Why Most Advertising Done Online By So Called Experts Is Neither Good Nor Scientific

by 5 replies
6
The basic rhetoric which every new copywriter recites is Scientific Advertising. I find it interesting though, how in a community which claims to base itself on scientific advertising, they do so many un-scientific things.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

True science is about doubting - not believing. It is about questioning, not following. Its about doubting everything people tell you and not believing what they say until you have seen hard facts, verifiable evidence and reproducible experimentation.

Somewhere along the line the writing of advertisements changed from verification through experimentation in the days of John Caples and Claude Hopkins to verification of the validity of a method through which Guru approves of it.

We are no better than pilgrims being told that gods word comes from some Messiah in rags on the street - and that god speaks to him, and informs us of what to do.

Modern Advertising in the internet marketing realm has become a bit of a joke, especially in education, which has little to do with science and a lot to do with what kind of garbage someone can spew out.

True education in advertising should come from the testing and experimentation of advertising methods, then developing theories and testing those theories. Then that theory should be independently validated through third party experimentation. That is reliable science, the rest is a bunch of bullsh*t designed to take your money.

If you want a real education in copywriting, do real scientific advertising through experimentation. Not through following Gurus claiming to be your messiah to wealth.
#copywriting #advertising #called #experts #good #online #scientific
  • Excellent insights. Although I'm not quite sure how I feel about the word "doubting" (reminds me of some conversations on Physics Forum, another forum where I go to "chill out"....lol).

    Perhaps what is happening is that people are using social proof as data more so than data one would typically acquire through what you might consider the traditional scientific method.

    Back to the juxtaposition between "doubting" and "believing". Now this is a bit off topic but here goes....

    If you really want to get "technical", IMHO, the traditional notion of "belief" is based on an antiquated notion of reality grounded in old school Newtonian physics....


    In the quantum mechanical model, everything is PROBABILISTIC. Now what does that mean?

    It means that even so called FACTS are based on data for which none of us are 100% sure....

    Now if one believes something for which there is still some unproven facts (ex. there's a 95% probability that something is true.....I.E. THERE'S A 5% probability that something IS NOT TRUE.....WHICH MEANS IT TECHNICALLY COULD HAPPEN...)

    Well that is "faith" and not "belief" in the sense of the scientific method requiring one to draw conclusions based on physical facts vs. personal beliefs...


    But alas I digress....

    I do believe that some things have a higher probability of success based on data gathered in a more "scientific method" way vs. "social proof" way though....

    Testing is very important.

    I also don't think some healthy appreciation of the work of experts isn't useful. The long term copywriting so-called gurus got there because they DID do testing.

    And for the most part they don't make claims they haven't tested. So if I read some place that "xyz got a 5% higher conversion rates by saying "can I" vs. "may I" in his copy" (mere example), what does it cost me to try it?

    No need to go out and remake the wheels by duplicating whatever time consuming control conditions he/she started out with, just "try it"....

    At the end of the day we are dealing with human beings after all...emotions win out against logic any day of the week....

    If it so happens the so called gurus are using their copywriting skills on other copywriters, c'est la vie....


    Thanks for the post!

    PS
    Just to reiterate I DO take to heart your emphasis on the importance of being critical, testing and the like
    • [1] reply
    • 1st Point: There are several problems with this.

      First of all most advice ISNT tested. There is a book called Winning Through Intimidation which Dan Kennedy strongly recommends and I found it interesting. Its by a salesman who goes from zero to hero by becoming an all knowing, powerful, intimidating expert.

      He learned this method when he was in the 9th grade and was attending chemistry class. There was a guy who appeared to be a complete genius at chemistry. He was always giving advice and tutoring the other students.

      Robert Ringer (the author of the book) on the other hand felt quite intimidated by chemistry and thought he was going to do rather poorly at it. So he worked very hard and was suprised to see he was the only one in the class who got an A. He was shocked when he discovered that the so called expert landed a C!

      It was the seed that began the understanding that those who claim to be experts are not necessarily experts and do not necessarily even know what they are talking about - they succeed by intimidating other people with their imaginary expertise.

      2nd Point: Most testing is unscientific and not valid.

      Mark Joyner pointed this out when he actually started testing things that courses advised - and discovered a lot of it was simply bull****. He wrote a free whitepaper on it along with his methods for testing and he shares some of his test results from over the years.

      First and foremost most people do not know how to test. Any change in variable will manipulate the test results. Real scientific, statistically valid testing is hard work and requires careful control over everything from traffic source to time of day.

      You also need large sample size to reach a true representation of the results. Most people are simply to lazy to do this online though they do it offline.

      Even if things are "tested" its usually not tested properly and does not necessarily indicate actual results, although they wont hesitate to sell you a course on it.

      Even in the case of someone who has a record of selling - it does not necessarily mean that they know why they are able to sell, or how to teach it to others.

      Case in point. I knew many top salespeople who would occasionally hit snags. They would be completely oblivious to why they weren't selling like usual. Then a simple observation of them in action - along with having seen them at the top of their game, would usually show a rather blatantly obvious reason why they were not selling.

      But they couldn't see it because they were to close to it.

      And the odds are without a doubt NOT similar to quantum physics odds. With quantum physics the probability is carefully measured and has been under development for the last 100 years. If the odds were so in favour of internet marketers, and the advice they are given so reliable - then there would be far more rich people online.

      The fact is, according to Click Bank statistics, that 5% of members are responsible for 95% of sales. You can be reasonably certain that most of the members who tried to do internet marketing learned how to do so from some course. 95% of those people failed. I sincerely doubt the reliability of current internet marketing information.

      If this is Scientific Advertising then the results must be reproducible on a consistent basis, otherwise its just a bunch of hype.
  • Cheers. I advocate testing and I also advocate modeling.

    Meaning it's best to find what's working (from gurus if need be) and put it to the test in your business. That's better than starting from scratch, albeit not always possible.

    As people have said before, past results don't guarantee future results. So everything has always gotta be put to the test.

    Cheers,
    Stephen Dean
  • I think this discussion is a deliciously fun intellectual exercise but you are missing a point of mine. If people have managed to establish themselves as experts, then their personal results demonstrate they are good at being persuasive, selling and marketing.

    And at the end of the day as David Olgivy once said "if it doesn't sell it isn't creative". I would say "if it doesn't sell it isn't scientific".

    I don't really care too much about how textbook someone's process for testing is. What I care about is whether or not it sells and delivers value!

    And as Gary Halbert once said "Done is better than perfect!"
  • Thats my point, whether or not something sells and what conversion rate it sells at is VERY flexible.

    There are affiliates who promote top-performing sales letters with high conversion rates and do not get a high conversion rate.

    Whether or not something sells is a very, very, flexible answer. I can take an underperforming salesletter, send it some very high quality traffic with a strong referral and the sales letter will produce strong results - which has little to do with the quality of the sales letter and a lot to do with everything that happened before it.

    Modern marketing online has become the equivalent of voodoo with its 'experts' purporting marketing tactics and claims that border on magic.

    So my point is whether or not something sells or delivers cannot be accurately determined without strong methods for evaluation.

    And furthermore, the basis for all advertising still goes back to Scientific Advertising. If we are to be scientific advertisers, then lets do a little bit of actual science and make a lot more money.

    If one person is able to do something, then they develop a theory about why they can do it, then 100 other people try to implement that theory and 95 of them fail - the theory would never be accepted as successful in a scientific realm. The whole key is reliable results.

    I could have a knack for picking stocks, write a theory about it and then use my stock picking ability as evidence that my theory is correct. The problem is just like the scientist who discovers something then creates a theory about it - the theory isnt correct until its been proven.

    And how do we prove things in science? Experimentation, not blindly following some self-claimed expert.
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed