What's your interpretation of this famous marketing quote?

Well, the reason I'm asking this isn't to find the single "correct" interpretation. Now, I do HAVE an opinion on what Collier really meant, and that IS different that what you described.

But you really do make both my points earlier in that:

1. The statement is such that you feel like you INSTANTLY know what it means, even though it's a pretty ambiguous statement.

and

2. Given an ambiguous statement, any interpretation that proves useful is equally valid.

Now normally, the kinds of statements that people can have all sorts of useful interpretations about are typically difficult ideas that the reader really needs to think about to interpret.

That's what's so great about Collier's is that everyone INSTANTLY thinks they know what it means, even though everyone actually has a different idea. For example, the 3 people posting in this thread ALL have different interpretations so far.

But they are all useful, don't you think?

P.S. I don't believe there's any such thing as "overthinking" unless the thinking is keeping you from acting. Otherwise, the more thought, the better. It's an integral part of the philosophy of working smarter, not harder.

It's interesting you say this, and I used to think the same thing - that we have this conversation when we're making decisions. However, now I think that this conversation doesn't happen at all until after we've already decided, and we're justifying or rationalizing after the fact.

Now we may not have BOUGHT, but we DECIDED that we WANT TO. A very important distinction that I think a lot of marketing people and teachers miss out on is that the point at which you decide to purchase, and the point at which you actually purchase can be quite far apart.

Sometimes you DON'T want this to be the case (like when someone's reading a salesletter) but sometimes you DO (like when you're doing a launch and you're trying to build suspense). And again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I just see it a different way that I've found helpful.


I just wanted to add that I thought this was especially funny, since my own actual interpretation is even simpler than yours, lol.

I don't think this is true, because if I'm not aware of these personality distinctions you've made, I'm not really going to try to create a product that's geared for one of them, nor would I be able to guess which that is. I do very strongly agree that the internal dialogue going on from person to person is not uniform and can't be universally addressed. However, the contexts in which we OPEN our minds to allow new information into those conversations is roughly the same.

It's less important that you get this prediction of the contents of their conversation correct than it is to find a position from which to ENTER that conversation. You don't have to agree with them at all really, as long as you establish a platform which they are inclined to trust. I didn't say "like" - there are many roles that a marketer can take on that have influence without friendliness.

And like I said earlier, I'd love to hear if you recall where you saw the Merrill-Reid Social Styles applied to copy.

Very zen. Yeah, those are useful questions to ask, but you should know that in my experience, you can never EVER get the answers right. You can guess, but you can't ever KNOW. And it's also possible to succeed very well, even IF you get the answers wrong.

See, this is a good question. This I think is what led me to think about the quote in the first place, because modern readers add in a lot of psychological information trying to answer that question, using lots of theory and thought that were never available (or necessarily even interesting) to Collier.

Now, whether or not Collier thought about it, my own thinking is that we speak internally and mentally to ourselves in our own voices. However, the things we say come from outside, typically sources we trust. However, once they cross the barrier of the mind, we experience them ALL as a single internal conversation, much as Istvan described. So who do we trust? Ourselves, family, friends, and tribesmen. That's it. If you can position yourself in one of those roles, you have all the foothold you need to persuade someone of nearly anything. It's less important that you know WHAT they say inside than it is for you to BE one of the people whose voices are assimilated. Then it doesn't matter what they were saying before, does it?

Awesome post - you're speaking my language here because it's about ENTERING the conversation - as in YOU personally making an ENTRY into a conversation. Not just saying something, but physically being a present and recognizable speaker, and one that's worthy of trust. That's kind of what I was trying to say just now, but I think you did it better. Kudos!

I'm not really trying to play a guessing game. As I said, it's not that I think my interpretation is right and others are wrong. I think they're all right if they're useful.

The whole point of what I was saying is that the quote is so widely stated and interpreted and acted upon WITHOUT the proper context. And since most people forget it was written prior to 1937, all kinds of stuff gets cobbled onto it, or read into it, that wasn't meant by the author.

I really don't get the pie analogy - it's more like I'm saying, this is what this guy says his pie tastes like, so what do you think he made the pie out of? Because I've found that the ingredients available now are different than what were available then. I've made my own fix, and others have too, but we're all in effect eating a different (though still tasty) pie. And we all think it's the same pie, but it's really not. But since we all ended up with tasty pies, why not share recipes? Make sense?

Here's a very simplified example of what I think the quote means ...

A man is thinking, "Is my wife cheating?"

Your headline reads: "How to know instantly if your wife is cheating on you"

In other words, what are their worries, dreams, desires? What are they thinking about? What is troubling them? What keeps them awake at night? Most importantly, what is the conversation going on in their head related to those fears, dreams, desires, worries?

Address that internal dialogue.

Actually, I used to use the MR stuff for sales training for salesmen that worked for me. I had a mentor who actually knew Dr James Taylor (who did most of the original research) and we used the method quite successfully in our sales presentations. It helped to understand what type you were talking to -- as it allowed the salesman to give the prospect what they wanted quickly without making the mistake of giving them what they didnt want... A driver didnt want to see all the pretty pictures or spend a bunch of time talking about family and friends... They just want to get to the point... etc...

So, to answer your question. I havent seen anyone using this effectively. I have tested it and it seems to work - although my personal tests have been a bit clunky.

But I have often thought that some sort of product along these lines would be revolutionary for marketers as in most cases (with a product for the masses) you are only doing a great job of communicating to about 25% of your audience...

I think it's useful to brainstorm these activities when making the product, namely identifying problems that need solutions, and whether the desire/need for a solution is great enough to create a product. However, I don't actually think that you can answer this question effectively enough in copy to apply to enough people to be useful. Not without being psychic or guessing.

Nice - implanting doubt in the person who never before suspected. Very devious. I think what you're describing here is exactly what Collier was trying to say - you don't KNOW what that conversation is, but you need to enter it, and one way is by arousing curiosity. One way to do that it to present evidence that reality does not conform to what the prospect was thinking. That way you don't have to know what they're thinking at all.

Man, this is a pretty hardcore way to attack the problem of copywriting. Not every problem worth solving has to have pain or fear associated with it. They may be "easier" if you're okay with pressing the fear and pain buzzer with every sale, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily "better".

At the very least, I'd hope that whatever your copy is selling will deliver more than just a promise of easing the pain and fear, right?

Yes, that certainly makes sense in a direct sales environment where you can tailor the salesman's response to the customer's social style. I can see a challenge when trying to apply it through copy or media of any kind in that you generally don't know what type of person your audience is, and if you try to address them all simultaneously, your message is 75% geared towards someone else, no matter who is reading.

That's an interesting take, for sure. As far as being a product, I think what would be most useful is incorporating the social styles into the product at the point of creation and using the style itself as a sub-niche. As it is, I can't think of a way of overcoming the problem you point out - you MAY only be addressing 25% of your audience before, but if you try to hit all 4 styles equally, you're adding 75% cruft.

Any insights? How do you work around that?

Ah, I see. So in this hypothetical case, would you bother writing marketing that came at it from the other angles at all, or would you only market it to Analytical types (or at least people who are predominantly so)?

Yes, I agree. While we can target are market better these days, I still think a lot of marketers focus the concept of a market on "who" these people are whereas in Collier's time, he was more concerned about "where" they were when they came across his message.

There's a great bit about how he explain that the prospect is always going to have things he wants to do, and you have the thing you want him to do, so you must find him where he is and tie up what you want him to do with what he wants to do so tightly, that the only way forward is to do what you ask.

To my thinking, that's got very little to do with the actual contents of his internal dialogue and much more to do with the fact that he has one, and will let you influence it if you put the lure in the right place.

So how would you go about applying this interpretation to a written format as Collier was speaking of? In this example, the salesman can leverage experience and intuition through observing and interacting with the prospect. But you can do no such thing in writing.

Would it be a matter of putting the copy on the boat itself to answer that question at the physical location that she is having it? Because I don't see how you could predict it if you were mailing a salesletter to her house.

Or I guess you could say it's the copywriter's job to recreate the marina and the boat and even the salesman, so as to even simulate the buildup towards even asking that question in the first place, right?

But then I say, THAT'S what Collier was saying is that to do that at all, you need to be allowed to enter the conversation. And that's all about context of messaging rather than content.

Thanks so much for all the awesome discussion so far! I do hope there's more to come.

Not trying to be crude here (but it may be interpreted that way). I had a copywriting coach when my husband and I owned our catalog business. This was how he explained his philosophy on writing enticing copy that left the reader wanting more:

"Flash them your panties but never let them see you naked. Because once they do, there's nothing left for them to want to see."

Here's something Dan Kennedy wrote about it ...



In 1841, a Philadelphia store owner named J.W. Parkinson reportedly attracted thousands of people to his store by having some sort of mechanical Santa Claus going up and down the chimney on the store's roof. When I was a kid, on the Friday after thanksgiving, Santa Claus arrived at the big department store in downtown Cleveland - and it seemed the entire city went. To compete, the department store across Public Square had its own holiday character from local TV, Mr. Jing-ALing. For retailers, restauranteurs and all manner of other astute merchants, marketers and entrepreneurs, Santa has been the gift that keeps on giving - at least since 1841.
Yet, surprisingly, I see lots and lots of businesses that either ignore this opportunity altogether or take merely a half-hearted swipe at it. And I always wonder why.
In direct marketing, there's The Robert Collier Principle - based on a quote attributed to a copywriter of old, Robert Collier: "Always enter the conversation already taking place in the customer's mind." Santa and the holiday season occupy that conversational space for at least 8 weeks. If you want to hook your wagon to a star, he's THE star of that season.
The calendar is every businessperson's friend. It offers one opportunity after another to utilize the Collier Principle in advertising, marketing, promotion, even employee training and motivation. As you face the onrushing new year, consider all the holidays and other events the calendar provides as opportunities.
- Dan Kennedy