13 Comments »

Matt and his Mommy « The Salty Droid said:
[...] can’t wait to drop $10,000 {link} to spend a day in an airport hotel conference room with this Legend of [...]
  0
# 15 April 2009 at 1:40 am

John said:
Salty Droid obviously doesn’t know anything about ‘marketing’. You simply make yourself look like the total idiot that you are Salty Droid by deciding to bash Matt Bacak without a valid reason to do so, get a f*cking life.
  0
[Reply]

Jen Reply:
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
John must have a dark past. He sounds like a pathetic loser. Must be on parole. Why else would he think it’s ok to be a crook.
  0
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Dear John,
I’m fucking someone else. I just don’t love you anymore.
The Droid
PS Thanks for making people come back and read this old post. I think it’s pretty funny. The Rothko thing was inspired … I’m sure you’ll agree.
[Reply]
# 23 October 2009 at 1:57 pm

sweetie cakes said:
looks like the IM gurus are on the rag because there’s hella bitchiness going on
  0
[Reply]
# 23 October 2009 at 2:59 pm

Big Chuck said:
holy shit!
The $65,000 ebook is fucking awesome.
  0
[Reply]

Mr. French Reply:
October 24th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I’ll wait for the $42,000 paperback or maybe the $38,500 kindle version.
  0
[Reply]
# 24 October 2009 at 1:24 am

Money from clickbank said:
SD, I actually think that giving more then what is your value can be an effective and ethical way of marketing. The point of contention is how frivolous such ‘expanded value’ claims have been used (and abused).
If I were to give away a free report that I genuinely believe it to be worth $27 as a gift to my subscribers for instance, there’s no reason for me to say. ‘Valued at $27 Now yours – FREE!’. If you’re genuine about your product, there’s no reason not to make statements like these and sleep well at night. The problem then lies (pun) in over-exaggerating and and over-abusing it.
Peace.
D
  +1
[Reply]

Joe Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
It’s best that you not use the word, “peace” around here. Contact Salty’s help desk for an explanation, if needed. “Piece” is o.k. though.
You combined two separate and distinct issues here. One is giving people value. No problem there. The other is hyped or inflated value. The problem with “you genuinely believe” is that it often really means “you genuinely convinced yourself” or “you genuinely rationalized.”
“Valued at…” is, in fact, a promise to the buyer. A promise that something is WORTH $27 to them, comparatively, or in assured gain.
$27 in assured gain – then they had absolutely better see $27 jump into their pocket because of it.
$27 comparatively – What are you comparing it to? A specific, existing course, book, product? (You had better not compare it to something that is also playing the price inflation game, or you’ll be visiting the Matrix.)
One of the biggest problems is that so many IM’ers are trying to SCORE BIG off of individual consumers. They try to “max out” individuals, and become a milking operation. If they reversed their thinking and really WERE providing value, they wouldn’t be milking consumers, consumers would be paying to milk them, and everyone would be happy.
  +2
[Reply]
# 7 February 2010 at 7:01 am

Money From clickbank said:
Hey Joe,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I feel that your definition of ‘value’ is too rigid so much so that the only way any (ethical) marketer, in your eyes, can attach a ‘value’ to their products is probably if they are selling it for $27 on a site but they are giving it away for free.
I think there’s many ways to look at value, one salient aspect of ‘value’ is not in the actual intrinsic value itself but in the perceived value. Of course, like what I mentioned earlier, its one thing to attach a perceived value and be able to fulfill it and it is quite another to to exaggerate the value knowing full well one can’t deliver on the value attached.
I also don’t think the ‘promise’ that the potential lead or customer MUST see $27 in assured gains (which by your definition means $27 in the pocket) is a pre-requisite for making value claims. This places a lot of limitations of pretty much everything that can be sold don’t you think? Get a bed now for just $50 (valued at $100). So if the buyers can’t extracted an extra $50 worth of ‘sleep’, they should be unhappy about it? As one see, value derived in the minds of the prospects/customers are arbitrary, you won’t know what they are thinking, BUT you can only do what you think is best for them.
I think at the end of the day, it has do with what the marketer’s intentions were. Did he/she use value claims just for the sake or using it, or was it a well thought out and earnest way in promoting the product.
  0
[Reply]

Joe Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:31 am
There’s nothing rigid in what I said. I never said something couldn’t be SOLD for $27 or whatever.
If you simply stated, [Product Name], $27 – and nothing more – then there would be little room for comment. However, you are talking about going further than that and presenting PRICE JUSTIFICATION. If so, then of course you have to JUSTIFY that.
I’m not talking about selling prices here. I’m talking about deceptive INDUCEMENTS to buy. (Using unsupportable comparisons and implying something has greater value and performance capacity than the typical buyer would actually feel they received.) Buyers are at a disadvantage: unless they are in a store they can’t physically examine or inspect the goods in advance. That’s why sellers should be held to the fire for such speculative promises.
I’m also not trying to provide or establish any formula for “implied value” here. I’d say it should be avoided entirely unless you have a mountain of real justification for it to begin with.
In the “assured gain” case, you wouldn’t apply it to an intangible such as your example of “$50 worth of sleep” in the situation of a discounted bed. In that case, you should be able to substantiate that beds of comparable quality and specifications DO normally and consistently sell for $50 more. Otherwise it’s really just b.s. and deceptive.
I think pricing ebooks and informational products solely based on the seller’s own “value” perception is patently ridiculous. That’s purely the seller’s opinion (thus meaningless at best and deceptive at worst). Even if someone is comparing their ebook’s price to another ebook’s price, unless the words and content are identical, how can one really make such a “value” comparison anyway? That leaves only comparison based on the “value” of implied results – which can only vary and thus are also speculative.
Better to not make such “value” implications (translation: use hype) – and let the buyer decide “value received” than to set advance expectations by tossing out meaningless, random numbers.
  +1
[Reply]

MFC Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
I certainly wouldn’t classify adding implied value as a ‘deceptive practice’. It in itself is not inherently wrong it is, like I said early, in the intention of the person using it. No point bashing all people who use ‘implied value’ tactic just as there’s no point in bashing all the drivers in the world because there are some bad drivers that kill people in the road.
Moreover, I don’t think there is anything ridiculous in pricing my own product based on my perceived value fairly. How can you call it ‘meaningless’? If I created the product myself and I spent a great deal of time on it, who else is better primed to price it implied or otherwise then the creator himself?
  +1
[Reply]

Joe Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
YOU can personally value your work and efforts however you choose. It’s your work, and your opinion, and you’re certainly free to come up with your own internal valuation.
However, when you then GO OUT INTO THE MARKET (and someone else’s space), you are now making a representation that must include the expectations of the other party. Your statements become, in effect, promises or assurances. That means those promises NOW have to relate to the other person’s reality.
Quick test: Look at the top of this post and decide if Matt Bacak’s “product” is likely to be worth HIS $91,000.00+ valuation. Where do you think he got that figure? WHY is he using that particular figure? [Answer: it's an off-the-cuff, calculated distraction with no basis in reality. It's designed to make the already high price seem lower by comparison. There is no other logic to it.]
If you are currently selling or have ever sold products, and have ever had to give a refund, then you KNOW that your promises failed to meet another person’s expectations.
Furthermore, why is it even necessary to add implied value or “worth?” If a buyer can’t see it for himself/herself, is that (self-serving) pronouncement really going to sway them, and should it? If I pay $5,800 for a couch and don’t like it, knowing that the dealer said it was “worth $19,000″ isn’t going to make me like it in the end. I might even be more upset that not only do I have a couch I hate, but I also believe the dealer grossly inflated its real value. Is that really a good business practice for the long haul?
This topic has come up before here on the blog, and I don’t think there will ever be a consensus on it. One could leave it at, “let your conscience be the guide,” but if you look at many of the posts here, you’d find that doesn’t work, either.
  +3
[Reply]
# 9 February 2010 at 5:13 am

Say Something!

{ subjectories }

Aaron Parkinson Andy Jenkins Bill Harris bleep bloop Bob Proctor Brad Fallon Colleen Conaway copyright credit cards d-bags Dan Kennedy David Schirmer Dennis Karganilla DMCA Eben Pagan Ed Dale Ed Magedson Featured Frank Kern Gary McCaffrey Greg Hartle Harlan Kilstein James Arthur Ray Jeff Walker Jimmy Davis Joe Vitale John Assaraf John Reese Josh Fredrickson Maria Andros Mark Fabiani Matt Bacak Megan Fredrickson Michelle Goulet Mike Filsaime Mike Koenigs minions Pat O'Bryan Paulie Sabol Perry Belcher Rip-Off Report Russell Brunson Ryan Deiss Scams Scientology Sheeple StomperNet The Secret The Syndicate Twitter Video World Cup

{ commentators }

{ topical tweeting }

tweet tweetly tweeting

1. 
   Rolando: RT @JamesARay: "The mountains, rivers, and earth are born at the same moment with each person." --The Buddha #fb http://myloc.me/bJ0E1
   about 4 hours ago

2. 
   Hol: @JamesARay Arrested, jailed, bail reduced because "James is not a wealthy guy", on trial for manslaughter, passport w/held. Easy & elegant?
   about 5 hours ago

3. 
   Lee Kuan: @JamesARay I thought "attention" meant standing perfectly still. The Army does NOT equal love
   about 9 hours ago

4. 
   Hol: @JamesARay "Attention equals love" is a 3-word definition of narcissism. Whether giving or receiving, love is so much more.
   about 9 hours ago

5. 
   MONIKA KOVACS: @JamesARay LOVE this JA!!!
   about 14 hours ago

6. 
   ThatGirlCA: Attention equals love. (via @JamesARay)
   about 14 hours ago

7. 
   James Arthur Ray: Attention equals love.
   about 14 hours ago

8. 
   Elizabeth Drasutis: @JamesARay please explain
   about 1 day ago

9. 
   Hol: @JamesARay Your fear of loss, overpowering need to be right & need to have others see you as special are painfully obvious in your video.
   about 1 day ago

10. 
    James Arthur Ray: Check out my new video http://tinyurl.com/yb7bcz6
    about 1 day ago