In order for 20% of you to succeed 80% of you have to fail

56 replies
I have no idea why I suddenly have this wish to be denigrated by many for opening up this can of worms.

Lets just say I have the devil in me today

So the hypothosis is that for the 20% to succeed in IM 80% have to fail... Its pretty obvious if everyone is a seller and there are no buyers then money cant be made.

Now in any other niche outside IM 90% of searches online are from buyers, but in IM thats reversed. Those searching for IM products are people wanting to make money by being a seller.

So let the discussion begin...

Robert

PS: I figure this is a legit debate, and it would be better if logic was applied to responses, but im not altogether hopeful of that happening.
#20%of #80% #fail #order #succeed
  • Profile picture of the author Bruce Wedding
    Your whole argument is based on the false premise that sellers aren't buyers. This is clearly and empirically wrong. In fact, it is practically the opposite. Many sellers buy lots of IM products from others.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493521].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Robert Puddy
      Originally Posted by Bruce Wedding View Post

      Your whole argument is based on the false premise that sellers aren't buyers. This is clearly and empirically wrong. In fact, it is practically the opposite. Many sellers buy lots of IM products from others.

      Thanks Bruce

      Its a discussion point not a premiss...

      And if everyone was successful at IM then they wouldnt need to buy more (or at least buy a lot less) how to get rich products.

      usually highly succesful IM'ers dont buy much, they usually get it given to them either for a testimonial or because the program owner wants them to promote it.

      But still its a point of debate
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493546].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Shook
      The premise also seems to include the idea of a zero sum game. That is, if someone has the money, then there is none for another person. I am not convinced that is how it really works,
      Signature


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493549].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jamesrich1
    More like 95% to 5%. There are literally hundreds to millions to maybe a billion plus websites. What percent are succeeding? Its a high failure rate vs success rate for Internet Marketing. Many people will not admit that they are failing, but I will.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493557].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Robert Puddy
      Originally Posted by jamesrich1 View Post

      More like 95% to 5%. There are literally hundreds to millions to maybe a billion plus websites. What percent are succeeding? Its a high failure rate vs success rate for Internet Marketing. Many people will not admit that they are failing, but I will.
      I agree a lot are failing, though thats not my point.

      I want to know if people believe that its inevitable for (insert % here) have to fail in order for the rest to succeed
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493570].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mindmarketing
        Originally Posted by Robert Puddy View Post

        I agree a lot are failing, though thats not my point.

        I want to know if people believe that its inevitable for (insert % here) have to fail in order for the rest to succeed
        Aren't the 80% that are failing making success a possibility for the remaining 20% by giving them a market?

        If everyone was succeeding who would be buying the "How To Succeed in IM" products?
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493616].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sparklesperson
        Originally Posted by Robert Puddy View Post

        I agree a lot are failing, though thats not my point.

        I want to know if people believe that its inevitable for (insert % here) have to fail in order for the rest to succeed
        I don't believe that. I think that it works the other way around - the more people who succeed, the fewer there are who will fail.

        For example - if I'm succeeding, then my customers are more likely to succeed, as they'll both observe what I"m doing, and I'll be directing them some too. In fact, the more of your customers you can help succeed, the better or bigger a success you'll be as well.
        Signature

        Happy Trails!
        Patricia Reszetylo
        http://FreeHorseGifts.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494244].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jamesrich1
    Its not about not being any money for anyone else its about them taking the marketshare and you being left on page 15. How many keywords are you ranking on the first page for?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493562].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mello87
    Define success? Making $50 could be a success as is earning $50,000. Id say alot are doing at least this per week/month etc. Full time living from IM, id say most fail, statistically. But like Bruce said, even IM'ers buy! My outlook is that everyone is a buyer whether its IM or anything else. Im sure you have bought online Rob? hehe. IM is product/service based at the end of the day , just like a brick and mortar company is (structure being different). Id say the amount of people earning $500 a week from IM, are in the single digit %'s though!

    Just my two cents (pennies; I'm UK)
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493596].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jamesrich1
    I get where you are coming from now. I do believe that some do have to fail for others to succeed. I don't know what percent have to fail and succeed to balance it out?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493617].message }}
  • The only reason this works is due to the high fail rate. What good would it do if the majority were already succeeding, they wouldn't have to buy anything, they'd just have to outsource a few things to test out different methods.

    If everyone did what is outlined in the products, I think ranking would go on to another level

    *edit* I also think the fail rate is much higher then that. 90%+ even.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493624].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Buford Mobley
      The online world is no different than the "real" world as far as business. I've been in sales all my adult life (25+years) No matter the organization, 20% of the sales force makes roughly 80% of the money. Your choice is whether you choose to do what's necessary to be in the 20%. It's the same online, it doesn't matter what niche you are in.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493701].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnA
        I agree the ole' 80 -20 rule works....almost everywhere!....and you can modify the numbers up / down til you are happy.......but an additional reply pointed out that it ultimately is up to me - or the individual-- to do what needs to be done to get the end desired result..

        nothing unique here-- it's been like that forever, if you did not go out and hunt for food (long time ago) you would not 'be successsful' --to make it to the next day..in Grad School -(almost as long ago!) there were 33 applicants for each position in the professional school I attended -- that is ~97% failure for 3% success... some 'wanted it bad enough' to go and get whatever additional credentials were necessary to re-apply (some did it many times) until they got in..

        here (IM in general, not WF), it seems to me, there are many 'false colleges or courses, so it is encumbant on the student to do his due diligence to get in the correct 'class' to learn the successful model... I am hoping i have the right 'class' or professor-- in Tristan bull..?
        thnx
        JohnA
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3498733].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    A certain group of people don't have to fail in order for another group to succeed. That's just faulty logic. 100% of a group could be successful at one thing, or 100% could fail.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493741].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mindmarketing
      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

      A certain group of people don't have to fail in order for another group to succeed. That's just faulty logic. 100% of a group could be successful at one thing, or 100% could fail.
      I can't agree with this statement. To have 100% of the population succeed at anything would completely trivialize the accomplishment, and negate the whole concept of success.

      What makes success such an attraction is that it's actually challenging to attain. Look at other things that 100% of the population can do for proof of this.

      You don't congratulate people for figuring out how to breath do you?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493987].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by mindmarketing View Post

        I can't agree with this statement. To have 100% of the population succeed at anything would completely trivialize the accomplishment, and negate the whole concept of success.

        What makes success such an attraction is that it's actually challenging to attain. Look at other things that 100% of the population can do for proof of this.

        You don't congratulate people for figuring out how to breath do you?
        Not for breathing, but I've congratulated my youngster (more moons ago than I care to dwell upon) on successfully tying his shoes, and for successfully getting more food into his mouth than on the table. That 99.9% of the shoe-wearing population can tie their own shoes doesn't trivialize his accomplishment in the least.

        The premise, or the original discussion question, was whether 80% of the people involved in something must fail in order for the other 20% to succeed.
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3501577].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author andrea_vk
      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

      A certain group of people don't have to fail in order for another group to succeed. That's just faulty logic. 100% of a group could be successful at one thing, or 100% could fail.
      I agree with you. I do not believe one has to fail for the other one to succeed. I do not believe in failure either. It is all a learning experience, and if we fail is becasue we choose not to do what needs to be done to succeed. I am not saying you will becoem an overnight success without going trhough the learning curve (or what is referred at failure).
      Also I know the 80/20 principle applies but that is a bit of scarcity mentality (which I am also guilty of sometimes).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494307].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BenoitT
      What is failure and success for you guys? If you have the right mindset, you don't fail, you learn from experience. Maybe I quote him too much, but Eben Pagan often says "Everything is a test" and you will fail very often and find some gold nuggets. Only 20% can go to the next level is a more truthful statement. What do you think?
      Signature

      Benoit Tremblay

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494725].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
    Yes - you're right.

    I really feel sorry for those other 80%
    Signature

    nothing to see here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493752].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
    Hi Robert,

    I believe 100% have to fail at one time or another in order for 20% to
    succeed. Learning from failures leads many down the road to success.

    The only true failure is the person that quits before they reach their goals.

    So my guess is that for 20% to succeed there must be some number "X%" that continue to fail and learn and "Y%" that just give up.

    Have a Great Day!
    Michael
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493970].message }}
  • Isn't the 80/20 rule fun? It applies to so many things.

    I'm not so sure that 80% have to fail though in order for 20% to succeed. What's the correlation here?

    In nursing, something like 5% of the applicants get through, not because 95% failed but because that 5% could handle it and the other 95% couldn't.

    I would say that the nursing analogy is better suited for this argument than the 80/20 rule.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3493976].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
    After rethinking this a minute, My success is solely based on me so it has no reference
    to how many others succeed or fail.

    Have a Great Day!
    Michael
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494002].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Shane N
    But even successful IM'ers are buyers...

    If you are a successful IM'er and you see a product/service for sale that will INCREASE YOUR PROFITS or help you in some other way... Why wouldn't you buy it?

    I am a very successful IM'er and I would buy something that would help my business...

    Best,
    Shane
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494040].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CyberSorcerer
      Originally Posted by Shane Natan View Post

      But even successful IM'ers are buyers...
      This is true as when I was starting out I was purchasing another product as soon as I finished one. I was already making money through other avenues so didn't need to depend on IM as my sole income for me to live. This allowed me to learn EVERYTHING I could about various avenues in IM.

      But after going through a lot of courses, memberships, ebooks, etc it became apparent that I didn't need to purchase everything I came across because I could pretty tell if the information was going to be valuable to me just from reading the sales letter, sales video, promotional material, webinar, etc. And the more products I went through the more I learned about different areas in IM which cut down of the number of products that interested me.

      Originally Posted by Chris The Traffic Blogger View Post

      In nursing, something like 5% of the applicants get through, not because 95% failed but because that 5% could handle it and the other 95% couldn't.
      This is basic math were talking about here people. It really doesn't matter what the 95% were doing, or industry there in, failure rate, success rate, etc. Before 5% could succeed, fail, "get through", or what ever, 95% had to fail, not make, quit, etc.

      You can say 5 people succeed and that's fine. But if you say 5% succeeded, well that's 5% out of how many? 100, 1000. 100k, 1M? You can't have a percentage of something until you have some larger number to compare it to. Doesn't matter if that larger number is a success, failure, quit, or what ever, before you can have that '%' number you need a total first to arrive at that number. Call that total what you like, doesn't really matter!

      Originally Posted by mello87 View Post

      Define success? Making $50 could be a success as is earning $50,000.
      Define success?

      Success if whatever each individual person makes it. Whether they achieve it is totally up to them and no one else. True making $50 could be a success to someone, but picture yourself as totally unemployed with no avenue for income. Now do you still consider that $50 you have as a success? If so, then your right, you're successful in your own mind. Whether others think you are that might be a different story all together.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494148].message }}
  • I dont think your success has anything to do with anyone else's failure. Your success is 100% determined by YOU, regardless of what others do.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494125].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PVReymond
    The truth is that there are more people making no money than
    people making but...

    I don't know how you figured that out neither how accurate
    those numbers are.

    I just know that in the IM niche lot of people sell and buy.
    You have to continue your education if you want to grow.

    Thanks,
    ^PV Reymond
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494466].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike McAleer
    I am not quite sure that I understand your question but I think you are saying that most of us fail but am not sure why you say that? Is it because we buy too much and not sell enough?
    Signature

    Recent domain flips : $8->$1000 Social recruiting Software dot com $8->$2000 MobileSalesSoftware.com
    Invest in domains without the hard work !
    Email for details...Mike McAleer at me dot com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494521].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author marchorne
    Sounds like you are talking about the saying "Too many captains - not enough sailors?"

    There will always be enough sailors... Not many know how to be a captain without sinking in the IM game.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494569].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Flamboyantegg
      Tim Ferriss quite often quotes the 80/20 rule, sometimes in relation to success, sometimes in relation to the minimum effort to get the maximum gain. 80/20 (and greater proportions sometimes!) pop up in life quite often, so I'm not surprised to see it here.

      Like many people have said before, I don't think IM is a zero-sum game, where my success = other people's failure.

      We as IM'er arn't the entirety of the internet, so even IF we never purchased each others products, we could all still theoretically be successful, so long as we satisfy the niche we are in.

      However, I do believe a lot of people fail in IM for the same reasons that a lot of people fail at any endeavour; laziness. There are detractors from the "JUST TAKE ACTION" cause on this board and I understand their objections to it in principle, however there are a LOT of road blocks on the path to IM success... And at every one of them I'm entirely sure a decent chunk of IM'ers stop.

      "Perspiration not Inspiration" is a phrase I've heard many times recently, especially I am one of those people who managed to "get by" in life on my smarts till university... I've learnt the hard way that hard work, despite being hard; is WORTH IT.
      Signature

      "YESTERDAY YOU SAID TOMORROW" - Nike

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494638].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author wanna-succeed
    I personally think that the whole IM niche is a bubble, and will burst sooner or later.
    Currently, it seems everyone is simply giving their version, selling it, making most of what's out there rehashed garbage.
    Internet Marketing is largely intellectual properties being juggled around, sold, bought, rewritten, you name it. It's people blowing hype into regular stuff. It's no different that any other business arena really. People get excited by the prospect of getting rich quickly, buy some crap (i.e the buyers) ---> They get "educated"----> They become sellers.
    What you are saying is that more and more people are becoming "educated" in the skillful art of IMing, and less are believing their "story telling". I don't blame em', too much crap in the web. The internet is becoming saturated with information, much of it nonsense, which is as I said above, rehashed and hyped up.
    The only real winner is Google, as they have the harvesting machine, and they do as they please, leaving us at their mercy (unless you plan ahead for other streams).
    Obviously not everyone will succeed, however I will (read my name lol). In all seriousness though, it's just money being tossed around in the web. I really believe that all this "intellectual property" and the info products are past their climax. I rarely find a trully original & inovative method now a day. Selling the real physical products is where I think the real money is, and the future, and I will try to focus on that more as time progresses, and I gain experience.
    Great thread, I enjoy the debate.

    Edit: I just created a thread, strongly correlated to this one. In fact, this thread inspired the idea. Check it out, it's in the test forum. http://www.warriorforum.com/test-for...ml#post3494768
    Signature

    No sig, good day m8...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494596].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    Originally Posted by Robert Puddy View Post

    Now in any other niche outside IM 90% of searches online are from buyers, but in IM thats reversed. Those searching for IM products are people wanting to make money by being a seller.
    Okay, so first of all, let's be clear that we're talking about the IM niche in the sense of selling products to IMers.

    I think I see a massive flaw in your logic here: the people who want to make money by being a seller are not always looking to sell IM products to other IMers.

    Consider, for a moment, the idea of someone who wants to make a living from affiliate marketing. This someone buys a guide to affiliate marketing which encourages them to sell physical products from Amazon and similar retailers.

    If they do this and succeed, they are not competing with the person selling that guide. While they are, in fact, sellers... they are not selling the same thing.

    Similarly, there is no truth to the inherent supposition that when one is successful at IM, one stops buying IM products.

    So I don't think it's necessary for 80% to fail so that 20% can succeed. But I do think that if 100% of people were successful, we would change our expectations to conditions that only 20% of people met.

    By way of example, let's say that most people make no sales of a specific product in a given month, but that 20% of people make at least one sale. Making one sale is "success."

    But if everyone buckled down and started promoting hard, and every single person selling made at least one sale, we would not call this success. Instead, we would look at what the top 20% of sellers had sold, perhaps 4 sales and up, and call that success.

    So 80% still fail, not because they had to fail, but because we moved the target. If success still meant one sale, they all succeeded. But because we cannot accept 100% success (because, after all, what is success if everyone has it?)... we change our definition of success to four sales, making 80% of those who succeed this month into failures again next month.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3494872].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Avesel
    Direct answer: do people have to fail for some to succeed? Yes, but those are your (bad) competitors .
    Then again, are the successful ones the reason that the failing ones fail? That may not be the case because in the end of the day people have the option of not buying (e.g. if you are the only restaurant in the whole town and your restaurant serves bad food, people at least have the option on not eating out).
    So in summary, yes some people inevitably will fail, but then again, Bill Gates and Henry Ford "failed" in business too (HF in fact more than once).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3495318].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Broberg
    You're saying 80% of people fail because 20% succeed. It's probably more likely that 80% fail because of other reasons. They get busy, info-overload, lack of skill, lack of startup capital, procrastination, facebook, twitter, and more.

    I suggest IM failure is caused by the Marketer's own inaction. It's just like school. You fail the test because you didn't study. It's not the fault of the ones who studied and passed.
    Signature


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3495751].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Do I need to remind folks that political discussion is not allowed here?

    Just don't.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3495780].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
    Robert...

    I think you're attempting to herd cats...

    Tsnyder
    Signature
    If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3496605].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Robert Puddy
      Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

      Robert...

      I think you're attempting to herd cats...

      Tsnyder
      The reason for the thread was because i have seen and heard the comment multiple times, people actually believe that successful marketers rely on the failure rate to make money.

      Its a pretty broad swipe of the paint brush to say that and i was really wondering how wide spread that belief is.

      And as there is logical argument on both sides to prove the point, im not sure how you would counter such a belief when its presented.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3498692].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
        Originally Posted by Robert Puddy View Post

        The reason for the thread was because i have seen and heard the comment multiple times, people actually believe that successful marketers rely on the failure rate to make money.

        Its a pretty broad swipe of the paint brush to say that and i was really wondering how wide spread that belief is.

        And as there is logical argument on both sides to prove the point, im not sure how you would counter such a belief when its presented.
        Oh, I fully understand the reason for the thread as well
        as the premise of your OP.

        It was after reading the ensuing replies... which were all
        over the place... that the herding cats analogy struck me.

        In any case, I guess I should offer up a perspective since
        I've now taken up bandwidth in two separate posts... lol

        No... it is not necessarily a requirement that some lose
        money in order for others to make money from the sale of
        products in the "make money" niche.

        The premise assumes that those selling the material sell
        only to those who would also like to be sellers of the material.
        While that's a possibility it is by no means a certainty.

        The premise also assumes that the buyer suffers a loss by
        buying the material. Where I come from that's called a fair
        exchange of value. You give me the material... I give you
        some money. Neither of us has actually gained or lost anything
        if we've exchanged value for value in an arms-length transaction.

        In some cases I believe the buyer actually gets the better
        end of the deal assuming they learn and apply the material.

        So... there you have it.

        Tsnyder
        Signature
        If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3501000].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jonathan 2.0
    Originally Posted by Robert Puddy View Post

    In order for 20% of you to succeed 80% of you have to fail.
    OK - Deal.

    ;-)
    Signature
    "Each problem has hidden in it an opportunity so powerful that it literally dwarfs the problem. The greatest success stories were created by people who recognized a problem and turned it into an opportunity."―Joseph Sugarman
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3498682].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steadyon
    Originally Posted by Robert Puddy View Post

    I have no idea why I suddenly have this wish to be denigrated by many for opening up this can of worms.

    Lets just say I have the devil in me today

    So the hypothosis is that for the 20% to succeed in IM 80% have to fail... Its pretty obvious if everyone is a seller and there are no buyers then money cant be made.

    Now in any other niche outside IM 90% of searches online are from buyers, but in IM thats reversed. Those searching for IM products are people wanting to make money by being a seller.

    So let the discussion begin...

    Robert

    PS: I figure this is a legit debate, and it would be better if logic was applied to responses, but im not altogether hopeful of that happening.

    Robert,

    What is the point of this thread?

    The opening premise is simply erroneous and irrelevant.

    Sorry to be blunt.

    Sam
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3498688].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mohsin Rasool
    Hi,

    I think more people succeeding in IM will help sell more products and services.

    And if everyone was successful at IM then they wouldnt need to buy more (or at least buy a lot less) how to get rich products.
    Yes but they will buy valuable tools and services to take their business to next level,
    to automate, to delegate the stuff and to hire other professionals...

    More money in their pockets means, more buying power to buy all good offerings
    in the IM market.

    Regards,
    Mohsin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3498711].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ThomvP
    I would say: since one is the opposite of the other they cant survive without each other. Meaning that without failure there is no success as without darkness there would be no light. Simply because if there is no opposite of something the very thing it describes no longer exists.

    To be successful you need to have people who fail otherwise it wouldn't be successful, it would just be normal. Like living is not a success and dying is not a failure. Everyone does it, it's normal.

    Then the second thing: There need to be a % of people buying in order to support the sellers. If 100% in the IM would be sellers then there are gonna be either failures or everyone just plays even at the end of the day. If 100% are sellers + buyers there would be no resource outside IM to provide the income. Since everyone only does IM in this example the money would just go around. There have to be people who buy more than they sell in order for others to make a profit. Its common sense (or basic math)

    But then again thats just my 2 eurocents
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3499541].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Robert Puddy
      Originally Posted by ThomvP View Post

      There have to be people who buy more than they sell in order for others to make a profit. Its common sense (or basic math)

      But then again thats just my 2 eurocents
      Ok lets go from here, because this is a logical argument for the premiss.

      SIDE NOTE: these are not neccassarily my beliefs...But as an entrepeuner I have to understand the motives of those that do believe this.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3499836].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by Robert Puddy View Post

        Ok lets go from here, because this is a logical argument for the premiss.
        You don't have to buy more than you sell for me to make a profit.

        It's up to me to sell more than I buy to make a profit.

        Think about this.

        Let's say that I have expenses of $500 monthly. This is how much I buy.

        Let's say that you have income of $600 monthly. This is how much you sell.

        Now let's say that I sell you $550 worth of something.

        Clearly, you buy $550 worth of that something.

        You have NOT bought more than you sold. You sold $600 and bought $550. You are still profitable to the tune of $50.

        I, on the other hand, HAVE sold more than I bought. I bought $500 and sold $550. I am also profitable to the tune of $50.

        Notice that both of us win this particular game, and indeed we both win by the same amount.

        This is basic economics, people. It's called Pareto efficiency. It's when a group of people - any group - trades among themselves in a way that no members of the group are left worse off than before. Vilfredo Pareto wrote extensively on how this works and why economics is not a zero-sum game, but of course most people think of economics as "the dismal science" and avoid it like the plague.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3501304].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Stevie G
    The whole argument centres around the premise that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world and that when you make money, it must be at the expense of someone else. ie - a scarcity mindset.

    To demonstrate why that is fundamentally untrue ask yourself what money is? Money is only worth the things that it can buy you, right? Because the actual banknotes or digits on a screen are no use to man nor beast. Money is just a way of representing value, the actual money is not the 'wealth' in itself.

    So if you create something that is of value to someone else from a combination of things that are less value (ie - 20 sheets of paper plus a few weeks of a patent clerks time, were combined to create the theory of relativity) then you are increasing the amount of value that exists in the world. The world as a whole is a more valuable place.

    The extra value to the world created by someone is where thier wealth comes from, not from the pockets of poorer people - they make the world a wealthier place, and keep the extra value that they add.

    Even though you may have less percentage of the money in a world that is wealthier you are still richer. Even poor people today can afford a mobile phone, while only the richest people in the world could afford even a landline 100 years ago. We are all richer than the richest man in the world 200 years ago.

    So, to cut a long story short: The people who dont make it, dont make it because they're not creating as much value as those who do, not because someone else is winning at thier expense.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3500080].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LauraJames
    Those who purchase a seemingly endless stream of products promising to "solve your marketing woes for only $39.95," are primarily those who have yet to achieve any level of success. This does not mean that those who have actually become successful don't buy products themselves, and probably do so to keep tabs on what the competition is doing, but they are likely do so in a more controlled manner.
    Signature

    Chief Executive Officer
    Best Designed Blogs
    Based in Canada and the USA
    None of our work is outsourced

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3500099].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jonathan 2.0
    Originally Posted by Eddyjangle View Post

    All I can say is, I hope I'm in the 20%
    You're either in the 20% (or whatever) or you're not. The power is in your hands.
    Signature
    "Each problem has hidden in it an opportunity so powerful that it literally dwarfs the problem. The greatest success stories were created by people who recognized a problem and turned it into an opportunity."―Joseph Sugarman
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3500158].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    First, I think success is in the mind of the beholder.

    Secondly, not everyone that buys a WSO is failing at making money in their business. Many people, me included do fine but I still buy WSOs in the hopes that I can learn something that will make me succeed faster or more efficiently than I do now.

    Just because I buy an ebook titled "How To Make Money Online" does not mean that I am now not currently making money online.

    If I buy a guitar this weekend it does not mean that I don't already own a guitar.

    A billion dollars can't get rid of a rare childhood disease and if you were the parent of that child, you would be willing to hand over your billion dollars to do it.

    But you would be a billion dollar failure.

    Trying to define success in broad terms is a little like the story of The Taoist Farmer.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3501292].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Amanda Craven
    Love your explanation, Caliban but what would Pareto have made of the 80/20 rule?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3501323].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by Amanda Craven View Post

      Love your explanation, Caliban but what would Pareto have made of the 80/20 rule?
      Which one?

      Do you mean the "Pareto principle" (named for but not by the same Vilfredo Pareto) that 80% of the wealth (or, indeed, any widely distributed resource) is owned by 20% of the population?

      Or do you mean some other use of 80% and 20% plugged into some formula, like perhaps "80% need to fail for 20% to succeed" which is not an accurate statement of the principle?

      In fact, the "80 fail/20 succeed" idea is tautologous. 100% have attempted. If only 20 succeed, then ( 100 - 20 ) fail. And 100 - 20 is 80. Similarly, 50% must fail for 50% to succeed, and 20% must fail for 80% to succeed. Because no matter where you draw the line on success and failure, the numbers always add up to 100 or less.

      The final "or less" is necessary to account for the fallacy of the undistributed middle...
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3501385].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        Which one?

        Do you mean the "Pareto principle" (named for but not by the same Vilfredo Pareto) that 80% of the wealth (or, indeed, any widely distributed resource) is owned by 20% of the population?

        Or do you mean some other use of 80% and 20% plugged into some formula, like perhaps "80% need to fail for 20% to succeed" which is not an accurate statement of the principle?

        In fact, the "80 fail/20 succeed" idea is tautologous. 100% have attempted. If only 20 succeed, then ( 100 - 20 ) fail. And 100 - 20 is 80. Similarly, 50% must fail for 50% to succeed, and 20% must fail for 80% to succeed. Because no matter where you draw the line on success and failure, the numbers always add up to 100 or less.

        The final "or less" is necessary to account for the fallacy of the undistributed middle...
        I think I need to stop drinking this bottle of red wine...

        I learned a new word though "Tautologous". Thanks Caliban.
        Signature

        Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3501408].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Amanda Craven
        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        Which one?

        Do you mean the "Pareto principle" (named for but not by the same Vilfredo Pareto) that 80% of the wealth (or, indeed, any widely distributed resource) is owned by 20% of the population?
        Of course I knew of the infamous Pareto mixup...

        Or do you mean some other use of 80% and 20% plugged into some formula, like perhaps "80% need to fail for 20% to succeed" which is not an accurate statement of the principle?
        Yup. That one.

        In fact, the "80 fail/20 succeed" idea is tautologous. 100% have attempted. If only 20 succeed, then ( 100 - 20 ) fail. And 100 - 20 is 80. Similarly, 50% must fail for 50% to succeed, and 20% must fail for 80% to succeed. Because no matter where you draw the line on success and failure, the numbers always add up to 100 or less.

        The final "or less" is necessary to account for the fallacy of the undistributed middle...
        Quite.

        I need a drink...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3501412].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 72K.org
    Lol isn't it 20% of your efforts will yielf 80% of your results ??....

    Now THAT's the correct rule =P
    Signature
    "90+ percent of winning in anything you try to do in America today, you gotta be excited"
    -Art Williams
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3501359].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Darla Kay
    When all is said and done, either I have had a successful day, or not. I think that evens the odds... to 50/50. <VBG>
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3501399].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Bryant
    80% do not have to fail for 20% to succeed. Success is not based on failure, but it is based on the elite of a particular group.

    In context of your point, in IM, the majority of buyers of IM products are in between success and failure. Their success in IM isn't related to the indefinite purchase of training products, nor is the opposite true. If a person buys a series of products and ultimately quits, then it is just as likely that the person who succeeds will neglect to buy products as a result of their success.

    If everyone succeeded, then products would be bought along the way, and their success would drive more people (seeking success) to enter into the market. Although, a saturation point could be achieved in theory, it would not, as there will always be those that fail. Though those who would fail, can not be connected to the success of those who do not.

    It's plausible that a person who achieves success would purchase more material during their career than a person who attempted IM and failed. So which group breeds more success?

    Let that bake your noodle for a while...
    Signature
    What have you accomplished today that benefits your business in some way?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3501521].message }}

Trending Topics