Open letter: Don't you feel ashamed of yourself?

This is so, so true! I don't buy into blind sales pages but I've seen some of these sellers' attitude to their customers right here in the forum (IM Ratings forum where sometimes the sellers sometimes respond). It's shocking to say the least. The thing you mentioned is an easy, and the most commonly used cop out. However, it doesn't make any sense at all.

I agree with you 100%. I was merely pointing out the thought process that goes through the minds of these marketers.

I agree with you that the product launch model is going to change, at least in some of the markets like IM where it's getting worn out (in others like the stock market (though it is getting worn out in forex), real estate, dating etc it's still great), the guys putting out the blind copy launches are far from desperate.
These launches are making more money then ever before and paying for new lambo's for the owners. They are making more then the "top echlon" guys like Kern, Walker etc report making. Will it last, no I don't think so, but right now they are cleaning up like never before. It kinda reminds me of the stock market in late 1999 or the real estate market around 2005.

I've often considered releasing a WSO that discusses how I earn upwards of $1k/month with as little as 60 minutes of work/per day. However, this exact statement is what prevents me from releasing such a WSO.

The demand for products that require any amount of work or products that do not claim to earn $1,000s per week just doesn't seem to be as strong.

I agree with the OP to a very good extent.

But there are weird buyers too, and that's what keeps the ball rolling even for substandard products.

And then there are other interesting buyers who ... well ... seem to throw away their money for no reason.

For example, with a service that I am running now, I am literally trying to hunt two customers who paid their amount and did not send me their order details - I have mailed each of them at least 4 times.

What kind of buyers do you call them?

My impression is what buyers need to buy brains and sense or else sellers will keep selling thin air since it sells, fair or unfair.

Where can I find one of these products?

Well, perhaps the problem is that with much of the blind copy, it isn't honest.

I haven't bought very many things from blind copy, and perhaps I chose unwisely, but every product I purchased blind failed to meet several of the claims of the copy. When the copy states "no cpa, no video, no paid traffic" then the whole point of the product is to vaguely describe producing television commercials (which are video, and you do pay for),
I don't call that honest copy. I suppose this and similar product to ad copy mis-matches have made me even more sensitive to examining anything that even remotely appears to be blind copy with a critical eye.

Having some mystery or intrigue can help generate sales, and certainly has it's place. However there is a point where going overboard does everyone a disservice, and I'm afraid many, if not most, of the splashy blind copy has more than gone overboard...

I don't even want to begin with the whole "proof" thing about income claims.

I'm hoping it will run its course and would like to see us return to a better, more sane type of advertising. My fear is that if it doesn't burn itself out, some do-gooder out there will get the lawyers involved or somehow drive legislation to make it difficult to place even regular advertising...

I'm still shocked by the mindset of these marketers to this day. It goes something along the lines of this - if I'm not selling hard enough and marketing this aggressively to the point where I'm getting x% of refunds, then I'm not marketing this properly.

I fail to see the logic in this, but it appears like their mindset is to squeeze every last sale out of their product launch with no regard for refunds, because what ultimately matters to them is how much profit they can extract from the market.

What about writing a product describing these exact problems of blind copy and warning people so they wouldn't so easily be dragged in all that hype?

Launch it as a WSO maybe and raise some money to keep it on the top for a longer period of time?

I couldn't agree more. They may not see the effects of their dastardly actions over the short-term, but this "quick/maximum profit" mentality could come back and really bite them hard later on down the road.

You are not supposed to name her.



Harvey

This is a brilliant counter-argument you make.

I have never believed screen shots anyway simply because they may be real, but they do not show how much money was invested to generate the results.

I just agree with this..How can you earn money if you don't market your products?.

Ummm, NO!! I'm sure if you asked Dan Kennedy, one of his most popular copywriting techniques would NOT be lying. These are blatant lies and claims made that are just untrue - this is not copywriting, this is lying.

As for putting the blame on the copywriter, that doesn't cut it. The person to blame is the person who came up with the idea for the product and the person who is happy to take other people's money in return for the 'product'.

I believe there are many ways how you can create interest in your product or service by telling EXACTLY what it is and how it will help you, without any earning proofs or mystery around it.

I'm not annoyed that much with blind copy, what bothers me most is lying.
They fake the screenshots and publish them as if they are true! Isn't this illegal?

No one who is doing it is going to "wake up and change their ways" but if it helps shape even one newbie's mind so they don't just blindly copy the approach then I'd say this thread served a great purpose.

Not to mention it's sparked some lively discussion about various related points such as the "If I don't have a high refund rate, I probably didn't sell hard enough" mentality etc.

Just my 2c but I think its a good one.

Andy

Hi Paul,

In general, I agree with your points. I think it would be a shame if absolutely everyone jumped on this particular bandwagon as I think it may end up achieving the opposite of what was intended.

Maybe just a few who are new to IM will read it and not waste their time and money falling for any sales letter unless they understand exactly what they will receive.

That would seem adequate payback for starting this discussion for me.

John,

Foremost, I have to thank you for finally pointing this out! I also have HATED those sales letters (and marketing techniques) you have mentioned for I saw them for what they were right off the bat. But since I don't have the marketing clout that people such as yourself have, my mention of it would have fallen on deaf ears.

I haven't read any of the responses yet, so I don't know if this has been covered, but I've seen a major shift in societal manners and humanity over the decades, and it's sickening to see how anti-social and unfeeling so many humans have become during that time. Politeness has just about gone the way of the dinosaur. The main theme is now "Me, Me, ME - it's all about ME and how I can benefit from [insert whatever here] and I don't care who I hurt to achieve that end." Just this topic alone can result in a multi-page dissertation on my soap box, so I'll just leave it at that.

This selfish, unfeeling attitude has seeped deeply into Internet Marketing and can be easily seen in sale letter tactics, such as John has posted about here. And it's absolutely scary how sick these so-called professionals have become in order to make money.

Here's a novel concept folks - be honest. Actually CARE about your customers and potential customers. It worked just fine in the past - so there's no reason for it not to work now. Quit the lies, quit the deception, quit the psychological manipulations.

I also want to thank you, John, for this post because right away it sparked a way for me to start off a section of my new website I'm developing but just couldn't find the words or manner in which to do it. This was perfect and I hand-wrote over a page and half on notebook within minutes. So, your post helped me immensely.

It's sad to see so many rehashed products, in truth some are just slightly updated versions of old scripts, programs or guides.

This will only ruin the business for everyone on the long term because buyers will become more and more suspicious.

I don't work that way. I don't release anything that isn't truly valuable. Everyone here could release a new product every week, with so many plr products available it just needs a few tweaks, a new copy page and especially a new name. If you sell these honestly, without false promises, that's ok.
But if you fill your sale with hype, and show Clickbank accounts that generate money selling that exact product, other unrelated products or just because you had access to a big list, well, it's your reputation.

Dear John,

What is the expression again? Holier than thou? Come of your high horse now.

You yourself have have sold a really expensive marketing tool in the recent past that a lot of people spent their last money on. People bought this tool mostly because of a specific feature "that will make you money!!!".

The next thing we (customers of John Delavera) know is that the software is no longer supported unless you upgrade to a new version where you lose that specific tool that you bought the software for in the first place.

Then customers start to complain on the support forum. Even people that have been heavily supporting you. And what do you do? You just delete every post on your forum that contains the slightes bit of criticism about your marketing ethics.

"No, a good solution will be found for all customers, even if you don't go for the upgrade." We're still waiting John, up sh*t creek without a paddle.

The latest of your marketing tacktics has been to just ask people to donate money to you so you bring enough in your wallet to the USA to get a green card.

Are you for real???

So shut up about other peoples marketing tackticks and clean up your own act first.

You're obviously very passionate about your question. You also sound as if you've been tricked into buying stuff that wasn't helpful or just downright false advertising. So sorry about that.
I'm new in this Internet Marketing business and I'm not sure what "blind copy" is, but it sounds as if it should be avoided.
This post made me glad I have my daughter, Tiffany, as a mentor.
I like Brandon's three part answer:

-quality products
-don't use blind copy
-Provide customer support

Seems if that were the norm, we wouldn't have posts like this.
Good luck in the future...
Beverly G.

Great post that really raises some strong feelings with people. I was a victim a few times of this and always searching for the 'next best thing', easily influenced by others' earnings.

Then I just thought "if I'm putting all this effort in and not getting anywhere near the results they say they are getting, then something is not working right. Or, have they not told me something and yes that was it". What they didn't say was you will need a marketing budget of $5k monthly to achieve those results.

What I or you or anyone earns online bears no reflection on ANYONE's earning potential because we are all different. We have a different focus, commitments, lifestyle, expectations etc so it stands to reason that our earnings are going to be vastly different.

Thanks John for starting this

No he not a whiner, clueless or manipulative. And he is certainly not the only one that feels this way. Those of us who agree just have to bite our tongues because otherwise we are accused of being a whiner, clueless and/or manipulative.
The outcome is we all find out who will defend and will not.
I will in no way defend the marketing practices in question.
My name is Pat Vojtaskovic and I approve this message.

Some good points by all.

This kind of lying, hyped up sales tactics cannot last. Buyers who purchase these mega traffic secret tactics might fall for it a couple of times but will stop buying and then quit.
Then the new people will be suspicious of all IM products and we (the sellers) all will lose out.

Bad ethics slows down the wheels of commerce.

I am happy that someone with trusted name like John Delavera
is trying to stop the 'Blind Copy Gold Rush'. Newbies have the right
to get true teachings instead of those 'magic methods' that lead only
to frustration and disappointments.

In my own humble effort to prevent newbies from buying this kind
of products, I wrote this post that may be of help:

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post3192653



.

I think this kind of practise will backfire fast. I bought one of these WSOs the other day, it claimed to bring you free traffic without hard work. When I got it it turned out you had to write articles, and lots of them (there was a little more to it, but not much). I consider article marketing hard work, so I asked for a refund and that was it.

Giving software away is the concept behind shareware. Some people have done rather well with it ... others fit your profile. The difference seems to be people who treat it as a business vs those who treat it as a hobby.

But I don't think this is what was being referred to in the OP.

Marvin

I highly doubt that everyone has read it and moreover, I think that people are honest on my own and quite independently. In fact, I wrote an entire book about it.

But I guess there would be no point of discussing it, would it? Obviously I want my business to give me back monetary results, but there are things far more important than money in this world - which brings us back to the OP's concerns.

As an example, Adolf Hitler promised the German people he would give them jobs (ergo money). What he forgot to mention and what German people chose to overlook was that he did so by weapons industry and consequently, WWII...

So you see, at times you need to forget about money and see the bigger picture.

John, As a rule, I've found offering a constructive suggestion or process alternative to be much more effective than "shouting so you can say you were there." Oh? We've had quite a bit of influence over the years, but I'm afraid you give us far too much credit. And I'd wager you haven't a thing with which to back up that claim other than your opinion. No. Random pointless conversations are the province of offtopic, not main discussion.

I expect unfocused diatribes from people who are new and inexperienced. The frustration builds up, and they shout about it. That's normal.

I do not expect someone with your intelligence, experience and ability to rant for no purpose. I expect a person like you to suggest alternative approaches and give useful advice on properly dealing with such situations.

We have enough "angry young men" (and women). If that's all you have to offer, you assume your place among the inexperienced and unfocused. You can do so much better than that, John.


Paul

Yes, it could be a "strategic alliance" and "legitimate business deal." It also could be reckless, self-indulgent, abusive, borderline delusional, anticompetitive, cartel-like behavior dressed up as common wisdom or the "new way" to do business -- all in violation of antitrust laws. I wouldn't buy a product from any of the launch buddies because I detest what they're doing and how they are doing it even if they're not breaking antitrust laws and not fixing prices. At a minimum, they are creating Stepfordians who worship what "works" instead of devoting mental energy to determining what's right.

I felt this way long before the Droid came on the scene. The Droid hasn't shaped my thinking on these matters, although he has helped me refine it. The people who shaped my thinking were the launch buddies and their fawning cheerleaders and apologists.

Oh, this is rich, Robert. People who pay $47 for a product are "droids" now? Well, at least you didn't call for anyone to be executed with a shotgun this time. You have the PR sense of a swarm of killer bees.

And are you REALLY going to try to claim that the mysteriously reoccurring, $2,000 price point and false scarcity are designed to minimize support and to exclude the problem-causing, whining droids destined to a life of bitterness in the $47 slush pile? Do you think that Steve Jobs might have some hard questions to answer if Apple, which has the ability to sell millions of iPads, decided it was going to sell only 500 -- and arrange for 10 competitors in the tablet-making arena that had met in a hotel room to get 90 percent of the money from those 500 sales?

Think the world would wait with bated breath for Jobs' answer when he set out to explain to the Senate committee how other tablet-makers suddenly no longer were Apple's competitors -- but in fact were A-List marketing partners being rewarded for being astute businessmen who agreed to do a "mailing" and had been virtually assured of getting 90 percent of the cash from the artificial ceiling of 500 sales -- while Apple's real partners fought over 10 percent of the "B-List" table scraps?

So, if 10 A-list marketers are meeting in a hotel room or over the phone to fix prices and declaring that the best ways to make money are to limit supply artificially and to form a bloc that results in just 10 marketers in a universe of hundreds of thousands getting 90 percent of the money from a given launch, it's all OK -- as long as the sales process fully outlines the product and they're not selling the dream on its own without substance?

Is that what the backlash is against, Robert? Are you sure that's all it is?

So, if one happens to believe the syndicate is a plague on the IM landscape, it naturally follows that the criticism is "mostly built on the emotion of jealously?"

My take on your take is that it sounds a lot like the defenses raised against critics by Andy Bowdoin and the ASD crew -- right before the Feds moved in in 2008. I know you own a legitimate traffic exchange and spoke out powerfully against ASD and the evil of autosurf investment schemes, Robert -- and yet here you are using ASD's PR talking points to paint the syndicate critics as "jealous" marketers. (The Feds liked the "jealousy" explanation by ASD and its apologists so much that they reproduced it in a document that sought the civil forfeiture of $79 million. They later indicted Bowdoin for wire fraud and securities fraud and now are seeking the criminal forfeiture of $110 million. They're also policing up money from affiliates now.)

Let me assure you, Robert, that I'm not jealous of the syndicate or the marketers who align themselves with it and perhaps hold the notion that the only good Droid is one convulsing in a pool of blood after a shotgun blast hits him in the gut. I wouldn't buy a $2,000 IM product (or a used car) off any of the syndicate members or their Stepfordian enablers. What I would do is attempt to amuse myself with the thought that they think they're socially significant because one or more of them knows Tony Robbins. While I wouldn't permit them to pet my innocent and virtuous dog, I would let them shovel the snow if they materialized in my driveway after a storm and needed a way to get warm.

Then I'd send them packing down the driveway and call my neighbors to let them know that the reputed best IM thinkers in the world were in the neighborhood -- and that one or more of them knows Tony Robbins.

And then I'd advise my neighbors to listen to no pitches, hide their innocent and virtuous dogs and/or pretend no one was home -- unless, of course, they were in need of someone to shovel the new-fallen snow and the innocent and virtuous dogs were safely tucked away in a place that made it impossible for the stench to attach itself to their fur.

Patrick

Don't look at me. I don't buy this crap. Haven't purchased a "how to"
product, other than stuff promoted by Paul Myers, in I-don't-know-how-long
and don't intend to.

So I don't know who "you guys" is referring to.

Maybe you've got us mixed up with some other forum.

Hi Robert,

I agree Robert.

But what you have presented there is a deliberately selective and simplistic view of the actual matter at hand.

YES! Clickbank should STOP allowing people to sell products that people want to buy.

You figured it out!

I don't think they are trolling at all Robert.

It is known that a group of marketers get together and collude on pricing. Sure, they sell at the $2k price range and need to use scarcity in order to sell out (which seems to be getting more and more difficult since i am still receiving emails for MBS).

I believe you are missing Patrick's and Roger's points because you are too biased at people with a difference of opinion. You only want to see jealousy and hatred when someone disagrees with price fixing and scarcity tactics to help push that collusion.

It isn't a model that people should be striving for.

My products are priced a lot higher then the "$47 Droids". I still don't feel the need to call up a bunch of marketers, set all our products at the $2k prices range, and promote each other.

I think everyone should be selling high priced products. Only if they are valued higher then the price. Roger even stated the high priced offers he purchased wasn't even completed. So how is the good value for your money?

I have went back and forth on selling a certain amount of my main product. I do like the fact that I can concentrate more on product development instead of supporting a mass amount of customers. I haven't decided but that is a legitimate reason and I agreed that some may limit the amount sold because of it.

That isn't what Roger and Patrick was talking about. One marketer using it to lower his support (I sell software which can be support intensive) compared to a group of marketers who get together and discuss how to promote each other's products, how to set the price, and how to sell out fast is starting to cross the line.

No, Robert, the Steve Jobs' illustration is not a blatant red herring and your response does not invalidate the point I was making. The IM syndicate is artificially reducing supply by predetermining that the sales ceiling is 500 units, creating a narrow window in which the sales can be recorded and virtually preordaining who gets the money from the sales -- and then moving on to the next launch.

It looks like a monopolist wedge dressed up as a legitimate business model. I don't see it as a practice anyone concerned about the future of IM should embrace or emulate. I see it as a virtual dare for regulators to start keeping copious notes.

If Apple and its competitors were employing the purported wisdom of the IM syndicate, the first A-List launch would find HP (and nine other tablet-makers) selling for Apple. The next A-List launch would find Apple (and nine other tablet makers) selling for HP. By the time all of this comes to an end, 10 competitors that had magically redefined themselves as strategic partners will have found themselves selling the products of their competitors and benefiting from 90 percent of the sales -- while the small players in the sales channel (the B-Team) will have found themselves fighting over 10 percent of the table scraps.

Each A-Team tablet-maker will have found itself the focus of one launch during a predetermined launch cycle, with a "sold out" banner vainly (but gloriously) posted after each launch to remind the artificially starved prospect base that it had to press the buy button quicker next time if it wanted a tablet computer. Under your logic, any tablet-seller who spoke out about the practice would be jealous -- and perhaps even a hate-filled bigot.

In the real world, some of the folks you paint as jealous haters and whiners would pick up the phone and call a lawyer such as David Boies. A lawyer such as Boies would sprint down to the federal courthouse to get a Temporary Restraining Order to block the next scheduled launch in which the tablet-makers had redefined themselves as strategic partners (after meeting in a hotel room or calling/emailing each other to discuss/set a mysteriously reoccurring $2,000 price point and setting other artificial numbers such as a ceiling of 500 sales).

A lawyer such as Boies might argue that a price-fixing conspiracy and other trade restraints were under way -- and that the beneficiaries were the tablet-making A-Listers who had agreed to do a "mailing," had limited the ceiling to 500 units per launch, had agreed to a launch schedule -- and had a team of B-Listers bizarrely clouding the issue by calling others in the marketing channel jealous haters and bigots.

Who knows? A lawyer such as Boies might even point out that the new "system" bore some of the characteristics of a racketeering enterprise and that there had been attempts to chill critics by suggesting not only that they were jealous haters and bigots, but also by suggesting that taking a scattergun to them always was an option.

On a side note, I find it interesting that the math more or less works out to $1 million per launch when all sales are considered. Why $1 million? Why not $312,622 or $1.23 million or $4.67 million or a number that could not be predetermined? Why precise lots of 500 units? You seem to be suggesting that both the $2,000 price point and the ceiling of 500 units are related. Why the need to marry those two figures to produce a launch amount that totals $1 million?

Another of the reasons it's interesting is that it tends to invalidate the purported conventional wisdom -- a purported conventional wisdom popularized by some of the syndicate members -- that it's not a good idea to leave money on the table.

Oddly, some of the same folks holding forth about not leaving money on the table are leaving vast sums of money on the table by artificially restricting sales and by preaching the gospel of closing the sales window quickly.

Maybe a lawyer such as David Boies might feel compelled to point that out, too. And perhaps a lawyer such as Boies also might feel compelled to speculate publicly that the real reason the sales ceiling had been reduced to 500 units per launch was so the A-Listers could avoid devoting real resources to R&D and avoid performing appropriate testing of the products, avoid hiring employees who created an additional cost center for both wages and training -- and would become a both a drag on profits and potential witnesses as the plan proceeded from launch to launch.

Perhaps a lawyer such as Boies could argue persuasively that the tablet-makers had decided that the best way to make money was to enter a price-fixing conspiracy and become a monopolist wedge, transitioning virtually overnight from otherwise unrelated companies and reputable competitors to fly-by-night, seat-of-the-pants operations that mapped out the plan on a whiteboard or a cocktail napkin from a casino bar in Las Vegas.

I agree that none of them want to be Apple; it would require too much of a commitment to innovation and excellence and keeping regular business hours, and perhaps would limit the follow-up plan of using telemarketers to contact customers and encourage them to spend to the limits of their credit cards for a murky "training" program. It also potentially could limit the opportunities to mine profits from continuity-billing schemes.

On another side note, the "life style" message you mention in the context of this discussion doesn't paint a flattering image of IM product-makers, in my view. I couldn't imagine Apple planting the seed in any of its marketing that its engineers stop working and go surfing when they've made enough money for the year -- or enough to provide a carefree surfing window until the next A-List launch.

The IM syndicate would have more employees to feed if members spent any real money on R&D, hiring, training and innovation. They won't want to do that, in my view, because real R&D and a support operation (beyond a skeleton crew of fellow IMers) costs real money. Besides, they don't want cost centers deflating profits and burdening the next launch. What they apparently want is quick money, apparently in easily divisible increments of $1 million -- perhaps enough to free them to go surfing for the balance of the year or until the next big launch.

Along these lines, the "bonus wars" that reduced the value of previous $2,000 product to zero hasn't helped the image of IM product-makers. Imagine what would happen if General Motors sold a car for $10,000 with great fanfare one year but gave it away the next so it could help Ford sell its $10,000 car.

Robert, yesterday two terrorists who detonated a ball-bearings bomb in a crowded Moscow airport killed at least 35 people and wounded at least 185. A week ago yesterday, someone planted a backpack bomb along the route of the Martin Luther King. Jr. Day parade in Spokane, Wash. Just a little over two weeks ago an apparent madman attempted to assassinate a member of the U.S. Congress and ended up killing a federal judge and five others, including a 9-year-old girl. Nineteen people were shot in the attack.

Real hate, bigotry and madness exist in this world; I write about it on my Blog.

I also write about how fraud schemes on the Internet now are creating victims that law enforcement is counting by the tens of thousands. There are enough victims in certain cases to fill entire sports stadiums. One of my principal concerns is that criminals/terrorists have tapped into online marketing channels to fund any number of nefarious enterprises.

Knowing who your marketing partners are -- and how they are selling your offer -- is perhaps the greatest challenge facing IM today. An enterprise can be wholly honest at the top, and yet be filled with scammers across the sales channel. An enterprise also can be wholly dishonest at the top, and yet filled with honest brokers across the sales channel. (An example of this is when a huckster makes an appeal to religion and deliberately targets trusting people of faith to aid in popularizing a profit "opportunity" and making it go "viral.")

There is no doubt -- absolutely none -- that some enterprises are filled from top to bottom with criminals and hucksters. (They're the ones creating enough victims to fill sports stadiums.)

I believe that certain forms of IM and affiliate marketing are creating an untenable security challenge for many of the governments of the world -- local, regional, provincial, state, national and international. These situations exist; they are not a figment of the imagination, and some of them are being driven by hatred -- REAL hatred.

In my view, you are doing a disservice to the IM trade by positioning critics of certain IM practices as jealous haters and bigots, Robert. Accusing a critic of bigotry is becoming an increasingly common approach aimed at chilling them. I think it's unbecoming of you to offer hatred and bigotry as reasons certain websites, Blogs and posters/commentators are speaking out against some highly questionable marketing practices.

Honestly, Robert, I hope you take a step back to reexamine how you're "defending" the trade. Your form of "advocacy" creates a pox across the IM landscape and also dilutes the real meaning of words such as "hatred" and "bigotry." They should be used in only a precise context, and IM criticism isn't such a context.

Patrick

Hi Robert,

Perhaps the mods could move our replies to this category of the forum?

It's intensity and love Robert. You're looking at it backwards.

Perhaps you should launch a charity - the RSPHBIMG - The Robert Society for the Prevention of Hatred and Bigotry against Internet Marketing Gurus.

Precisely, it is because you believe in hard work that you don't fall for these crazy income claims, which are simply too good to be true (especially when they claim that all you need to do to make these outrageous sums of money is to "push a few buttons").

This sort of blind sales copy with outrageous claims is specifically designed to appeal to lazy people who basically want money for doing nothing.

I think it is the blind copy that the majority of us take issue with. If a marketers talk in generalities and constructs their copy in such a way that the average person is left scratching his head about what they're offering (beyond just a magic pushbutton formula), then it's pretty obvious that this is designed to play on the emotions of the buyer, with a particular emphasis on greed in many cases.

While not all sales copy uses financial logic, I've seen some that do - they try to justify the price and make it seem like you'd be idiotic for not purchasing it, especially when you could use it to easily get a quick 200% (or some other usually arbitrary figure given) return on investment made in the course, within just a few days.

Part of the reason why they put so much effort into the sales copy is because of the multiple higher-priced upsells on the back end in the sales funnel. Of course, the sales copy on the main page has to do the majority of the heavy lifting here, so it has to be written to a higher standard for the upsells.

John Delavera gave me the opportunity to absolutely agree with him but i want also to underline one thing-In IM who is clean can launch the first stone estimated John.What about the DELAVO develop when ten or hundreds of owners of DELAVO 1.5 with chances to resell the hosted accounts where lived in the dark pushed to upgrade to a paid solution after that they invest thousand and more dollars?Why we bought a product that was promising to do wonderful things for us and then you change all the rules practically letting us down without any chance to get back our investment?The upgrade to DELAVO 2.0 was a smart move but smart for who?Only for you John only for you believe me and there are others who can confirm what i am saying if they are not afraid to speak against a millionaire in this field.
So please before to come to the side of the cleans before to call ourself out of the game let see if the logic of profit never pushed us to behave in a at least opinable manner.Who is clean can launch the first stone estimated!!