul

One way of ending these kinds of questions might be to just give the customer what they want...

Let them know upfront if there is an OTO, and how much it will cost.

If so many potential buyers are asking for this then, instead of telling them how to behave, why not listen to what they want, and provide it? :confused:

I think your customers are most prized possessions therefore it is really important to be completely open with your customers about your OTO offer, if it is relevant to your front-end offer.

If your OTO offer is not relevant to your front-end offer, then it is entirely different thing.

If you can prove that the ad copy used to sell the front-end product is lying - in this case, meaning that you have to buy the OTO to make the thing work as promised - report it, and provide the evidence. We'll close offers that fit that description.

Note: That doesn't mean "It takes work to do it with the front-end product and the OTO makes it faster/easier/cheaper." That's a legitimate upsell. I'm talking about those rare offers where the promise made for the front-end product simply cannot be met without the back-end OTO.

We consider that fraud, and we'll remove offers that fall into that category.


Paul

Good idea, I usually just have an advert for any complimentary products on the download page

Expanding on what Mark said "Affiliates want... It's all about EPC's"...

This has happened to me more times than I care to count, and others have reported the same experience back to me more times than they would care to count, I'm sure:

Vendor creates a product and puts up his/her JV Invite page in all the usual channels, and immediately, some 'affiliate' hits them up privately and starts 'shaking them down' to lower the price to $7-$10 with the dimesale up to $10 (EPC's) and give the affiliate 100% commission.

These 'affiliates' advise the product creator to create an OTO for profit and to 'build the [SAME] list of buyers' so they can then pitch every other 'high EPC WSO, every day, to the same list of buyers as their affiliate and all the other affiliates already have.'

These affiliates tell the product creator, "I've made a lot of money with WSO's, this is how it's done."

Any 'salesman' can 'make money', selling cars from a buy here pay here used car lot. It's a desperate market. He can make A LOT of 'money', but it doesn't mean he's qualified to run the dealership.

These 'affiliates' with the 'lists', are often just as inexperienced as the product creators themselves, yet, because they 'made money', they are the 'heroes.'

They don't know anything about pricing or positioning, insisting that everything IS a loss leader/customer acquisition product, and I am pretty sure that some have 'advised' in their 'expertise', many product creators, to leave 'essential components' out of the front end to create the OTO.

The blind leading the blind.

This is where I believe everything went/goes wrong. The "Everything is $10" attracted "$10 Buyers", the inexperienced product creator hacked the material to make it necessary to buy the OTO so that they could still 'make a profit' while giving the affiliate their 100% commission on the FE.

People got pissed off, word spread, and combined with the flood of $10 buyers (and $10 buyer mindsets) that this new regime has created, who are pretty inexperienced themselves... clusterf**k.

If there were one practice I would say to 'ban' people for, it would be the one where these affiliates 'shake people down for 100% commission.' Especially if the 'affiliate' doing it hasn't even looked at the product.

But I know that that's not really plausible.

I don't know how to fix the problem, and I 'suspect' that this could be one reason that ClickBank never processed 100% commission products.

The 'logical answer' seems to be 'don't give in to the affiliates making the demands for 100% commission,' but again, when this guy 'made money', he's seen as a hero who 'knows what he's doing' to an inexperienced entrepreneur who also knows very little about pricing or positioning.

I don't know how to combat that either. It's the nature of the low barrier of entry industry. They want entertaining stories of the hero who 'made money', seemingly from nothing (no list, no investment, no product, no experience, no time...etc, etc.)

I think the only way to combat it, without raising the barrier of entry, is to disallow 100% commissions altogether. But I don't see that happening.

I'm pretty knowledgeable and experienced in "The Art Of The Upsell" let me share a few of my own thoughts.

When I bought a book on how to build a chicken coop, the book came with instruction for using a hammer and nails. I didn't expect to get the power drill with it for free, nor did I expect the cover of the book to have any 'disclaimer' saying, "Right after you buy this book, we're going to offer you a power drill to make the work easier/faster." And that's from a consumer's perspective.

I have never used an OTO (a real OTO that marks the IP address so that the visitor WILL "NEVER SEE THE PAGE AGAIN", or even an 'implied OTO') because I will never, ever tell a customer that they can't spend their money with me any time they want to.

I have almost always however, used an upsell, and with a customer acquisition strategy, an upsell should be this: "Thanks for becoming a new customer. I have something here that is really going to enhance what you just bought, let me make you a really good deal on it as my way of saying thank you for becoming my customer."

As such, I don't necessarily want every Tom, Dick and Harry knowing the 'sweet' deals I make to my 'new customers.' Those are reserved for new customers, of this product, only. They are not for 'public view.' If someone who didn't buy my front end product should stumble across my upsell, at a higher price somewhere else, they now can come to me and attempt to demand that same price, and if I give it to them, how does that make the customer I gave the 'great deal' to feel?

Just about everything we sell in this space is related to 'business and marketing.' It doesn't make sense to coddle those who are trying to learn it to yield to their 'consumer mindset demands' that go against the principles of business and marketing.

If the mechanism to report the OTO's that are the 'missing, essential components, of the front end' are in place to stop those people from engaging in that bad (fraudulent) practice, then there is no need to disclose my 'sweetheart deal for new customers' to the entire general public.

I can also see where reporting that is simply too much work for the mods to handle.

I can see where the OTO has been abused, and I do believe that the 'blind leading the blind' caused it, and that the '100% commission strategy' has made leaders out of the blind. Perhaps ending this 'standard' could offset many of the problems of OTO's, and vendors could finally price their products at their value. Affiliates will adapt, or better affiliates will step up and start promoting 'valuable' products.

This is just my opinion.

-Dani