Deception and Marketing - Your Opinion Counts
I was reading a great book written by a fellow direct response marketer and certain parts were extremely confusing at times.
They were talking about how surveys that attract user engagement but aren't really surveys, where the submission of the survey takes everyone to the same lander, were deceptive and had no place in direct response.
But a couple of pages ago, they were talking about how you should make your advertisement valuable, and even more... LOOK VALUABLE, like an editorial (advertorial) and so forth to suggest maximum credibility and prompt the prospect to take action based on that credibility.
I think most people that get into online marketing or any marketing for that matter have a personal identity crisis going on and it continues on throughout their career. Me included.
We all want to be successful and if success could be achieved by simply stating an offer and asking the target prospect to buy what we're selling, then we'd all be ridiculously wealthy.
But unfortunately that's not the case. If fact, most of the marketing methods that produce gangbusters results are borderline manipulative if not totally deceptive.
Yes, anyone could throw a powerful benefit in front of a target prospect and get losing results, and 99.9% of the time, the ad will LOSE money. It's only when you employ vast measures of sociology, psycology, and down right intrusive tactics, can you turn a losing ad into a profitable one.
I could write an ad that promises to make the target prospect a $1000 in one week, but it would be assumed to be BS. But if it's writen by a credible LOOKING publisher, then it automatically will produce better results.
In this industry, producing results means nothing, if a credible source isn't reporting it. You could be making $100K a month, but no one will care if you're not being talked about by someone else, or even more, someone who looks credible themselves.
But everything could be engineered. Social proof, social mention, scarcity, benefit, even results! So where do you cross the line?
Are advertorials deceptive? Are engagement devices like survey's or online games deceptive? Are continuity programs where the target prospect gets a free trial but MUST give their credit card deceptive? Are magalogs or newsletters deceptive?
Is it more important to add value than make a sale? In reality, should the target prospect receive ANY substantial value at all, ones which can truly change their life for FREE? Or should they just get the usual carrot on a stick until they get so frustrated or spell bound by the benefits IF they grab the carrot and hand over their money for the information, information that you've worked hard developing and crafting.
Where do you cross the line as a marketer?
They were talking about how surveys that attract user engagement but aren't really surveys, where the submission of the survey takes everyone to the same lander, were deceptive and had no place in direct response.
But a couple of pages ago, they were talking about how you should make your advertisement valuable, and even more... LOOK VALUABLE, like an editorial (advertorial) and so forth to suggest maximum credibility and prompt the prospect to take action based on that credibility.
I think most people that get into online marketing or any marketing for that matter have a personal identity crisis going on and it continues on throughout their career. Me included.
We all want to be successful and if success could be achieved by simply stating an offer and asking the target prospect to buy what we're selling, then we'd all be ridiculously wealthy.
But unfortunately that's not the case. If fact, most of the marketing methods that produce gangbusters results are borderline manipulative if not totally deceptive.
Yes, anyone could throw a powerful benefit in front of a target prospect and get losing results, and 99.9% of the time, the ad will LOSE money. It's only when you employ vast measures of sociology, psycology, and down right intrusive tactics, can you turn a losing ad into a profitable one.
I could write an ad that promises to make the target prospect a $1000 in one week, but it would be assumed to be BS. But if it's writen by a credible LOOKING publisher, then it automatically will produce better results.
In this industry, producing results means nothing, if a credible source isn't reporting it. You could be making $100K a month, but no one will care if you're not being talked about by someone else, or even more, someone who looks credible themselves.
But everything could be engineered. Social proof, social mention, scarcity, benefit, even results! So where do you cross the line?
Are advertorials deceptive? Are engagement devices like survey's or online games deceptive? Are continuity programs where the target prospect gets a free trial but MUST give their credit card deceptive? Are magalogs or newsletters deceptive?
Is it more important to add value than make a sale? In reality, should the target prospect receive ANY substantial value at all, ones which can truly change their life for FREE? Or should they just get the usual carrot on a stick until they get so frustrated or spell bound by the benefits IF they grab the carrot and hand over their money for the information, information that you've worked hard developing and crafting.
Where do you cross the line as a marketer?
-
jamesrich1 -
Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6448469].message }} -
-
curly sue -
Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6448829].message }} -