So in keeping with that famed tradition on MichelFortin.com since I wrote The Death of The Salesletter, here are some of my predictions based on simple observations.

1. Mobile Commerce is Going to Explode

Yeah, sure. You’ve heard it before. “Mobile is going to be big.” That’s old news. It’s already massive. But that’s not what I’m talking about.

It’s the business of mobile.

That is, building businesses for, marketing on, and conducting commerce through mobile markets will explode. I believe mobile marketing will become a greater industry for small to medium-sized businesses. Even taking over Internet marketing.

In other words, mobile marketing for many businesses will take center stage, even at the expense of their web presence or online marketing efforts.

More and more businesses are leaving traditional Internet marketing to go into mobile marketing. That’s why I believe, in 2012, we’re going to see more Internet marketers creating programs, training, and software for mobile markets.

We’ve only seen the snowflake on the tip of the iceberg when it comes to mobile commerce, which is already a reported billion-dollar industry.

Watch for this trend in 2012. Pushed by last year’s recession in large part, it’s going to be as big as the dotcom boom of ’99. Mark my word.

Speaking of “Marks,” I’m not the only one making this prediction, obviously. Netscape creator Marc Andreesen made this prediction as well.

2. Bye-Bye Desktops and Laptops

I don’t think they’re going to leave anytime soon.

But this trend is not about a technology becoming useless but about it becoming smaller, more efficient, and more powerful. Above all, more convenient.

And convenience is at the heart of this trend.

When I look at my old, clunky Commodore whose 64KB of space was quite revolutionary back in its day, and compare it to today’s ability to store close to a hundred gigabytes into a tiny smartphone, it’s only commonsensical that large, cumbersome, clunky computers are going the way of the dinosaur.

Along with the growth in smartphones and mobile marketing, I do sincerely believe that tablets are going to take over in the computer world.

It will be far easier to connect a keyboard and LCD monitor to a hyper-powerful tablet PC or iPad while at home, and at anytime just unplug it and take it with you to work on your business while sipping a Grande latte at Starbucks.

Now, from an Internet business and marketing perspective, this means to focus on software, and software as a service (SaaS), that help businesses run either through, or transact over, tablets (or do so more efficiently).

Think apps, cloud services, tablet-driven web design, and the like.

Again, I don’t think tablets will replace traditional computers anytime soon. But hybrid setups and gradual integration will take place.

We need to take notice. In earlier years, I predicted that cloud computing and software as a service (SaaS) would explode. Well, tablet-based computing is a perfect market. Capitalizing on this will become a huge opportunity in 2012.

3. Convergence Finally Starts Taking Shape

Convergence is where more and more communication channels merge.

This “megatrend” was predicted many years ago. In fact, it went as far back as the late 70s by smarter folks than me. Since then, many electronics companies who tried to jump on the bandwagon failed. (Or failed to get any traction.)

But now, with the power of cloud computing and mobile markets, it’s an open door that will swing wide open for channels to converge.

Convergence is not the merging of different channels as originally predicted but the gradual integration of their use. For example, think of listening to the radio or watching TV on your computer. In fact, one of the biggest convergences happening right now is the ability to watch TV on tablets and even smartphones.

Google TV, Apple TV, TV-on-Demand, cable or satellite TV companies turning into ISPs, etc. These are all glaring signs of things to come.

But TV is not the only one…

• If you have smartphone or tablet, you can listen to any radio station in the world.
• You can watch your favorite TV shows, even on an wifi-connected airplane.
• You can buy and download music from your favorite artists. Anytime, anywhere.
• You can transmit your downloaded music, TV shows, even movie rentals from your phone to play on your home entertainment system.
• You can phone anywhere in the world for pennies through VoIP tools.
• Heck, now you even can have your ISP monitor your home security.

And it goes on and on.

Granted, many of these things are happening right now. But from a business and marketing perspective, one area that will explode next year is the creation, selling, and delivery of services and software that cater to these emerging marketplaces.

Here’s My Point…

Think about creating businesses or products, or more importantly creating software as a service, that cater to the mobile and converging markets. In fact, one area that specifically is still largely untapped is local businesses.

(That’s also why you will see more and more local marketing and mobile services popping up. Just recently, my friend Armand Morin has re-released a training product called enLocal Network for this very reason.)

Think about how to mobilize your business, website, products, or services.

Think about how well your design, copy, user experience, and sales process cater to these markets — and look at bottlenecks and snags that can impede sales.

And think about how your products or services can connect on, be used through, be optimized with, or be modified (as new products) for converged channels.

If you sell, say, a weightloss system, how will people consume the product on their mobile phones? How about an app-based service that allows them to access, store, and update their results on their iPads? What about using it on a Wii or Xbox Kinect?

The possibilities are endless.

And that is my wish to you for the New Year.

In 2012, I wish you endless possibilities. But more than that, I wish you have the smarts you need to turn endless possibilities into opportunities, as well as the skills you need to turn opportunities into profits.

Be good. Be well. And be loved.

My 2012 Predictions Are In… originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

I wanted one that describes my mother, and what she did for us. And I found this one below, which says it all…

A Mother’s Love

A Mother’s love is something that no one can explain,
It is made of deep devotion and of sacrifice and pain.
It is endless and unselfish and enduring come what may
For nothing can destroy it or take that love away.

It is patient and forgiving when all others are forsaking,
And it never fails or falters even though the heart is breaking.
It believes beyond believing when the world around condemns,
And it glows with all the beauty of the rarest, brightest gems.

It is far beyond defining, it defies all explanation,
And it still remains a secret like the mysteries of creation.
A many splendoured miracle man cannot understand,
And another wondrous evidence of God’s tender guiding hand.

Helen Steiner Rice

(I miss you, mom. Your son, Michel.)

A Mother’s Love originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

(It’s the way my wife’s company works. It allows us to work interchangeably, such as replacing each other on vacations or providing collaborative input, without any interruptions.)

However, when I do, something interesting happens.

Some clients treat me like crap. They patronize me and show contempt towards me. They are terrible to deal with, not because of their request but because of their attitude.

They range from the miserable, “the-world-owes-me,” insatiable ingrate who sends tickets in rapidfire succession for every little itch they need to scratch, to the uppity, snarky snob who expects others to bow in the mere presence of their support ticket.

Now, don’t get me wrong.

I’m not talking about someone who’s genuinely pissed off because of some frustrating problem they need help on, but later becomes appreciative when their problem is solved. (I do sympathize with them when stuff like this happens. I’ve been there!)

No, I’m talking about people who lambaste subordinates just because… they can.

It is utterly amazing to me to see how clients treat me when they don’t know it’s me — the same person they revere, are friends with, and pay $500-$1,000 an hour for consulting.

Worse still, it’s terrible to see how people are downright condescending toward others in seemingly menial positions. It’s also surprising because I would have never expected it from some of them. They’re the kindest people I’ve met.

To quote Lynette Chandler who shared a similar story with me on Facebook:

“I was floored… I’ll never view her the same way again.”

Indeed.

The sad part is, many of these clients were people I’ve met at seminars, were friends of mine, and were supposedly some of my biggest fans. Needless to say, it also made me realize what my wife and her staff had to put up with for 15 years.

(Hats off to you, and you know who you are! )

Here’s the interesting thing about this.

How many do you think are like that?

10% (i.e., 90% are good and 10% are bad)?

20% (or 20-80)?

How about 30-70?

Nope. This happens in about 50% of cases. Yes, 50%! Close to half of all tickets come from clients who treat me horribly and browbeat me just because of the position I’m in.

Maybe it’s because they think I’m a woman? Or an Indian? Or a teenager? Or someone who just started in an entry-level position? In all of these cases, it doesn’t matter. It shouldn’t matter! And it would be downright insulting if any of these were true.

(I’m confident I’d embarrass the daylights out of them if they ever found out it was me!)

In addition to the show Undercover Boss, this also reminds me of an article I read once about a CEO who typically conducts job interviews at restaurants, just to see how the job candidate treats the wait staff — which greatly influences their decision to hire them.

It’s a great social experiment, that’s for sure. It’s also going to make me think twice when I’m the customer, on the other side, dealing with a cashier, nurse, order taker, wait person, counterperson, clerk, or whomever is serving me at that time.

Sure, I still expect them to do their jobs. After all, I’m the customer and I’m paying for it.

But they deserve to be treated the same way I expect to be treated…

… With respect.

Going Undercover is Quite Revealing originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

Some call it unethical. Others call it smart business. And a few go as far as calling it an illegal cartel that should be charged with breaking racketeering and anti-trust laws.

I don’t know if it’s true or not, so I won’t comment on it directly. And I’m not a lawyer by any stretch.

But I can comment on what we observe. And we can certainly observe a few things that are rather obvious. For example, if you’re subscribed to several of these marketers’ lists, even if only a handful, then I’m confident you’ve noticed some recurring trends.

(Let’s call them “musical-chair product launches.” Oh, and let’s not forget the once pricey product you paid a marketer just a few weeks ago now being given away for free as a bonus to buying from their affiliate link during someone else’s product launch.)

Personally, I don’t think it’s wrong for competitors to partner up as to time their product releases separately. (I’ll come back to the term “competition” later, as it is important.) To a certain degree, this is definitely smart business.

The question is, at which point can this specific situation be deemed illegal or not? The answer is arguable — and by arguable, I mean in a court of law. But blogger Antone Roundy said it best, when he shared the following insight, which I agree with…

“But if they’re promoting each other regardless of product quality or value for the price, that’s unethical at best. And if they’re agreeing to a pricing scheme or taking products off the market during other peoples’ launch periods to reduce competition, I’d expect the FTC to be breathing down their necks really soon.”

This is what seems to be happening here. We can debate the legality of it. But illegal or not, it’s definitely unethical. Even if it is legal, the appearance of impropriety alone is enough to leave a bad taste in people’s mouths. It certainly does in mine.

After my wife’s controversial report, Internet Marketing Sins, which she released over two years ago, you can say that a line in the sand has been drawn. Since then, a number of marketers have expressed on which side of that they now stand.

To name a few — I’m linking to their specific posts wherever possible — there are people like Joel Comm, Ryan Healy, Ray Edwards, Dan Gallapoo, and many more. (Funny how many of them are copywriters, eh?) The numbers seem to be steadily growing, too.

(If you have 45 minutes, listen to this podcast by Randy Cantrell.)

We’ve also seen the emergence of a growing number of consumer advocacy and personal opinion blogs that are entirely dedicated to being critical of unethical marketing practices, and exposing deceptive and dishonest business activities.

Aside from The Salty Droid mentioned at the beginning, others include Patrick Pretty, Lost Ball In High Weeds, Dont Step In The Poop, and many, many others.

Do I like them? To be candid, some blogs — and especially some of the commentators on these blogs — are caustic, jarring, and vile. Some are a bit too toxic for my taste.

But while I may not like them, I don’t necessarily blame them. After all, they didn’t just appear out of nowhere with the sole intent to make marketers’ lives miserable. Many of these types of anti-scam blogs were created as a result of a personal, bad experience.

Plus, they can easily polarize people.

Many disgruntled consumers who are attracted to these blogs have grown highly cynical, suspicious, and resentful. So it’s only natural they voice their grievances on them.

But what frightens me is that the voice of genuine scam victims are muffled by a small yet vocal minority of anti-marketing extremists who spew their venom senselessly.

These pitchfork-wielding protesters seem hellbent on destroying any levelheaded discussion. They flame anyone who voices any opposing views, and rabidly pounce on anyone who might want to take a stab at having an intelligent, sensible argument.

I’ve seen some bigoted commentators bash others in an attempt to manipulate, irritate, and denigrate. This is childish behavior, and it defeats the purpose. They should focus on the issues, and not on whether someone is overweight, effeminate, or disabled.

Focus on what they do, not who they are.

Nevertheless, I often want to join in on the conversation myself, but I stop short of doing so because I fear what I say will fall on deaf ears — if not get drowned by a handful of witch-hunting McCarthyists who trawl around for any faint smell of blood.

Now, this doesn’t mean the other side is innocent, either.

Namecalling and ad hominem attacks occur on both sides.

I’ve seen a lot of venom spewed from proponents of these marketers. Genuine scam victims continue to be victimized through what appears to be concerted efforts of another vocal minority who feel that some of the marketers singled out are beyond reproach.

Some have gone to the extent of saying that scam victims are really the ones to blame. They say things like “caveat emptor (buyer beware),” “they’re jealous or envious of those who make money,” “they need to take responsibility for their actions,” etc.

Sure. Just like women wearing provocative clothing are looking to get raped, right? Ugh.

Granted, the market should bear some of the responsibility. Plus, I definitely agree there are trolls out there who just want someone to blame for their failures and inadequacies.

But caveat emptor is a weak argument when it seems to be used as a means to exclude the responsibility of others. Counter-blaming your customers should never nullify your actions when you blatantly prey on the market’s relentless dream for the magic pill.

Caveat emptor is not some loophole to take advantage of the vulnerable.

Just because you robbed a bank that had no alarm system doesn’t mean the bank is in the wrong because they lacked security. A robbery is still a robbery.

And it’s still wrong.

The question is, where does the vicious circle stop?

If the blame should be split 50/50, then so should the solution be split 50/50, too. Marketers should stop selling magic-pill solutions to a market who’s desperate for help. And the market should stop chasing the dream by buying into magic-pill solutions.

As we know, there is no such thing as a magic pill. If they keep chasing it, they will murder any chances of achieving true success. And sometimes, that can be quite literal.

As long as there will be a market for magic-pill solutions, there will always be marketers willing to provide it to them. So aside from more laws and regulations, which I’m not a fan of, achieving a compromise is a challenge, particularly when both sides are greedy.

So another and perhaps more effective solution is: education.

Educate the market on what to look out for and avoid, as well as educate those who are learning how to market and may think of modeling such unethical practices.

In my estimation, too many marketing products out there are just snake oil. Period.

I understand and appreciate that buyers should beware, that they should do their due diligence, that they should take their time and investigate before jumping in. Agreed.

But fake scarcity ploys during high-pressure product launches remove any chance for the market to appreciate what exactly is being sold. It reduces their ability to think critically, investigate the offer adequately, and make an intelligent buying decision.

So education is powerful. And these blogs, while harsh in some cases, are vital.

Let me end with this. Antone Roundy’s comment about gathering with other marketers to time product releases being a smart business practice is right. After all, that’s why many associations exist. But I agree this works only up to a point.

I’m far from being a lawyer, but if it is unacceptable when products are taken off the market, as Antone said, then that’s exactly what seems to be happening here. In fact, these are not “product releases.” They are not even product launches, for that matter.

They are simply close-ended sales events.

But let’s take a closer look at what constitutes “competition,” and how it applies, here. Defined, competition is: “the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms.”

Whether the people in this group of marketers are acting independently is debatable. The question is, are they truly competing against one and other? In other words, are these guys truly competitors? This is something I think any court will need to define.

But here’s my take. They sell information, true. And it can be argued that information is not really competitive. For example, just because I bought a Stephen King novel doesn’t preclude me from buying an Anne Rice novel at the same time.

One can sell information on, say, affiliate marketing while the other on, say, traffic generation. So they are not quite “competitors.” But herein lies the problem…

Marketers are not authors selling their information. They are more like publishing houses selling information products. Yes, products. And as publishing houses — and again, I’m no lawyer — they seem to be colluding to some degree.

Even the term “information products” is debatable, too. Because the “products” most gurus sell today aren’t really information. In actuality, what they’re selling are business opportunities packaged as information and sold under the guise of training systems.

Again, this is just my opinion. I always want to look at both sides of an issue before I form an opinion. And in this case, after everything I’ve seen, all I can say is that the whole musical-chair product launch game just doesn’t smell right to me.

A Disturbing Trend in Internet Marketing originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

If you’re a non-smoker, this may not be a big issue. But for me, it’s huge. And it’s all because of one ingenious little tool I would have never thought I’d like. Until now.

You see, during those 30 years, I’ve tried everything. From patches to pills. From chewing gums to chewing tobacco. From cold turkey to computer gadgets. From self-hypnosis to acupuncture. Nothing worked. At least, not permanently.

But finally, I found a solution. The reason it works is because it’s not a cessation tool but an alternative to smoking tobacco. And a lot healthier, too. No carcinogens, no carbon monoxide, no tar, no additives. Why? Because it’s not smoke. It’s “green smoke.”

Green Smoke is not even smoke. It’s plain ol’ steam. Yup, vapor.

No combustion. No burning. No fire. Therefore, no smoke.

It’s been two days now, and I feel good. I don’t have any withdrawals, including twitching or sweats. I don’t even feel the urge to smoke. Plus, I can use this alternative to “light up” in non-smoking areas, such as airplanes and restaurants, without breaking any laws.

Green Smoke is an electronic cigarette. Yes, that is my affiliate link, but I wouldn’t recommend it until I tried it myself. I’m a believer now, and I recommend this product.

Now, just to be clear, nicotine is addictive. But nicotine, in itself, is not bad. According to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, nicotine is about as harmful as caffeine.

What’s harmful is the smoke. And smoking.

Smoke carries carbon monoxide, tar, and chemicals. With Green Smoke, there’s no tar buildup in your lungs… no ingesting carcinogens and chemical additives… and most importantly, no fire hazards, such as potentially dropping a lit cigarette.

I also love the fact that I can “smoke” in bars and restaurants. The vapor dissipates almost immediately, so there’s no lingering smell or unpleasant odor. After all, it’s steam. But it feels like a cigarette, and inhaling steam feels like smoking — without the smoke.

Sure, it does feel a little different. But it’s darn close! And it’s certainly not for beginning smokers or kids — just like alchohol is not for kids. This is an alternative solution to committed, long-terms smokers like me who finally want to breathe again.

Health benefits aside, I really like the idea of being able to recharge the electronic cigarettes using their USB plug. I can plug it into the wall or into my computer. Best of all, the cost is about 10-15% of what I used to spend on cigarettes.

The money savings alone is huge!

I highly recommend this product. I bought mine last month and have been using it for several weeks. But it wasn’t until a few days ago I didn’t feel the need to smoke real cigarettes. In fact, I’ve never thought this was possible… until now. And I’m impressed.

Plus, click here to get an extra 10% off your purchase.

Declaring My Independence From Smoke originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

Copy is still important. Design plays an important role, too.

But copy is not king. The market is. And I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, after reading the article it made me think of something I’ve been meaning to share with you for a while.

And I’m warning you, this might ruffle a few feathers.

Three years ago, I wrote a white paper called “The Death of The Salesletter.” It was controversial because a lot of it was contrary to popular belief, particularly since it was coming from someone whose career revolved around writing salesletters.

Long-scrolling salesletters, that is.

Long-form web salesletters are dead. Or better said, they are evolving. But the changes we are seeing are more than what you think. And I’m not talking about video…

Ostensibly, the impetus for this change is largely influenced by the introduction and adoption of multimedia. That’s because the Internet is different. Some say the Internet is just another medium. It is, but it is still different. It’s visual, auditory, and kinesthetic.

Better said, the way people consume information on the Internet is different.

But there are a couple of things I wanted to share with you that I didn’t cover in the report. The reason is, since then we’ve seen a lot of other changes, too.

After three years, we’ve gone through a recession, a series of societal pressures forcing us to change, and new or updated governmental regulations to comply with.

We’ve had the FTC’s new disclosure, affiliate marketing, and blogging rules. We’ve had the Google slap, Facebook slap, Visa slap, MasterCard slap, AdWords slap, and more.

(Reminds me of old Catholic school days where teachers, who were mostly nuns, walked around with wooden paddles ready to swat you if you were ever out of line.)

After all this, I have become a firmer believer that long salesletter copy is often not needed. And when it is used, it is largely misused. Sure, long copy has its place. It will always have a place. We need long copy when there’s a level of education needed.

For instance, in a previous blog post I wrote about my OATH formula. This formula is based on knowing the level of buyer awareness of your market.

In my marketing management class in college, I taught the stages of awareness new products go through, often called the “product adoption curve” or “diffusion process.”

(Famous copywriter Gene Schwartz discusses something similar in his book, Breakthrough Advertising, and how copy is different for each stage.)

My formula is simple. OATH is an acronym to define each awareness stage.

“O” stands for “Oblivious.” Your market doesn’t know about the problem. They aren’t aware they have it. Next is “A,” which means “Apathetic.” They know they have a problem but they don’t care. Solving it is not important to them for whatever reason.

Then, there’s “T,” which is “Thinking.” They know they have a problem and can solve it, but they’re thinking about it. Maybe they’re not convinced or they’re shopping around. And finally, “H” is for “Hurting.” They want to solve it now. They’re desperate.

When you look at the OATH formula and how copy fits in each stage, it stands to reason that the more oblivious they are, the more you need to educate them. And conversely, the more desperate they are, the less copy is required.

Makes sense?

(This doesn’t include the product type. The four product types are “convenience,” “shopping,” “specialty,” and “unsought” products. The more commoditized the product, the less copy it needs. The more specialized it is, the greater the need for copy.)

Now, here’s the thing.

Internet marketing is not just about Internet marketing. There are tons of markets, products, and solutions being marketed on the Internet. But the most conspicuous is the Internet marketing industry. In other words, the “how to market on the Internet” market.

Which boils down to the making-money market. The bizop crowd.

(Not entirely, of course, but in large part.)

Let me ask you, where do people in the make-money market stand in the OATH formula? If you guessed “hurting,” if not at least “thinking,” then I would say you’re right.

(In terms of product type, most how-to-make-money products are commoditized. Or they are not as specialized as they used to be — unless it’s software, of course. But much of what you find in $5,000 infoproducts can be easily found in $30 books.)

So let me ask you, if that’s the case, then why are most Internet marketing products still being sold online with long-copy salesletters? Particularly hard-hitting ones?

And that includes long video sales pitches, too. Remember, multimedia salesletters are still using long copy — they’re just delivering it differently.

And I’m also not referring to actual training followed by an offer of some kind. (In other words, educational content unrelated or indirectly related to the pitch at the end.)

I’m talking about overzealous, aggressive, superlative-laced, hypnosis-inducing, carnival-barking, smooth-talking, slick-sliding-from-headline-to-P.S. sales pitches.

Whether it’s on video or in text.

Today, I still see long sales copy, with hard-hitting sales pitches, pushing Internet marketing products onto the marketplace. Why is that? Why would you need long copy to push something that’s seemingly targeted to a hurting market?

The reason is simple. There are actually 10 of them.

Here they are, in reverse order (David Letterman style)…

10. The market is skeptical and cynical (probably because of the rest of this list).
9. The product is overpriced.
8. The value or benefits are small, insignificant, or non-existent.
7. The product is unneeded or irrelevant.
6. The solution is temporary in nature.
5. The product is just snake oil.
4. The product is scammy.
3. The order process is scammy (e.g., forced continuity, upsell hell, fake scarcity, etc).
2. The market is naive (i.e., being hurt opens you up to abuse and manipulation).

… And finally, number one is (drum roll, please)…

1. The product is crap.

There.

I said it.

This is nothing new. I remember copywriter Nick Usborne saying this many years ago in my copywriters forum. It caused quite a stir. And since my clients were mostly Internet marketers at the time, I was apologetic whilst defending my clients. And my livelihood.

But today, I have come to the conclusion that most (not all, but most) Internet marketers who still use long copy, especially long copy that screams like a Monster Truck Rally announcer, is for a product that sucks. Period.

Now, not all of them are that obvious. Some of them are slick. Very slick. Copy injected with great storytelling, believability, personality, and testimonials that make you salivate.

When someone says about an Internet marketer that “he’s so good at selling, he can sell ice to an Eskimo” — being Canadian, I would have preferred to call them Inuit, but I digress — the question is, why would you? Think about that, for a moment.

Really. I’m serious.

Would you feel good about yourself if you sold something utterly useless to someone who doesn’t need it? Plus, I bet you that when you tried to sell your “ice,” you had to use a pretty long sales pitch, too. Either that or manipulate your client somehow.

Obviously, that’s nonsense. It’s downright abusive, too.

Ultimately, the lesson I want to deliver here is this…

Great products sell themselves. Just as educated markets, particularly hurting markets, buy themselves. They prefer to buy than to be sold. They don’t need much help. They just need direction. And that, my friends, is what direct marketing should be.

It should direct the market as well as be direct.

(As my friend Armand Morin always says, “Just sell the darn thing!”)

No need for long, drawn-out, credibility-pumping, testimonial-oozing, adjective-laden, trance-inducing, endlessly-scrolling copy. Especially audience-manipulating copy.

Some people might respond with, “But Michael, you’re full of crap! Long copy works, I tell you. My sales numbers prove it!” Of course, it does. No argument there. Heck, that’s why it still exists and is being used all the time. Spam still exists, too. Right?

But because something works doesn’t make it right. It’s no different than saying, “Hey, if you need to make money, go rob a bank. Why? Because it works!”

So unless your market is oblivious, and uneducated about your problem and its solution, you don’t need long copy. Unless, of course, your product is crap, your business is shady, your reputation is shot, or your market has been abused in the past.

So I’ll end by repeating something I said earlier, because it’s important. Great products sell themselves, just as great markets buy themselves. Your job is simple…

… You just need to find them and match them up.

The Need For Long Copy and Other Stupid Myths originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

Considering the recent hysteria behind the massive Apple iPad launch, it got me thinking about how most Internet marketers conduct their product launches.

Most of them work because they’re based on basic human psychology. But I believe people who do use it do it poorly.

In fact, I think they do so because the strategy, particularly as it applies to Internet marketing and digital products specifically, is inherently flawed. What I mean is, in order for it to work — and work well — it must rely on three major factors:

1. Anticipation
2. Social proof
3. Scarcity/urgency

Granted, you can manufacture these. And when you sell Internet, digital, or information products, you have to. Why? Because these products are, or are seen as, limitless.

And therein lies the rub…

The best and most profitable launches in history didn’t rely on any of these. At least, not in a direct way. Sure, these factors do play a huge role in most successful launches. But they occur almost as natural byproducts. They are not manufactured.

And that’s exactly what iPad did for their launch day. They used #1 (anticipation) and #2 (social proof). But they didn’t use #3. In other words, they launched without the need to create or promote any kind of manufactured scarcity.

Why? Because they didn’t need to.

Obviously, iPad is a physical product, which is naturally limited. That scarcity was made even greater on launch day because of #1 and #2. In other words, they didn’t have to “close their doors” and reopen them at some later date to create scarcity.

Granted, Apple may have limited their in-store stocks on launch day to create more demand. I don’t know. And they did a lot more. Seth Godin shares a few others. But I’m referring to the product launch strategy’s three major factors specifically.

My point here is, natural scarcity or creating a genuine sense of urgency — better said, possessing or projecting one — will trump a manufactured one. Every time.

Manufactured scarcity appears self-centered, questionable, and suspicious. When you look at how the FTC, Visa/MasterCard, Google, and now Facebook — with its recent slap — frown upon generated scarcity, you know people are lashing out against the practice.

When Jobs introduced the upcoming iPad, it created a ton of anticipation. With the iPhone being as popular as it was, news generated inherent social proof since people already had experiences with the iPhone.

But there’s more to it than that.

Apple created genuine scarcity because they have strong brand recognition, are well positioned, and have a history of delivering solid products with great value. They didn’t have to poach other people’s lists, create sales contests, or use high-pressure tactics.

Now, I’m not saying joint ventures, sales contests, and manufactured scarcity are wrong. But if you keep using them, product launch after product launch, then chances are you will be be seen as nothing more than a salesman. A slick, smarmy, snake-oil peddler.

(That’s not just my opinion, either.)

Apple didn’t create demand, which is why they didn’t need to manufacture scarcity. Whether the product was a physical one didn’t matter. To paraphrase Gene Schwartz in Breakthrough Advertising, “They didn’t create demand, they merely channeled it.”

Speaking of channeling demand, let’s look at some of the differences.

When I used to teach marketing management in college, there are two schools of thought in marketing. One is called the pull strategy, and the other the push strategy.

What do they mean? With the push marketing strategy, you are pushing the product through distribution channels. A “channel” can be, for instance:

ManufacturerDistributorStoreConsumer

In Internet Marketing and with downloadable products, the channel looks more like this:

Seller/VendorWebsite (eStore/Delivery)Consumer

The push strategy is the one most often used by salespeople, infomercials, direct response advertisers, and direct marketers. And, obviously, Internet marketers, too.

The pull strategy, on the other hand, is where reputation and recognition generate awareness and demand. And that demand pulls the product through the distribution channel — thus requiring a lot less legwork, and a lot less need to sell. For example:

ConsumerStoreDistributorManufacturer

Now, let me put this in a better perspective for you.

Ostensibly, a push strategy can make a lot of money. There’s no denying that. That’s how many marketers make their “millions,” particularly via these massive product launch parades. Problem is, you have to constantly push products to stay afloat.

Sadly, this constant need to push products creates that unflattering “salesman” stigma, where most Internet marketers are largely seen as peddlers and not businesses.

In order to stay alive — or to maintain their standard of living — most Internet marketers need to constantly create new products, make new offers, and seek new “addicts” to push their products onto. (Sounds dangerously close to drug dealers, doesn’t it?)

That’s why most of them churn and burn their lists.

If they stop pushing more products, there is no business.

That’s why Sylvie and I call them “serial drive-by marketers.”

If you use a pull strategy, or complement your existing push strategy with a strong pull strategy, you will work a lot less. The rest will almost take care of itself. The business will keep going, no matter what. And above all, there will be less of that peddler stigma.

What constitutes a strong pull strategy?

Aside from offering in-demand products and solid value, there’s positioning, brand recognition, business identity, good customer service, a loyal fan base, authority in your field, and strong relationships with your customers and prospects. Just to name a few.

(Sure, there are more than that. But how many Internet marketers use any of them? Very little. For example, how many online salesletters have you seen with a logo? ‘Nuff said.)

Think of it this way: there’s a difference between the pawn-shop mentality and the retail store mentality. The former constantly needs products on its shelves to sell to stay alive. But the latter doesn’t need new products to sell. (And by “new” I mean “more.”)

Rather, retail stores need traffic. Consumers. Markets. People with needs. You simply create products to fill needs, not create needs (such as using fake scarcity) so you can shove your products down people’s throats during some big, limited product launch.

In other words, we need to think more like a retail store than like a pawn shop.

Now, I’m not saying we need to become like Wal-Mart or some other big box store. And we don’t need to focus on branding alone, or to advertise via some upscale, big budget, Madison Avenue advertising firm like many big brand stores do. No, not at all.

But we need to think like Wal-Mart.

We need to think like an Internet marketing business instead of like a peddler.

How would you feel if, upon entering your local Wal-Mart, they only had one product available at any given time? Or they had limited quantities of a product you know well and good wasn’t limited? Or they used high-pressure, time-sensitive tactics to sell you?

Sadly, most Internet marketers conduct their business like pawn shops. I’m not saying we should stop using direct response. Direct marketing, particularly for small businesses, is essential. But it should complement a good business strategy. Not replace it.

How great would it be if you sold products like crazy simply because people asked? How great would it be if you never had to sell or use any kind of manufactured scarcity to sell? And how much more money would you make, especially over the long term?

Bottom line, start focusing on creating long-term, solid businesses rather making serialized promotions for subpar products with time-limited, over-the-top product launches that at best merely provide short-term cash injections.

Something to think about.

By the way, if you’re interested in how to become a recognized authority, and position yourself and your business in a way that generates authentic demand and scarcity, then I encourage you to come to next week’s Authority Event in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Are Product Launches Peddling For Profits? originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

First off, as you know I love predictions and making some of my own. For example, I wrote a controversial white paper several years ago, called “The Death of The Salesletter.”

In it, I predicted that more and more salesletters will become shorter, more dynamic, more targeted, and more engaging. The explosion in video salesletters being one of them.

And that was over three years ago!

Recently, I wrote about another big upcoming trend, and that’s the explosion in cloud computing and how it will change the future of online business. I even blogged about it here in a post entitled “The Future of The Internet is Cloudy.”

For example, I downloaded Xmarks, a nifty online-based bookmark synchronizer that also synchronizes my native bookmarks on IE, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari using the cloud. It even synchronizes passwords and form fills, although I use LastPass for that.

But recently, a new product hit the market that reminded me of something…

We’re seeing a huge change in the way we work with computers. In my white paper, I talked about “multisensorial salesletters” where salesletters will increasingly engage all three modalities of communication (i.e., visual, auditory, and kinesthetic).

For instance, print media is a tactile medium. It’s mostly kinesthetic. The radio is auditory, while the TV, which may be both auditory and visual, is predominantly visual.

The computer, on the other hand, with the help of your keyboard and mouse, are all three. They help engage more senses. They’re visual, auditory, and kinesthetic.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense that sales messages online should be multisensorial. Significant statistics prove that, the more senses you engage, the more sales you will make. Which is why I predicted that video salesletters would explode — as it has.

But one thing struck me.

While we use a mouse and a keyboard, the kinesthetic component is somewhat indirect. These tools enable some tactile interaction, but they are more or less guides. (The Wii video console is a better example of having a bit more direct tactile engagement.)

Now, enter the new iPad.

iPhone and iPad are definitely more direct forms of kinesthetic communication. Sure, touchscreens have been around for years. But Apple helped touchscreens to penetrate the mass-market by making them easy, practical, and of course cool.

When I first heard of the iPad, I thought to myself, “This is the future!” I thought that more and more computers will become like that — direct contact with the message.

(Marshall McLuhan was dead-on, if not pretty darn close.)

iPad is not just a larger iPhone. It’s much, much more than that. Better said, its introduction means a lot more than what most people care to give it credit for. Some people don’t like it. A lot of people say it’s just a bunch of hype. But I say it’s the future.

And now, I see this article in Mashable, which underlines exactly what I thought — in that research shows that all computers will be eventually touchscreen-based.

By the way, as I’m sure you have guessed, I love visionaries, futurists, and predictions. John Naisbitt’s “Megatrends” is one of my favorite books. I often mention “high-tech, high-touch” in my work. Faith Popcorn is another visionary I admire a lot.

Speaking of Marshall McLuhan, other than his most famous quote (i.e., “The medium is the message”) he is mostly known for, here are a few more of his fascinating quotes. Read them, and you’ll see how ahead of his time this guy was.

Anyway, ’tis all food for thought.

The important thing in all of this, is this: how do we mold our businesses, products, and services to fit these upcoming trends? More important, how can we monetize them?

Bottom line, keep your eyes peeled. Just sayin’.

Get in Touch With The Future originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

He was so incensed, he wrote me a personal message accusing me of being rude and insulting. He even remarked that I’m arrogant, and snarkily added that some of his “friends” seem to feel the same way.

Now, before I give you the reason, I’d like to share with you my philosophy on Facebook friendships in general.

To me, and I think it’s simply common sense, a friend is a friend. It’s someone you know, someone you have a relationship with, someone you want to stay connected with, and someone you consider a real friend — not a fan, follower, or worse yet, a spammer.

And the latter of the three is the one I can’t stand.

You see, I have hit my 5,000 friend limit several times on Facebook. After removing a few undesirables from time to time, new ones keep filling it up. So we’ve created a fan page, which has no limit. That way, anyone can join, become a fan, and connect with us.

But there’s a difference between a “profile” and “page.” Between a “friend” and a “fan.” Those differences are not mine. They are Facebook’s. Their policies are pretty clear.

Personal profiles are not to be used for commercial purposes.

I know. It’s not only listed in their terms, but Facebook have also told me personally.

Befriending someone on Facebook can be just as problematic as following someone on Twitter. Just like Twitter said when they dumped auto-follow from their native application:

“It is unlikely that any­one can actu­ally read tweets from thou­sands of accounts which makes this activ­ity disingenuous.”

Even Seth Godin calls mass-friending as “fake networking.” This applies to Facebook as much as it does to Twitter — or to any other social media application, for that matter.

I wanted to keep my friends list clean. I could have, like some marketers out there, dumped my profile entirely, or deleted my entire friends list, and started from scratch.

But I didn’t want to do that. Starting from scratch can seem just as disingenuous.

So in order to whittle my list down to the people I really do want to stay friends with, including family members, old school friends, and several marketers I have an actual relationship with, I’ve decided to remove friends based on the following five criteria.

If the people are not known to me (i.e., people I don’t really know, have never met, or haven’t some kind of personal relationship with), I remove the following:

1. People who spam me. Specifically, people who constantly send me fan requests, group join requests, event invites, or friend suggestions, or people who post blatantly promotional or self-interested messages on my wall — and that is only if I don’t know the person making the suggestion in the first place. I not only ignore their requests but also remove these people as friends the moment I get them.
2. People who push me with their applications. I block those outright. I click on the application name, then “block application” on the left-hand side of the page. I also block the people who send them because they have a tendency to be app junkies. (No more “Mafia Wars,” “Farmville,” or “Chinese Astrology” notifications.)
3. People with fake names or business names. I see a lot of friends whose profile names are businesses, websites, or brands. Remember, Facebook profiles are not to be used for commercial purposes. Needless to say, I don’t believe “ABC Marketing, Inc.” can be single or married, male or female, a republican or a democrat, or 32 years old and a graduate of a high school in Wichita.
4. People with fake profile pictures. My opinion is, if you can’t put a real picture of a real person on your personal profile, then what are you hiding? If you have to hide behind some logo, cartoon character, or a shot of some product you sell, to me it means you’re not willing to connect with the people you befriend.
5. People whose friends are people I wish to distance myself from. In other words, in their friends lists are people I prefer not to be associated with. If any of the above criteria are not met, I then check out who their friends are. If there’s anyone in that list I don’t like, and if I don’t know them personally, they’re gone.

Above all, I’m not on Facebook to provide customer support or free advice, or to do any networking. (Sure, I do network. But it’s not my primary focus.) So I also remove friends who send me a direct message in some obvious attempt to extract free advice from me.

Yes, I’m very selective with who I hang around with. But I don’t spend endless hours scouring my friend list searching for anyone who meets any of the above criteria. I only apply it to friends who happen to spam me and to those who try to add me as a friend.

Incidentally, when adding friends I prefer and particularly approve those who add a small message with their friend request. They’re making an effort in introducing themselves to me, and in sharing some commonality or reason why we should be friends.

Bottom line, I’m very protective of my time, my reputation, and my integrity.

Back to the “friend” who rebuked me for unfriending him. He added me as a friend, and spammed me with a request of some kind literally the next day. Now, spamming me is one thing. But spamming me within hours of adding me as a friend is another.

When people do this, it makes their friend request suspect.

Not only do I de-friend people who spam me, but I hesitate even less when the request comes in shortly after adding me as a friend. Facebook is filled with people who add “friends” for the sole purpose of pushing their offers, businesses, or opportunities.

(Sorry, but I’m not interested in your “opportunity.”)

I replied to this fellow and expressed that he should have given me a chance to explain before jumping the gun. His reply was just as perplexing when he counter-accused me of jumping to conclusions by unfriending him so quickly. (Uh, merry-go-round, anyone?)

With this situation, Seth Godin’s “permission marketing” comes to mind. Specifically, don’t ask me to marry you when we’re still on the first date. Get to know me first.

Nevertheless, I don’t have time to vet each friend request, much less every friend on my list. So following this “whittling” process seems to work for me.

It’s the lesser of two evils — removing undesirables one by one is a lot less daunting than deleting my entire friends list and starting over from scratch. Plus, in the end by cleaning out my friends list allows me to stay in touch with only the people I want.

If not adding everyone who asks as a friend, if being selective when choosing my friends, and if unfriending undesirables make me arrogant, then I guess I am.

Come to think of it, this argument is very reminiscent of the whole “auto-follow fiasco” on Twitter I wrote about before. As I said on Twitter, I’d rather be seen as a snobby bastard who doesn’t care than as a fake friend who pretends that he does.

Not following you back (or in this case, not befriending you) doesn’t make me rude, arrogant, or discourteous. This is a blatant myth propagated by some social media gurus who are using peer pressure to justify their attempt to grow their own lists.

Ditto with people befriending others in an attempt to usurp free advice or support. I do offer support. I have staff and a helpdesk for that purpose. And I do try to help whenever I can. But there’s a difference between customer service and customer support.

So if you want to become my friend, I only ask three simple things.

1. Respect. Respect for my time, my business, my customers, and my current friends. Just as much as I respect yours. It’s not just a mutual courtesy. It’s simple common sense. To add me as a friend, you need to be, well, a friend. Or at least friendly.
2. Authenticity. Be real, genuine, and sincere. Don’t use a fake name or a fake picture. Sure, I understand if you want to use a picture of a leprechaun on St. Paddy’s Day or a picture of your favorite NFL mascot during the Super Bowl. But not all year round. (Remember, in your profile, under “photos,” there’s a folder called “profile pictures.” I can instantly see if there are any “real pictures” in there.)
3. And finally, friendship. Be a friend or show a willingness to befriend me — not as a sales lead, a subscriber, or a babysitter, but as a friend. Talk to me. Add a message to your friend request. Or post on my wall something I’m interested in. Or comment on some of my postings. Let’s converse. Engage me, not enrage me.

Ultimately, ask yourself, and be honest: would you treat a Facebook friend the same way you’d treat a real friend in the real world? If so, and if you want friends only to promote yourself, then your Facebook profile is not the place. There are better places for that.

They’re called tradeshows.

The Facebook Fake Friend Fallout originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

I believe in the law of attraction. I also like the premise behind the book, which is largely influenced by Wally Wattles’ 1910 book, The Science of Getting Rich.

But with all the “new-wage” gurus out there giving it a bad rap, the law of attraction is getting an undeserved reputation. Some people even call it the “flaw of attraction.” However, the real flaw isn’t with the secret in itself, as some suggested.

It’s with how some people have bastardized it for their own selfish greed.

Here’s the problem…

Your chances of getting what you want is higher when you’re focused on it. Absolutely. And it’s not just some metaphysical, woo-woo thing. Quantum physics aside, which is something else I also believe in, let’s take a more practical look at the law.

You become what you think about. It’s true. But the twist is, you already are what you thought about all your life. So how can some book magically switch your state when your mindset is still on that which made you who you are in the first place?

A mindset that took years to acquire?

Simply, if you think you’re a loser, then chances are you’re a loser. If you truly believe you deserve wealth, then you’ll get wealth if you’re not already wealthy. But it isn’t as automatic as so many of the new-wage gurus want you to believe.

And there lies the rub. And it ain’t some genie lamp, either.

When you focus on something hard enough and long enough, you will eventually change your belief system. And once your belief system has changed, then your consciousness will open itself to notice all the possibilities and opportunities related to it.

Doors that previously seemed closed will open for you. Were they really closed before? No. You were simply oblivious to them. Now, they just jump out at you. As if by miracle.

But it’s no miracle.

Has this ever happened to you? You buy a brand-new car, and you think to yourself that not a lot of people have that same car, much less in that same paint color.

So you buy it, and wouldn’t you know it? As you drive it home, you start to notice that exact same car all over the place. Everybody seems to own one, now. In the same color, too! As if it was some conspiracy to follow you around and copy you.

Funny, isn’t?

That’s the real secret behind the law of attraction.

Here’s the problem with the way this law has been abused of late. People who are vulnerable, gullible, and desperate are seeking a magic pill. A quick-fix solution.

So their mindset is now focused on getting help. They are thinking about getting rid of their financial pains. Once they see a course, program, training, or seminar that purports to teach them on how to cure their money ills, they jump on it like bees to honey.

(Or better said, like flies to excrement.)

Greedy new-wage gurus know this all too well. So they package their rehashed, embellished version of the secret, overprice it, and sell it to the unsuspecting masses.

And guess what? Most of the people who will buy it are those very people who don’t need it. These naive hopefuls will spend the remaining cash in their bank accounts just for some magic pill — and the gurus walk away with their money.

Sure, sell a book or course on how to use the secret. It’s your take on the law. Like an opinion piece of commentary. In it, you perhaps even share some of your observations on how well it’s worked in your own life and those of others around you. No problem.

But when people buy it, they are — better said, they should be — buying it for the educational or entertainment value, just like someone’s book of theories on TV’s Lost.

But don’t promise that this book is the panacea they were looking for, especially when they’re in a vulnerable state. That’s misleading, unethical, nonsensical bullshit.

The best line I’ve heard on the secret came from another movie called “What the Bleep?” I liked the movie because it explained the secret in less philosophical but more scientific terms — such as neuroscience, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, etc.

(Although, some of the people on the show were a little too “out there” for my taste.)

The line came from an interview with a University professor, who said that you can’t overcome years upon years of negativity with just a thin veneer of positive thinking shoved on top of it. You still have this huge underbelly of negativity that’s still there.

It’s the same as weight loss. You can’t lose overnight what often took years to gain. In the same way, you can’t change your thinking overnight, because it took years to build and condition, be it through experience, education, expectations, etc. Even genetics.

Focus on the positive, yes. But you must take action. And that’s the point. People expect the secret to be a magic pill. And they take no action believing the secret will magically save them. They look at the law of attraction as a cure rather than as a tool.

Those types of people are scary, if you ask me. Because the moment something good happens to them, which might have happened anyway either by pure happenstance or as the result of their hard work, they will have a tendency to blame it on the secret.

When the secret had nothing to do with it.

There’s nothing much you can do about these folk, unfortunately. But there’s a second, more sinister category of people who are “attracted” to the law of attraction.

To take action, you need to want to do it. You need motivation. Or desperation, in some cases. Sure, the secret can help you find the motivation you need to take action. It can inspire you. But it’s not and should never be a substitute for action.

Motivation can take time, too. Sometimes, years or even decades.

But the problem is that it’s not sold as a motivational tool. It’s sold as a solution.

And the people who sell the secret as such are the worse of the bunch, in my opinion. Those greedy vultures are masters in the art of repackaging material in a way that caters to a specific market in need of the package — and not the thing being packaged.

Why do you think credit repair products, particularly credit repair scams, are so rampant, especially during tough economic times? Because there’s a market for it!

The secret is just the same. The reason so many people are buying it is because there’s a market for what it promises — not for its educational or motivational value.

First, you shouldn’t be in a position where you would need credit repair if you had the right mindset to begin with and took action on it earlier. It’s about planning, taking responsibility, and most of all, taking action. Before it’s too late.

Of course, accidents happen. Stuff happens over which you have no control. So I’m not talking about people who have no control over their financial dilemmas. I’m talking about those who didn’t take control over their finances before their finances went out of it.

In short, the secret would have been best used before you decided on doing the things that had negative consequences. Consequences that would have put you in a situation where you would need any solution, much less a secret one.

The secret is not remedial. It may be palliative, at best.

Sure, it may be used as a remedial tool. It can motivate you into taking action to remedy your situation, just as you took action that put you in the bad spot you’re in now.

But it is best used as a preventative tool, particularly when you took actions with negative consequences. Or better said, when you had the wrong mindset that led you to making the wrong decisions and taking the wrong actions in the first place.

Or at the very least, the secret can help change your mindset to avoid the negative things that, if unchanged, may keep you in constant need to seek out quick-fix solutions.

Self-help is exactly what it means. The law of attraction can help you to help yourself. But too many people buy into it thinking it’s going to save them. So they fail to take action.

For example, why is it that books on how to make money are more popular than those on how to save it? Because saving money is a sacrifice. It’s work! You need to take action.

But trying to sell a preventative to vulnerable people who are desperately hurting — such as people who are suffering from terminal illnesses or facing bankruptcies — is like trying to sell them a course on how to save money when there is none to save.

Using the weightloss example, you can learn how to change the way you think about food to stop gaining weight, instead of buying a book on how to lose it when it’s too late.

The law of attraction can help steer you in the right direction, and motivate you to make the right decisions and take the right actions, that will prevent you from going to a place where you would need to lose the weight you shouldn’t have gained, anyhow.

(By the way, my apologies to those who are battling weight problems. My intent is not to denigrate people in tough situations but to focus on those who take advantage of them.)

My wife said it best on her breast cancer blog. She said that she wouldn’t focus on battling her breast cancer because it would be very difficult to “fight darkness.”

I mean, how do you conquer darkness?

Do you stab it? Do you pull out your gun and try to shoot it? Do you meditate, pray, and positively think that it will simply go away through some miracle? Of course not.

Really, the only way to fight the darkness is to turn on the light.

You must take action. Do you need a self-help book for that? Maybe, if the self-help book shows you where the lightswitch is, or how to build a lightsource, or how to make money to buy a flashlight, or cheers you up as you patiently wait for the sun to come up.

So is there really a “flaw of attraction?” Not with the law itself. The real flaw is in the way it’s unscrupulously pushed onto innocent souls who don’t know any better.

It’s like pushing drugs onto addicts.

Some of these new-wage gurus are no different than drug dealers, in my opinion.

The issue I have is with those who prey on vulnerable people by selling a preventative as a cure — and worse yet, to mislead them into thinking a preventative is the cure — and to give them false hope only to line their own pockets. Drug pushers, indeed.

Self-help is self-help. You actually need to help yourself to make any “self-help” work.

But to help yourself, you need to act. Because if you buy a book on self-help thinking it will save you miraculously, you might as well leave the book on the shelf-help.

The Real Problem With The Flaw of Attraction originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

The show centers on aspiring, brave, and sometimes downright idiotic inventors and entrepreneurs who pitch their ideas in front of a group of merciless, seemingly heartless multimillionaires, begging for investment capital.

Some of the advice that come from these “sharks” are pretty obvious and commonsensical, especially to people who’s been in business for as long as I have.

But a lot of it is brilliant. Brilliant, but also brazen, unabashed, and brutally honest. It’s not for the faint of heart. If you don’t like seeing people, along with their hopes, dreams, and business ideas being shred to pieces on TV, then this show is certainly not for you.

The more I watch that show, the more I learn. It’s not just a fascinating program, it’s a million-dollar education in just one hour a week. And for free to boot. If you ever get a chance to watch that show, do it. You’re going to learn so much. It’s an amazing show.

If an idea or business is dumb, dead, or downright dreadful, they will say it. Often, in no uncertain terms. They have to. After all, their money is on the line.

But then again, so should it be with you.

One line from the show, from shark Barbara Corcoran, was absolutely dead-on in one case. She said to one fledgling, near-bankrupt businessman with a poorly researched idea in which he invested almost all of his family’s savings (and I’m paraphrasing, here):

“It takes a lot of courage to be as passionate and persistent about a business idea, but it takes a lot more courage to know when to quit, and to let it go and move on.”

And this got me thinking about how some people online are like that. I’m not just talking about businesspeople who needlessly cling to a losing idea or business, which are many. Too many to count, I’m afraid. The Internet is filled with them.

But I’m talking about sharks. Experts who really know their stuff, and who may say the most unflattering things that might kill your pride but may very well save your butt. That is, if you let go of your ego for a moment and truly listen to what they have to say.

Many a guru come and go, and the people I’ve followed over the years have changed. Change is a part of reality. I’ve changed. We all do. But some people I’ve stopped following because their philosophy no longer fits with mine or into what I find acceptable.

(And with all that’s happening in our industry these days, with all the crackdowns, letdowns, and putdowns, I don’t think I’m the only one who feels that way.)

But that’s OK. That’s how the world turns.

I guess that, as I’ve grown older, wiser, and more battle-worn, with a dash of cynicism and mistrust added to the mix, I’ve also become pickier and more prudent in who I follow and listen to. That’s why there are just a handful of select people I follow today.

There are two fellows in particular from this group of people who I’ve followed for a long time, ever since they were members of my now defunct copywriters discussion forum. The thing is, they are not as well-known as what you normally call your typical “guru.”

I followed them on their blogs and newsletters. For years, I’ve digested their tips, insights, and sometimes incisive commentary like they were part of a endless buffet served as a starving death-row inmate’s last meal. Licking the plates along with it.

So who are these guys?

These two men are none other than Jason Leister and Ricky Breslin.

Their brilliance shines. Their philosophy is flexible enough to adapt to changes, but solid enough to remain unwavering and unaffected — no matter how the economy swings, and no matter how many new marketing methods come and go.

Their occasional insights and sometimes slap-in-the-face advice on business, the Internet, and even life have always struck me as amazing. To some, they appear as oddball contrarians, and that’s probably why they are not as well known as the usual suspects.

There are not a lot of people who are that real. I mean, really real. I mean, “I don’t care if this hurts your ego but it’s going to save your business (or make you money)” real. They are down to earth and personable, but seriously sharp and dangerously savvy.

These are two guys to watch out for.

Now, there are not the only ones, mind you. A few others I’ve known for a while personify these qualities already. Such as Paul Myers, Jim Edwards, Terry Dean, Lynn Terry, Larry Winget, just to name a few. (Including my brilliant wife, Sylvie Fortin.)

But Jason and Ricky are in that group I would categorize as real experts.

For example, Jason just blogged about the future of information marketing.

And he said something I’ve been saying for a long time.

And that’s the idea that marketing, particularly Internet marketing, is no longer about communications but about conversations. It’s no longer about content but about context. It’s no longer about copy that sells but about the connection with the people who buy.

In short, the gold is not “in the list” but in the relationships.

Nevertheless, they are marketers who are not afraid to tell it like it is. But also, they are guys who understand relationships. People. Trust. Ethics. And above all, sales and business. They are sharks. And I think that’s what the Internet needs right now.

I’m not talking about “those” sharks. The Internet has been filled with the wrong kind of predators for too long. No, I’m talking about the kind of sharks who are willing to take a bite out of bad ideas, bad businesses, and bad marketing practices.

Be a shark with your business. Your money. Your clients. And especially your integrity and your reputation. More important, be a shark with yourself, and the people you follow and whose advice you listen to. If not, any of these will be the ones eating you alive.

Two Shining Stars in an Age of Darkness originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

For example, we see it with the FTC cracking down on misleading advertisers, Visa and MasterCard closing down merchant accounts for forced continuity billings, and Google permanently banning advertisers for reasons still unclear but somehow related to the latest crackdown.

Harsh? Perhaps. But we can’t say we didn’t see it coming.

Remember, it was about three years ago — wow, has it been three years already? — when my wife, Sylvie Fortin, put out her scathing report, called “Internet Marketing Sins.”

It was highly controversial at the time because people didn’t expect it. However, since then many marketers, bloggers, journalists, disgruntled clients, unpaid affiliates, even social media experts have joined in the chorus. Some, quietly. Others, not so quietly.

For instance, copywriter Ryan Healy ruffled a few feathers recently by posting a scathing report, entitled “Internet Marketing on Life Support,” in which he singled out a few marketers for their questionable, unethical, or allegedly illegal practices.

One commenter praised Ryan for his willingness to name names, and by the same token criticized my wife for not doing so in her Sins report. In fact, since it was published, we received a lot of flak for not naming names. I certainly understand their cynicism.

So I’m taking this opportunity to elaborate on why we chose not to name names.

The aim of this blog post is not to persecute those who do. Just because we didn’t name names doesn’t mean we’re against those who do. Not at all. But I do want to clarify in the hope that you, dear reader, understand why we didn’t expose actual marketers.

First of all, we wanted to focus on the sin, not the sinner.

I agree that naming names works well. It can be potentially productive in stopping that one person — and maybe a few others who fear the same humiliating fate — from continuing their harmful practices. But it doesn’t work all the time. It might even backfire.

Why? Because the cult-like status these snake-oil pitchmen enjoy, which in some cases are so deeply entrenched, might even boost their position among their loyal fan base.

(I’ll come back to this later, as understanding this is of significant importance.)

Plus, I also agree that shaming people publicly has always been a productive technique to quench people’s thirst for blood. As the news industry saying goes, “If it bleeds, it reads.” But in my opinion, doing so doesn’t help the actual underlying problem.

We applaud those who are willing to take the risk. But if and when they do name names, they must do so with eyes wide open, ready to bear the burden of responsibility that comes along with pointing fingers — and the negative blowback such a risk entails.

For us, we didn’t want to throw stones for a variety of reasons. The most important of which is the idea that we didn’t want people to perceive our report as exhaustive. We simply can’t return to the report to rewrite, edit, add more names, and so on.

Eventually, it would make us feel compelled to revisit the report, which is something we were not prepared to do. After all, we are too busy running our own businesses.

Simply, it wasn’t our goal. Furthermore, naming names is risky because it can also be misleading. Others perpetrating the same or similar “sins,” if omitted from the report, may be seen as exonerated or exempted by their own set of followers.

They might say, “Hey, Sylvie talked about Guru ‘A’ doing such and such. Since I follow Guru ‘B’, then I’m fine (or he is fine, or the practice is fine and it’s OK to do it, too).”

Second, we didn’t want to become known as the “Jerry Springer of Internet marketing.” We wanted our report to be food for thought. We wanted people to start questioning. To start thinking critically. And not just to sit idly by, watching as the drama unfolds.

Years ago, I closed down my once very popular copywriting forum for this very reason.

(And believe me, I received a lot of flak for doing that, too.)

As the owner, I was the main moderator. But I never realized until the board became more and more popular just how much work I needed to put into moderating and managing it, thus taking my focus away from building my other, more profitable businesses.

Before you think that I should have outsourced the moderation, remember that I did have close to 10 moderators at one point. But the problem was exacerbated when I was even forced into moderating the moderators. (Yes, many a fight broke out among them, too.)

So I decided to shut it down. It was a hard decision to make.

Nevertheless, pointing fingers wasn’t our goal. We weren’t looking for fans. Instead, we were looking to help. We didn’t want to be judges but advocates. Our goal was to focus on the consumer and would-be marketers contemplating such practices.

We wanted to alert the marketplace on what’s going on, and educate people on how to discern, pinpoint, and avoid potential pitfalls — some of which are so sneaky and inconspicuous, they prey on unsuspecting victims who don’t know any better.

Moreover, we wanted to avoid the “any publicity is good publicity” some of these cult leaders enjoy but most certainly don’t deserve. So we preferred highlighting what to look out for and even go so far as to suggest actionable solutions, than who to look out for.

Now, here’s what I mean when I said naming names can be counterproductive.

First, I’m not a psychologist by any stretch. But as a copywriter, I have studied human psychology and researched it deeply — both in college and in my career. It’s part of my job. I don’t know enough to be an expert, but I do know enough to know the difference.

That said, because of the cult-like following some of these marketers enjoy (it’s no wonder we call them “gurus”), naming them can lead to some unintended consequences.

When you are attacking a cult leader, you are also, by the same token, attacking all of their sheeple in one fell swoop. Some will be dismissive and shrug your attempts. Others will react hostilely, perhaps even violently, to your accusations.

Naming names strengthens the position of these cult leaders as their followers will likely feel threatened, too. In fact, the more you challenge someone’s opinion, the more convinced they become that their opinion is correct, and the greater their resolve will be.

As Brian Tracy once noted, in his program The Psychology of Selling:

“A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

When questioning, challenging, or opposing their deeply rooted beliefs — beliefs into which people have invested much ego, time, and of course, money — they will have a tendency to rigorously defend those beliefs by defending their cult leader.

Again, think of the brainwashing process behind cults. It’s something I have personally studied for many years. And what I’ve learned is, when people react to a challenge, it’s not about defending their chosen guru. It’s about defending one’s belief system.

Most do it unconsciously and quietly. Many do it publicly and vociferously. And as we all know from events throughout history, some will do it aggressively. Even violently.

If you want some science behind it, here’s an interesting fact.

Even if you think you’re not at all sexist, racist, or homophobic, most of us are to some degree. We can proclaim that we’re not, and protest ferociously when we’re called to task. But subconsciously, like it or not our brain’s circuitry tells another tale.

For example, take this online Implicit Test from Harvard, made famous by Malcolm Gladwell in his book “Blink.” It might enlightened you. Perhaps even shock you.

The point is, even if you think you’re not sexist, racist, or biased against any other kind of stereotype, your brain is wired in such a way that you will have a tendency to be biased, no matter what. You will tend to favor one over the other, even if only slightly.

Granted, some of it is genetic and innate. But a lot of it is the result of environmental factors, such as our upbringing, societal mores, education, and personal experience.

People have preconceived biases, which are strengthened over time. Even when they say they don’t or that they are open-minded, when presented with hard evidence to the contrary only solidifies their established mindsets, beliefs, and in some cases, delusions.

I remember reading an article once, where they likened “deprogramming cult followers” to breaking in a wild horse. The first few attempts seem futile. But the more they try to break in the horse, the angrier and more aggressive the horse becomes.

(Until, that is, the horse finally gives up and calms down.)

Similarly, the risk you run by calling out some marketer can, in many cases, strengthen that person’s position in the minds of their followers because you are in essence challenging belief systems. You are bashing not just the guru but their followers, too.

Thus, they will believe in their guru even more, and even vocally and publicly defend them. But in reality, what they are doing is defending their own belief systems, for fear they’d realize and must acknowledge they were wrong all along. And people hate that.

As the saying goes in the selling and marketing worlds, people fear making a bad decision. It’s human nature. And it’s the basis behind cognitive dissonance (i.e., buyer’s remorse). That’s why we’re told to sell on emotion first and then back it up with logic.

When people make an emotional decision, they will search for logical reasons to justify their decisions to avoid the risk of feeling wronged, hurt, or duped, or being perceived as foolish among their peers. And among their own followers, if they have any.

A good example? Look at political debates.

Seldom will you see debates swaying any votes from either side. They only serve to strengthen the already preset opinions of each political candidate’s fan base. Statistically, debates are seen as useful only to attract undecided voters to their camp.

(Many come out of such debates more confused and undecided than before, too.)

If people bought from questionable marketers in the past, if their purchase happened to turn out to be relatively good, and if they’re in the process of buying more products from them, then they, too, don’t want to feel like their original purchase was a bad decision.

This is particularly true if they were supportive and even raved about it publicly. Nobody likes being wrong. But more important, nobody wants to be seen as being wrong. Everyone wants to save face. So naturally, they try to avoid buyer’s remorse.

So they turn a blind eye to anything that might cause them such remorse.

That’s why, in many cases, they stubbornly reinforce their decisions and staunchly defend their beliefs, out of their need for self-preservation, and to assuage their innate fears and insecurities. (Abraham Maslow’s pyramid of human motives comes to mind.)

Finally, a final comment on naming names.

Fingerpointing does offer relief to some, and creates cheering fans for others. But in large part, they run the great risk of degenerating into endless pissing matches that lead to nowhere, except to more hurting, more name-calling, and even more fingerpointing.

If my experience as a forum owner is any indication, it can be perceived as no more than a playground, push-and-shove fight, where onlookers cheer on their preferred playmate.

When caught, both point the finger at each other, shouting, “He started it!” Which inevitably lands the two in the principal’s office, regardless of who’s at fault.

Lynn Terry made a superb point on her blog when she was defending herself in the face of similar accusations that resulted from Ryan’s blog post. She wrote a post in which she said, “People who put titles on me do so only to define themselves.” Wonderfully said.

While she may be talking about being labeled as a “second-rate guru,” I think it fits nicely those among the guru crowd who have the brazen audacity to label their affiliates, clients, or non-clients as “losers.” Unfortunately, many have. Even publicly.

So to conclude, I often think of the saying that says, when you point one finger at someone, four more are pointing right back at you. And for that reason, we wrote the report as a way to extend a helping hand rather than point any fingers much less wag them.

On Not Playing The Blame Game originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

Last night, my good friend and top copywriter John Carlton called me up, and we had an interesting discussion on this whole FTC thing and the hysteria it has created.

I expressed to John my opinions about them, along with a very simple solution. And John agreed with me.

It’s a huge benefit to those who understand copywriting, because they can actually turn around and use the FTC rulings to their advantage. Even make more sales as a result.

Part of the solution is actually simpler than you think. And it doesn’t involve tearing down all your testimonials, plastering a bazillion disclaimers around them, or conducting painful, mental contortions to decide what is typical or not.

You can start by doing this one simple thing…

Now, before I give you my opinion, I must preface this post with several key points.

First, this is my opinion only. I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Consult with a competent, legal professional first. I encourage you to check out attorney Mike Young’s latest FTC report, as well as attorney Kevin Houchin’s well though-out synopsis.

Second, the guidelines are still confusing to some degree. My opinions are not final and they may be wrong. But as more clarifications are made public over time, and given that the FTC won’t prosecute first-time offenders, we will see if I’m right. Eventually.

(After 20 years in this business, I’m pretty sure I am.)

My opinions are not made as a direct result of reading the guidelines themselves, but after reading, dissecting, and interpreting some of the examples included in the report, as well as some post-publication interviews given by FTC representatives.

In fact, the FTC’s example scenarios are far more telling than the guidelines themselves.

Finally, this is going to be my last post on this issue. Enough has been said already. Since the FTC clearly stated they won’t prosecute first-time offenders but rather give them a chance to comply, I’ll wait until they shed more light before I return to this topic.

OK, enough blather. On with the show.

The biggest gripe most people have is with the “typical versus atypical” conundrum, especially because of the challenge they have in adequately determining, measuring, and publishing what is considered typical and what people can normally expect.

In some cases, this is virtually impossible to predict. Therefore, my opinion in here will be particularly useful in those cases. Of course, all disclaimers above apply.

First off, I think people are needlessly freaking out.

Admittedly, my post, “Is This The End of Affiliate Marketing?” didn’t help as it stirred up the pot. So I’m just as guilty as the best of them. But my concerns are real and justified.

In my defense, I did add updates at the end of the post, including links to supplemental interviews given by the FTC. It is from these updates and example scenarios from the FTC themselves that I’m drawing these conclusions in this post.

(Plus, aside from testimonials proper, affiliate marketing still remains a problematic issue as it relates to the guidelines. It only takes one rogue affiliate who doesn’t comply to cause you more headaches and grief than you can possibly ever imagine.)

Nevertheless, testimonials don’t necessarily need to be “typical.” The point I believe the FTC is getting at is to ensure people have reasonable, realistic expectations.

Since time immemorial, there have been truth-in-advertising laws. The latest FTC guidelines don’t really change much, except that they’re catching up to realities and technologies of today, such as blogs, social media, and the Internet in general.

Here’s what they’re saying, in a nutshell.

The truth is no longer good enough.

What the FTC wants is more than just telling the truth. Because, while something can be technically true, it still can be misleading. Deceptive. Delusive. Even downright false.

Until now, you can post a testimonial that’s 100% accurate and true. But it might still be misleading if it lacks enough context so that people can understand and appreciate what they can generally expect from using your product. After all, expectation is key.

From what I’ve read, it’s not about making sure the testimonial is typical. It’s making sure it doesn’t mislead readers into thinking such results are typical when they’re not.

For example, say you sell a marketing program. Someone tries it out and makes $5,000 in one week. This might be true, but what the testimonial failed to include are the circumstances, which are unique, under which those results were achieved.

Specifically, if the person who made $5,000 is not your typical user — such as someone well-versed in marketing, has an established business, and possesses a list of 20,000 subscribers — then the testimonial must insure that people know this from the onset.

Any newbie, without any business or marketing experience, and particularly without any list, may not achieve “$5,000 in one week.” Therefore, the testimonial might be true, but it is still misleading because people now generally expect this result to be the norm.

See the problem?

You’ve heard of the saying “lying by omission?” This is the case, here. While accurate, the testimonial is inherently misleading and false. Or false by omission, to be precise.

So testimonials need to be both real and realistic.

In other words, if the testimonial’s results are atypical, it needs to be stated in the testimonial itself or near it — not as a disclaimer but as qualifying information that puts the testimonial in proper context so people know what to generally expect.

So what you can do, which is that simple solution I was alluding to earlier, is something I’ve been teaching for many years in copywriting. Even on this blog. And it is this…

Convert your testimonials into case studies.

Case studies are more powerful than blatant testimonials. They give testimonials clarity, context, measurability, and weight. And best of all, case studies make testimonials more believable and concrete, which may even boost your sales.

(I know. I’ve tested this thoroughly.)

As John Carlton mentioned on that call we had, when the FTC forced advertisers to put ‘this is an advertisement’ near an advertorial in magazines and newspapers, marketers rushed to denounce the practice, saying it would kill their sales.

But in many cases, quite the opposite happened. It actually bumped up response.

I think the same thing is going to happen here. In the hands of a skilled copywriter, which is why good copywriting is going to be even more important as time goes on, these new requirements will become powerful tools that will dramatically boost response.

Now, let’s use the FTC’s own examples to illustrate this.

In their document, the FTC listed a ton of example scenarios. I’m going to base mine on their “WeightAway Shake” scenario (i.e., example #4 under guideline § 255.2, titled “Consumer Endorsements”). Here’s a possible testimonial you might come across:

“I ate two WeightAway shakes each day and lost 15 pounds in one week!”

First, the question to ask is, can someone really lose 15 pounds in one week? Let’s say it is true. The testimonial is not misleading only if people can expect that to be the norm (i.e., losing 15 pounds in one week by eating two WeightAway shakes a day).

But let’s say that person did a bit more. More than what her testimonial revealed. Let’s say she walked three miles every day and ate sensibly (e.g., nothing fatty or fried) during that time. With the help of those two shakes a day, she lost 15 pounds.

Therefore, the testimonial, while true, is misleading because it failed to highlight that the person also walked three miles every day and ate sensibly. The testimonial lacks context, and can therefore be interpreted, by itself, to be realistic when it is not.

So either the testimonial needs to state that, or you need to have copy on or around it that says, “Along with eating sensibly and waking three miles a day, Janice had this to say: ‘I ate two WeightAway shakes each day and lost 15 pounds in one week’.”

That, I’m gathering, is what the FTC really wants.

The advertisement accurately describes the woman’s experience, and such a result is within the range that would be generally experienced by an overweight individual who consumed WeightAway shakes, ate sensibly, and exercised as the endorser did.

As the FTC notes within that example (I’ve edited parts to reflect my example above):

Because the endorser clearly describes the limited and truly exceptional circumstances under which she achieved her results, the ad is not likely to convey that consumers who use WeightAway under less extreme circumstances will lose (15 pounds in one week). If the advertisement simply says that the endorser lost (15 pounds in one week) using WeightAway (or using WeightAway together with just “diet and exercise”), however, this description would not adequately alert consumers to the truly remarkable circumstances leading to her weight loss.

So by adding context, the ad is likely to convey that her experience is not representative of what consumers will generally achieve, unless they have those same or similar circumstances. Sure, it might communicate the product is effective. But it’s not misleading.

In short, it’s about either setting up realistic expectations, or avoiding unrealistic ones.

Again, a testimonial needs to be not only real but also realistic.

At best, couple your testimonial with results one can realistically expect. This is what the FTC wants, as stated in their guidelines. It’s what consumers want, too, I’m sure.

The goal is to convey what is generally expected from using your product. To make people aware of what is typical. If you can state what your program or product can reasonably achieve in the hands of the average consumer, then you must add it.

My initial contention is that, in some cases, such as the case of a training program, all results are arguably atypical — as results vary tremendously with every individual.

Then the best way is to ensure those exceptional circumstances are clearly delineated. Not with some blanket disclaimer, which is no longer enough. But with a clear understanding of how, and under what circumstances, those results were achieved.

If there are no “typical results,” then add context so people can understand the endorser’s unique or exceptional circumstances, as to prevent them from coming to the conclusion that such results are realistic and expected in all circumstances.

Again, I might be wrong. I’m sure you will point it out to me, if you think I am. Remember, I’m not a lawyer. But I think that, as time goes on, we’re going to see more and more testimonials presented in the form of case studies. Mark my words.

It’s simply commonsensical. For one, converting your testimonials into case studies help to create realistic expectations. Second, they make testimonials far more credible and believable. And third, doing so will, I believe, dramatically boost your sales, too.

Ultimately, in the hands of a good copywriter, this can become potentially powerful.

Give Your Testimonials a Reality Check originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

It’s obvious the FTC’s intent is to curb, control, and go after those nefarious flogs (i.e., “fake blogs”), like Google Money and Acai Berry. But the language is left to be desired and, if not clarified, can lead to some serious repercussions.

Especially for affiliate marketers.

Based on what I’ve read, I can easily interpret “affiliates” and “vendors” falling in what the FTC dubs as “endorsers” and “advertisers.” (According to TechCrunch, the FTC has responded and clarified this somewhat, which I will come back to in a moment.)

In its new rulings, they make two powerful points. Points I agree with. At least, in intent. TechCrunch did a great job fleshing out the changes and its implications. The most important of which is the fact that the FTC can fine you $11,000 per infraction.

But these two biggest changes, which also may become problematic, are…

1) Authenticity

We must be authentic in our claims and testimonials. That’s common sense, and I applaud the ruling. But also we must show they are atypical, and to buttress any claim or testimonial with one that the consumer can reasonably expect from using the product.

This, in itself, opens a huge can of worms.

If a product is new, untested, or not used as intended by the user — which is, sad to say, what the typical user fails to do most of the time and over which we have no control — then how can we share what we believe the user will reasonably expect?

Let’s say you sell a diet pill. There is only one way to consume it. Plus, there’s only one result. You either lose weight or you don’t. Simple. And in this case, you can carry out scientific analysis to measure the results in order to discover what is typical.

For instance, you simply get 100 people to take your pill, measure their results, and post the average. And you can make them aware of the average result. Easy, peasy.

But in the case of a marketing or business-building training program, which teaches multiple strategies, multiple concepts, for multiple types of businesses, in multiple markets, the problem is that there is no “one size fits all” of using this product. It’s impossible.

(And most how-to or do-it-yourself information products fall in that category.)

Every single user of that training program will have a different result. There is no such thing as “typical.” In fact, by the very existence of such a training program, all results are atypical. So the question is, how do you comply with the new legislation?

That said, if you do offer a one-size-fits-all product, or one with a singular, measurable result, then can you simply say, “If used as directed, you should get [typical result]?”

According to the FTC, you no longer can.

The older rule said that having a blanket disclaimer (somewhere, such as a link at the bottom of a sales page), to show that results are atypical and that individual results may vary, is no longer possible. The FTC says we “no longer have this safe harbor.”

The next problematic issue is the one of liability. If I’m an affiliate and point to or reprint testimonials given to me by the affiliate vendor, and they are “atypical,” am I therefore liable? According to the FTC, I am. And that makes sense. In theory.

But in practice, it’s a potential nightmare waiting to happen. (I’ll come back to this in the second point below, as it is an important one we need to look into and cannot ignore.)

2) Disclosure

If the endorser has a relationship with the sponsor, they must disclose it. Even if it’s a payment “in kind” or any material connection between endorser and advertiser, such as an exchange of exposure, free products or services, even contests and joint ventures.

(How about if it’s just buying them a beer? But I digress.)

Again, this makes sense. But does that mean we have to tell everyone when an affiliate link is an affiliate link? What about other media, such as social media like Twitter? (The FTC did mention “social media,” too.) How can you do this in 140 characters or less?

What will be interesting is to see how the FTC clarifies these rulings (on a “case-by-case basis,” they say). But liability is an important issue and not to be taken lightly.

For example, let’s say one of my less-than-ethical affiliates blogs about me. They lie in their endorsement or review, exaggerate some of the claims I make, or simply fail to indicate their affiliate relationship with me. All of which are things I have little control over.

Now, here’s the rub.

The new rule stipulates that the advertiser and endorser are both liable. Does “advertiser” mean “vendor?” That is, the affiliate program owner? Meaning, are we, as vendors, also liable for what our affiliates say, sell, promote, or blog about?

Again, it makes sense that we should. To a degree. But what if the affiliate goes rogue, and uses unacceptable practices to bump up their sales? Sure, they broke the terms of their affiliate agreement. We can cancel their accounts and forfeit their commissions.

But the damage is done. And believe me, the government has a long memory.

Here’s my question. When the FTC says that the “advertiser” and “endorser” are liable, do they mean exclusively? Or inclusively? In other words, do they mean that either one is liable, specifically the one who engaged in unethical (and now, illegal) practices?

Or do they mean both are liable, regardless of who’s at fault?

My friend, Armand Morin, in a personal exchange, said this…

The way I read it as well is that the vendor is ultimately responsible. If you have a rogue affiliate and they do not disclose that it’s a promotion and they are being paid to do so, then you are the responsible party as well as they are.

It reads, though, that the ($11,000) fine comes to to the company and not the actual affiliate. I may be wrong on this, but it looks that way. Bottom line, it’s not a good thing.

Either way, “this is a game-changer,” says Armand. And I agree.

This could literally mean a ton of affiliate programs shutting down, if this is the case. For some marketers, their entire businesses, which rely heavily on affiliate promotions, would die — or at best, be forced to make huge overhauls to their affiliate systems.

Because it’s now too risky to operate an affiliate program.

Or in an attempt to comply with the new rules, they must carry out an expensive, labor-intense application and review process, where they must vet, qualify, and monitor every single affiliate. And do so with hundreds, even thousands, of existing ones.

Logistically, it’s another nightmare.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen. Clarity is going to be key. Some people have blogged about their concerns and need for clarity. For example, this blogger posted a rather interesting, and somewhat sarcastic, open letter to the FTC. And it makes sense.

Sure, it has less to do with affiliate marketing, but some questions are relevant — and applicable — to our industry as well. For instance, the third question in that open letter can be easily extrapolated to the affiliate space just as well. It says…

If an unpaid blogger at the Huffington Post “endorses” a consumer product without meeting the FTC guidelines for disclosure of “material connections” to the makers of that consumer product, who’s liable: the blogger or the Huffington Post?

However, in the TechCrunch post linked earlier, the author posted a response from the FTC, which did not appear on the original blog post. The FTC clarified a few points, but at the same time they opened up several new questions. Here was their response…

Update: The FTC responds

When asked if the FTC views bloggers equally and whether or not it recognizes levels of authority on par with traditional media, Mary Engle, associate director for advertising practices, clarified its position and perspective, “All bloggers aren’t the same and we are not saying that all bloggers are marketers. Most of them are ordinary folks musing or sounding off. The question as we put it in the notice we published today is whether, viewed objectively, the blogger is being sponsored by the advertiser. (We list a number of factors to consider.) Independent product reviewers, whether offline or online, would not be viewed as sponsored by the company whose products they are reviewing.”

Engle further observed the distinction between expert and consumer bloggers, “But if bloggers regularly receive free products from a company, the blog audience might view their reviews differently than if they went out and bought the products on their own. Under those circumstances, bloggers should disclose they got the products from the company. This is consistent with the WOMMA code of ethics. And, companies who use bloggers to generate buzz about their products by sending free merchandise should have a policy that their bloggers should disclose.”

I think this clarifies it somewhat, because those who create blogs and, on occasion, have product reviews such as affiliate marketers who are, according to the FTC, “independent product reviewers,” are not the ones who are targeted in this case.

But are affiliate marketing vendors still safe?

Granted, the FTC appears to be aiming for blogs where “the blogger is being sponsored by the advertiser.” And that “independent product reviewers, whether offline or online, would not be viewed as sponsored by the company whose products they are reviewing.”

But it’s still a little muddy. For example, is affiliate marketing considered “sponsored advertising?” Or is an affiliate marketer an “independent product reviewer?” I think — and hope — the FTC will be clarifying its position soon. I know they will as we go along.

We’ll just have to wait and see, I guess.

But for some people, waiting, taking the risk, and possibly becoming the target of the FTC who wishes to make an example out of them, may be too much to bear.

Update: To those who think my intent is to fearmonger, be alarmist, or bring non-issues to the forefront (as some people pointed out that the FTC is not going after affiliate marketers but singling out the “rogues”), please think again.

Update #2: The folks over at FastCompany interviewed FTC representatives to clarify some of its rulings, and it did make some of it a little clearer to appease certain fears. The gist from the interview comes down to three important clarifications:

1) Complaint-Driven

The FTC stated they won’t have reviewers scouring the web on a regular basis searching for violators. They will work mostly on a case-by-case basis, based on complaints. They will rely more heavily on education and voluntary compliance than prosecution.

2) Three-Strike Process

They will not fine offenders at first. Again, prosecution won’t be their first aim. They will instead follow a three-step process with which they give offenders some time to redress and comply. Even with the most flagrant offenders and “wost-case scenarios.”

They will start by issuing a warning. If that doesn’t work, then they will send a cease and desist. And finally, if all else fails, then they will fine the offender up to $11,000.

3) (Perceived) Authority

Casual affiliate links or product reviews are fine. What the FTC seems to be really going after are blogs that are more extensive, either as recognized authorities themselves, or perceived as authorities by blogging about one particular product or business.

I’m not a lawyer. But my guess is, if your blog is all about reviews but has multiple affiliate links, you should be fine. But if you’re an authority, or if your blog is all about a particular product or business, you must clearly disclose your relationship and compensation.

For instance, TechCrunch does reviews on a regular basis. They are considered an authority. So they are expected to disclose. Same with blogs dedicated to entire products, such as those Acai Berry blogs or Google Money blogs.

Remember the Wal-Mart “trip around America” fiasco, where a couple was blogging about their experiences by driving to Wal-Marts from state to state? The flak that followed was because they failed to disclose they were being paid by Wal-Mart.

Their blog was entirely focused on their travels. Hence, it had perceived authority.

The bottom-line?

If you own an affiliate program, I think most of your affiliates are safe. But if you have one affiliate who decides to set up an entire blog or website dedicated to a single product or business, they must disclose their relationship as there is perceived authority.

That makes perfect sense. While these clarifications help a lot, and now a clearer picture is emerging, some questions still remain unanswered. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Update #3: My good friend Jim Edwards grilled FTC Director Richard Cleland on the new laws coming into effect on December 1st. Absolutely golden information. If you’re confused or worried about these new laws, you must watch this video. It’s excellent.

Is This The End of Affiliate Marketing? originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

I’m seeing a growing number of comment spam lately. Not the usual, software-driven kind — Akismet and Disqus do a wonderful job to keep those at bay. But the ones that look, on the surface, as legitimate comments.

Legitimate, they are not.

They are faux comments masking as real ones for the express purpose of siphoning traffic. Called “friendly comment spam,” they are typically simple, often just a sentence or two, and most of them are generic, irrelevant, and complimentary in nature.

Believe me, I love praise like most people. But just saying “nice blog” (or “nice article,” “nice post,” “good job,” “love this post,” etc) does not constitute a comment. They are not contributing anything to the conversation, or anything of value to my readers.

I talked about this on Twitter and on Facebook, and while most people agreed with me, some were opposed. One person said that many of these commentators are aspiring copywriters and that I should be grateful for such a problem.

My guess is, what this person is saying is that I should care about my fans, allow these comments, and give them the credit by letting them siphon some of my “traffic juice.”

But they don’t understand.

Let me put aside the whole “I owe it to them” issue for now, because that’s a whole other topic — one I have very strong opinions about. And if you’ve been following me for some time, you know exactly what I mean. For now, let’s stick with the spam issue.

Sure, praise from an aspiring copywriter makes sense. Or a veteran one. Or a marketer, entrepreneur, or just a loyal reader. I’m OK with those. After all, the comment makes sense and I do want to give back to my fans, as this person implied.

But don’t patronize me.

The fact is, I often get these curt comments that contain just a few words, along with links to real estate opportunities, SEO services, casinos, MLM offers, and even porn sites.

Er, thanks. But no thanks.

Now, you may think like the commenter above who said, “So what?” But I have over 50 blogs in a variety of niches. And when some of these comments are posted on multiple blogs, and they are exactly the same, word for word, from the same commenter…

… I get a bad taste in my mouth.

The worst part is, there are some services out there where you can outsource this, where you’re able to hire people to do this for you en masse. Not some automated software or robot, but real, actual people masquerading as you.

(The worst come from foreign electronic sweatshops. “You mean, I can get a ton of comments on other blogs for only five cents per comment? Oooooh, sign me up!”)

This mindset was rampant — I’m sure it still is — in the days when I use to own and run a discussion forum for copywriters. I remember having to delete posts and ban a ton of these fake forum spammers every single day.

A few gurus would teach their students about signing up on multiple discussion forums, add a link in their signature file, and just post away — without care or concern about the topic of discussion, let alone the forum’s audience or etiquette rules.

I’m confident some of these gurus are saying the same thing about blogs.

Either way, these fake friendly comments are a scourge.

As Larry Winget replied to my comment on Facebook:

“I delete every person who does that to me. They have NO interest in what you have to say but are only promoting their agenda to YOUR fan base and friends. Dump ‘em!”

Granted, I don’t mind people — or people who hire people — who legitimately look for worthwhile, highly trafficked blogs in one’s niche, and post a relevant comment whose purpose is more or less to gain search engine juice, backlinks, and traffic.

I love my commenters, my readers, and my fans, and I certainly want them to join in on the conversation and get exposure for their own sites, too.

(By the way, the whole issue of “follow” versus “nofollow” on external links is a touchy one, particularly lately with the whole pagerank sculpting debate. But that’s another topic altogether, and a different post for another day.)

However, there’s a difference between real and fake comments.

A real comment contributes to the conversation. If they are complimentary or congratulatory, they genuinely appear as thanking me for the post. Either that or they have commented on other posts in the past, and have shown to be genuine.

What do I mean by “they genuinely appear as thanking me?”

When someone posts “nice article,” it’s usually followed by an extra sentence or two about what they pulled from or liked about the article. Those types of comments, although they can be questionable at times, are, in general, acceptable.

Now, praise is one thing. But there’s the opposite, too. In other words, faultfinders and naysayers who only bitch, whine, criticize, and create fake controversy, oftentimes for the sake of stirring the pot and drumming up traffic as a result.

Even those who don’t care about the traffic but criticize without contributing anything of substance in return are just as bad as the fake compliments.

I don’t mind people who oppose me. I’m a fan of healthy, productive, and mature debate between adults. I don’t mind being challenged on my opinions and I always listen to what others have to say. That’s the beauty of having comments!

But there’s a difference between a critique and a criticism.

Between being critical and being a critic.

The former express what they dislike, and expand on it by offering something we — my readers and I — can chew on. They perhaps offer a suggestion or two on how to make things better, if not at least an opinion as to why, exactly, they disagree with me.

The latter, on the other hand, are firebrands and faultfinders. Braggarts and bullies. Hecklers and hatemongers. They even occasionally resort to namecalling.

Now, simply telling me you don’t agree with me means absolutely nothing, and it means much less when your comment includes spiteful, unfounded, or egregious commentary.

Lately, I’ve seen a rash of blogs who avoid the issue altogether by turning off comments. In these cases, the only way you can comment on an article is by posting one on your own blog and tracking back to it, or talking about it on some social network.

I won’t do this. I think it’s rather aggressive, and I prefer to control the comments by allowing them on my blog. I love my fans and readers, and I also want to hear what you have to say. In fact, some of the best ideas actually came from my blog’s comments.

It’s all about social media, interaction, and community.

So instead, I’ve decided to implement a new comment policy on this blog starting immediately. I will be posting it on its own page in the future, but for now you can read them below. It’s simple, really. There are only three rules…

1. First and foremost, the number one rule is respect. If your comment contains meaningless content, off-topic content, abusive language, personal attacks, spam, or illegal activities, it will be promptly deleted. Bullies, spammers, and faultfinders need not reply. Stay on topic. And think twice before you post.

2. Show your appreciation through action, not words. If you really do appreciate my content, I prefer you show your appreciation by sharing the link (such as on Twitter, Facebook, or any other social site), sending me a tip (see link at the end of this post, after my “about the author” section), or offering something valuable for my readers. Even better, post on your own blog and trackback to this website or post.
3. Critiques, debates, and challenges are welcome. If, on the other hand, you dislike something I said, the same rules apply. Share with us why you dislike my blog post, why you disagree with me, and what you believe is a better alternative. Your voice will not only be heard but also carry far more weight if you do it this way.

I look forward to your comments. Keep in mind, though, all comments are moderated and will be reviewed before approval, usually within 24 hours. Comments may be edited (to make them compliant with the above rules) or deleted, at my discretion, without notice.

I’m not perfect. So the occasional comment that fails to abide by any of these rules may unintentionally slip through the cracks. If you catch one, remember that you can also flag and report comments, too. I will review them as soon as I can.

Bottom line, be relevant, be genuine, and be nice.

Flustered by Fake Friendly Comments originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

People keep asking me, “Do they really work?” You bet!

The tip jar is really a “buy me a beer or coffee” PayPal donation link automatically inserted with the help of this excellent plugin. And since installing it about three years ago, I’ve been getting on average 4-5 tips a month.

Some were meant to thank me for specific posts, particularly my most popular articles. However, I must add that the passionate rants seem to get the biggest tips.

Nevertheless, I never publicly acknowledged these people individually, and I didn’t really want to in case some of them would prefer to remain confidential. But I wanted to take a moment to say a big “thank you” to all of you who have sent a tip my way.

You guys are awesome! I appreciate you.

Your continued support and loyalty means the world to me.

Thank You For Your Generosity And Support! originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

But there is a limit. And I think we need to be careful. Because social media is like a drug. It can become dangerously addictive. It can even kill your business.

Social media seems to be the current fad. Everybody’s in on it like it’s one big cocktail party you just don’t want to leave.

But the way social media is currently being touted, hyped up, and used (or should I say, abused), is reminiscent of something that happened way back in the 90s.

(I’ll come back to this in a moment.)

Yesterday, I watched a brilliant video by Loren Feldman. Feldman has a tell-it-like-it-is style. While he may be blunt and use strong language to voice his opinion, he is never afraid to voice it. Regardless of what I think of his style, his video resonated with me.

In it, he drove home an important point. I believe what he talked about is not only right, but also something we need to realize and become wise about before we needlessly kill our businesses. And that’s ignoring the most important place on the web…

… Our own websites.

The premise is simple: social media may be cool and fun, and it may even be productive for some people. But don’t forget to take care of the one place — the only place — that really matters. And that’s your own website. Your blog. Your domain.

Lately, I’ve seen a lot of bloggers talk about the “death of blogging.”

Recently, A-list blogger Steve Rubel has moved away from blogging and converted his blog into a “lifestream” using social media platform Posterous. Some have indicated this is a sign that blogging is on its way out, while others like Brian Clark opposed the notion.

This isn’t anything new. When Twitter first began, Robert Scoble wrote a piece on the “Twitter threat” a few years back, as did Mashable and a slew of others.

First of all, blogging is certainly not dead. Or dying.

Remember that blogging is no different than a typical website. It’s simply a content management system (CMS). It’s just another content delivery platform.

Saying that blogging is dying is like saying that websites are dying. And since websites are an intrinsic part of the web, it’s like saying that the web itself is dying, which we all know that’s far from being the case. Evolving? Sure. But not dying.

My thoughts are, social media is attracting casual bloggers and, by the same token, making the blogosphere leaner and meaner. In my estimation, the quality of blogging has substantially increased since the introduction of micro-blogging platforms.

I submit that it’s because Twitter has forced hobby-bloggers and dabblers to migrate to Twitter. (Ditto with Facebook “walls,” FriendFeed, Posterous, and the like.)

Casual bloggers much prefer micro-blogging platforms because it’s less work. It’s an outlet for posting their meandering thoughts and senseless streams of consciousness, which is what they used to use their blogs for in the first place.

Those who have converted from blogging to micro-blogging are less inclined to blog regularly, with a purpose in mind, or for business. Social media is what it is: social. It’s a place to socialize, not one in which to do business — at least, not directly.

And it shouldn’t be.

I also submit that, if they wasted time blogging, micro-blogging will be no different and probably even more distracting, anyway. Which is probably what they really want.

So it will certainly attract those who blogged casually, for no other purpose than to waste time, make friends, or post gossip. It may have attracted those who used blogging simply as a means of publicizing their blather or being more visible.

(Feldman, in his video mentioned earlier, made a great point when he said social media thrive on people’s fears. The fear of being alone and not being heard. But I digress.)

Invariably, this exodus has opened up the floor to better bloggers and better blogs.

Aside from the fact that Twitter may have extracted casual, dabbling bloggers from the mainstream, there are other, possibly more important and practical reasons for this.

Maybe it’s because bloggers test more on Twitter before they put their content to a blog. Maybe they get real-time feedback on the quality of their content before they publish it. Or maybe Twitter has given bloggers the opportunity to post their less important stuff there, leaving their blogs for better, more purposeful communications.

Who knows?

But what I do know is that I’ve seen a jump in the quality of blogs and blog content in recent times. Whatever is left seems to have become stronger, tighter, better written, more compelling, and certainly more interesting than before. In my estimation, anyway.

However, as the Rudyard Kipling saying goes, “Never the twain shall meet.” By that I mean, blogging is definitely a part of the social media space. But I don’t think social media should be a part of — let alone replace — blogging.

I agree that social media is fragmenting. We saw this with the explosion in TV channels. But it’s becoming way too fragmented, especially in an age of convergence.

Fragmentation is normal. But just because media is becoming more fragmented doesn’t mean we need to fragment our marketing efforts — much less our content, too.

And to those who think they need to be on every social media “channel” in an effort to be in front of as many eyeballs as possible, think again.

For example, do you sell golf balls? Common wisdom dictates that you should advertise on the Golfing Channel. But just because TV is fragmented with over 500+ channels on every topic imaginable, it doesn’t mean you need to be on all of them.

Ditto with social media.

If you distribute your content, you still own your content. If it’s syndicated, it still comes from your own domain or blog. Or at least you should have control over it. And the reason is, you should have a way to own and/or control your traffic, as well.

But fragmentation doesn’t mean syndication.

It seems like the social space is becoming just one big mesh of various time-wasting social hangouts. Too many, in fact. Some do provide value. But I think we’re going to start seeing some of these fall by the wayside and weed themselves out.

And when they do, what will happen to your content, let alone the people who were (for the lack of a better word) “trained” to expect and consume your content on these sites?

The one I fear will suffer such a predicament is Twitter.

Sure, Twitter is extremely popular right now. But if Twitter doesn’t monetize itself soon, we will see it die, replaced, or overrun by another, newer social medium that has found a way to monetize itself. And believe me, it will happen if they don’t do something about it.

I’m not the only one who thinks that way. Here’s an interesting take on the topic by my friend and top Internet marketer Armand Morin. The issue, according to him, is that Twitter is not a destination. It’s a conduit — one that others can easily bypass.

In other words, you can use Twitter without using Twitter.com (I use TweetDeck, for instance). The problem, therefore, is that Twitter doesn’t own or control its traffic. The one asset they do have and may possibly monetize is the content they host.

Yes, that’s your content!

Similarly, with television commercials, you don’t run your business on TV. You reach people through TV. In the same way, you may run an online business but you still own your business — including your content, your traffic, and particularly, your brand.

If you advertise on TV, the TV station doesn’t own your products. If you buy some airtime to broadcast your show, they certainly can’t take it and do what they want with it. But social media websites have that capacity to some degree.

Don’t think I’m exaggerating. Remember the recent Facebook fine-print fiasco?

So in reality, social media is not really media like TV, radio, or even the Internet. They are more like channels on them. Even then, these stations don’t own your content, much less dictate how you distribute your content — and how others should consume it.

But social media can. And some do.

Admittedly, I like posting small bits of content on Twitter and Facebook. It’s no different than going to a social function. And I’ve tried FriendFeed, Ping.fm, LinkedIn, MySpace, and Posterous. (And many others, too.) But it all scares me somewhat.

Sure, posting a tidbit in one place and having it posted to multiple places at the same time is a great to spread your social authority, your brand, and your visibility. But at the same time, it has the power to dilute, diminish, and devalue them, too.

Admittedly, I’m guilty of this. I’m starting to see social creep in my own communications, which is why I need to stop, cut the excess fat, streamline my content, and focus.

I hate having too many places to post. I hate having “too many hands” on my content.

The problem with doing it this way is, it’s risky. If they ever die or get acquired, you’re screwed. Plus, it not only dilutes your value and your content, but also, to borrow an analogy, you run the risk of “catching something” along the way.

What I mean is, some of these sites may have terms that can potentially threaten the ownership, control, and integrity of your material. By using them you inadvertently may have given them the right to use, distribute, and modify your content as they see fit.

More importantly, it is a disservice to your audience.

Why? Because, for one, by trying to be on too many social websites, you are educating your market to consume your content in only these locations, particularly among all the white noise and clutter. Thus, you risk them missing out on your valuable content.

Second, you’re spreading yourself thin. If any of these websites die, change, move, or raise the barrier of entry along the way (such as by charging users a fee or inundating them with ads), who do you think they are going to be frustrated with?

These social sites? Try again.

So the key is focus, focus, focus.

Focus on your brand. Your content. Your traffic. Your audience.

Now, I admit Facebook is cool because I use it to connect with family and real friends (i.e., high school friends, long-distance cousins, old workplace colleagues, etc). And Twitter is fun. I love posting interesting links, websites I’ve seen, tips I encounter, etc.

But if content is king, then my blog is the castle!

Be the master of your own domain (yes, pun intended). For if you offer truly valuable content, people will find you. And the people who do find you are the people who count.

Now, earlier I said I’m starting to see something reminiscent of the 90s.

Here’s what I meant…

Social junkies are no different than affiliate junkies. You know what I’m talking about, right? Those garish-looking websites plastered with blinking affiliate banner ads in the hope that someone will click on them, buy, and make them money.

They are junkies in the truest sense of the word. Like an unquenchable drug addiction, they keep plastering junk ads on their websites in an effort to maximize clicks and sales. But how is that any different than free-for-all linkfarms? I’ve said this before…

Give people too many choices and they won’t make one.

In Internet marketing, they say it’s better to create, own, or sell your own products. You get higher profit margins, you have greater control over your marketing funnel, and you own your lists for optimal backend marketing. It’s the same with social media.

I’m not saying that affiliate marketing is wrong. Au contraire. There’s lots of money to be made in affiliate marketing, and I recommend it myself, particularly if you’re just starting out. Same thing with social media, too. I don’t think it’s wrong.

But being an affiliate junkie is highly ineffective. And so is being a social media junkie.

Instead, focus on your own domain or blog. If you must, stick with one or two social sites. But be the master of your own domain, your niche, your content, and your audience.

And don’t become a social jack-of-all-trades.

Don’t join every single social networking site out there, posting on as many of them as you can, and plastering your blog with badges and banners and widgets and gadgets.

Speaking of which, have you not noticed how some blogs are becoming more and more mind-numbingly cramped and cluttered these days? Like Facebook badge this, Google connect that, MyBlogLog community this, follow-me-on-Twitter that. Oh, my!

Too much is too much. It just makes these overzealous websites look like one big blur of white noise all competing for your attention (and getting none of it), which is no different than those blinking, dizzying, seizure-inducing affiliate junkie sites.

Bottom line, take control of your content.

By fragmenting yourself instead of focusing on your own blog, you run the risk of losing control over your content, your traffic, and above all, your audience.

Think of it as the difference between renting and owning. Going to parties rather than hosting one of your own. Extracting quantity versus attracting quality.

Finally, let me end this by going back to the cocktail party analogy for a moment.

Social media is like a plethora of cocktail parties. It’s OK to go to some of them and hang out. But you can’t be at all of them at the same time, let alone stand out at each one.

Say you’re looking to find real friends and make real connections. If so, bar hopping won’t get you any friends. Or lucky, if that’s your wish. No, it will only get you drunk.

Look at it this way. Cocktail parties are great for networking, gossiping, and socializing. But nothing beats a party I host in my own house. And that’s my blog.

Be a host of the party instead of some faceless partygoer who’s voice is drowning among the white noise that people won’t ever notice much less remember.

Let others syndicate your content for you, link back to you, talk about you on social sites, recommend you, and drive traffic to you. Let others do the talking, in other words. Provide quality content and value, and serve others well. And others will talk about you.

In short, don’t be the life of the party. Be the talk of the party.

Social Media Isn’t Dead, But It Can Be Deadly originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

However, from most of the comments I’ve read, including some of the positive ones, it seems a lot of people missed the point I was trying to convey. They thought it was about Facebook usernames and therefore no big deal.

Well, it wasn’t about Facebook specifically. It was about having integrity and respect, and doing what’s right.

They missed it, and that was probably my fault. My passion for the topic and opposition to the concept of “friendly extortion,” which I blogged about in the past, caused me to write more forcefully than the norm, and I was less than clear than I should have been.

Facebook wasn’t the problem. It just so happened to be the tool used in this case. It was more about the scarcity mindset and the sense of entitlement people have in thinking this was acceptable behavior and that we should tolerate it.

So I wanted to clear the air. I recorded this quick little video after I woke up this morning — oh, and please ignore the fashionable bed-head hairdo.

Please let me know what you think…

It’s Not About Facebook, It’s About Integrity originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

No, I’m not talking about the contested elections in Iran.

I’m talking about the recent Facebook username frenzy, when Facebook allowed its users to register usernames, making profile addresses shorter and more memorable.

Leading up to it, they used a countdown timer. Brilliant.

Last week, I was watching a movie with my wife Sylvie Fortin. At 12:01 AM, I decided to log onto Facebook using my iPhone, just to see. And wouldn’t you know it? I managed to secure Facebook.com/michelfortin for me, and Facebook.com/licorice for our fan page.

(Sylvie also captured “sylviefortin” for herself.)

The Licorice Group, LLC is the name of our publishing company, located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Obviously, “michelandsylviefortin” was way too long and would defeat the purpose of getting a shorter mnemonic. So I decided on “licorice.”

Anyway, you might be wondering why I said this was a kerfuffle. Well, hold on tight, because this one is a doozie (and there’s a marketing lesson in here, too)…

I couldn’t believe it when I saw some marketers who failed to get their very own names because of a few dumbass nitwits, with completely different names, decided it would be cool to register someone else’s well-known brand name.

Yes, as marketing experts, our names are brands.

It happened to my friends Ed Dale, John Reese, Darren Rowse, and a slew of others.

Some people call this cybersquatting, which we see often in the domain name space. One jokingly said, “cybersquatting on Facebook is facesquatting!” But I digress…

Needless to say, this irks me. I think it’s not only unscrupulous, mean, and dumb, but also I believe that people who do this kind of thing are downright scum.

Some marketers have cried foul. They said, “It’s trademark and copyright infringement.” Well, I don’t think it’s a copyright infringement. It might be a trademark one, although this is somewhat debatable since most names are not registered trademarks.

But registered or not, they are trademarks nonetheless.

Whether or not taking a well-known brand name infringes on another’s intellectual property, it can potentially lessen their commercial value, cause irreparable damage, and above all, create confusion in the marketplace…

… The very thing trademarks are meant to avoid in the first place.

Plus, it’s wrong. Very wrong.

But the issue I’m mostly upset about is something else — something that actually happened to one of my mentors and favorite experts, Larry Winget.

Larry Winget is a well-known brand. He’s an internationally renowned and sought-after speaker and consultant, and the author of many books, CDs, and DVDs, of which I own pretty much everything. Yes, I’m a huge fan.

But Larry encountered a problem that went way beyond simple “facesquatting,” and he blogged about his incredible displeasure and rightful outrage at such a tactic.

However, this seems to have rubbed quite a few people the wrong way. Tons of people commented on his blog. They were either for or against Larry’s attempt to publicly denounce this act. And some of the naysayers were very upset with Larry.

I respect other people’s opinions. I always love hearing how others see things differently. But on this blog post, some who opposed Larry’s “overreaction” went just as overboard.

Some stated that the issue was a small one, and that the person who infringed on Larry’s rights meant no harm. It was a small mistake in judgment, albeit a dumb one, but forgivable. And Larry should have been more tolerant.

Say what? Let’s take a closer look.

Someone took “larrywinget” as a username on Facebook. I believe — and I’m sure Larry feels the same way, too — that, if the person who took it was indeed called “Larry Winget,” it would have meant nothing to him. But it goes a lot deeper than that.

First of all, his name surely wasn’t Larry Winget.

But this is not where the story ends. This person registered Larry’s name — get this! — in an attempt to gain Larry’s attention, and perhaps affection for being so bold and creative, that he would be allowed to have an audience with Larry.

When I first read that, my head did a double-take. He went on to say that he would be prepared to give Larry back his name, “no questions asked,” and would understand if Larry refused to give him some of his time. (Double-take? Make that a triple.)

There are so many problems with this.

First off, Facebook was very clear that names cannot be transferred. What this person did was absolutely wrong because it pretty much forced Larry into a corner.

But it goes even further than that.

Short of not doing this at all, he should have changed his username, contacted Larry, apologized, and told Larry that, now that the name is available (by his changing it, that is), Larry should be able to change his username and re-capture “larrywinget.”

But he didn’t do that. Instead, he closed his account and fled, “like a coward,” says Winget, making any attempt to re-capture this newly released name futile.

So Larry was rightfully offended. On many levels. It’s not just about identity theft, which is wrong. It’s not just about trying to usurp free consulting, which is even worse.

It’s about the tremendous lack of integrity, courtesy, decency, and above all, respect. It’s about this person’s belief — and the belief of those who commented in support of him — that this is normal, totally acceptable, and completely forgivable.

After all, no malice was intended. Right?

Wrong. It’s not only sad, it’s downright insulting.

I think it’s a sad world when people’s sense of entitlement allows them to think they deserve it, they can get away with this stuff, their unethical if not illegal actions are excusable and justified, and these experts are “rich enough” to absorb it.

It’s an even sadder world when, while one feels they have the right to do this stuff, the other does not have the right to defend their name and reputation, or feel angry and offended simply because, as some people said, “it’s part of doing business.”

You’re kidding me, right?

If you think I’m arrogant, think again. I would applaud anyone trying creative ways to get my attention. After all, I’m in marketing and I love learning new ways to gain attention. And believe me, in my 20+ years as a consultant and copywriter, I’ve seen quite a few.

But at my expense? No way.

So Larry had every right to react the way he did.

The thief, and all of Larry’s detractors and the thief’s supporters who overreacted just as much, tend to forget the fact that Larry has to spend time to deal with this situation.

He has to take time out of his busy schedule, perhaps time away from working with his paying clients, to fix things and do some damage control. His blog post was part of it.

He had to, in part, to alert his readers, prospects, and followers why they can’t find him on Facebook, and why they might see someone else there instead.

Not only that, but Larry also has to absorb pecuniary losses caused by the confusion this has caused, such as the loss of sales and relationships created by the highjacking, as well as the damage to Larry’s name, reputation, and commercial value.

So he was justified in publicly voicing his concerns.

Now, to those who feel this was mere petty theft, I have a couple of issues to bring up.

First off, what this person did was more than just petty theft.

He stole Larry’s name, and then tried to steal his money by trying to coerce him for some free consulting. Plus, he even lied in his message and, finally, he left and deleted his account, forcing Larry to plead with Facebook and jump through needless hoops.

The first part may seem obvious, but you’re probably wondering why I said “he lied.”

You see, this person’s reply to Larry, which only occurred after Larry got in contact with him to find out what had happened — makes you wonder if he was going to contact Larry at all in the first place — included this interesting tidbit, edited for brevity:

“If not, I didn’t take your name on facebook to try and extort money from you or get anything else, so I am more than happy to turn the name over to you no questions asked.”

Read that again because it’s important.

Some people, quoting this passage, have commented this was evidence that he wasn’t trying to steal, squat, or do something malicious. That he had no ill-intent.

Oh, really? Those commentators failed to look at the rest of what he said, if you were to understand his true intent. Because in the previous paragraph, he said…

“I would love the opportunity to meet with you face to face (…) to bounce some ideas and questions off of you.”

I don’t know about you, but to me that’s a clear and conspicuous attempt at stealing Larry’s name in an effort to coerce free consulting from him. Sorry, but that’s extortion and it’s still wrong, no matter how petty or well-intended it might seem.

So this person not only stole Larry’s name, but also attempted to extort from him and lied about it, too. To me, that’s a three-striker right there, as in “three strikes and you’re out.” Even if each one seemed petty or insignificant, as a whole or individually.

If you, too, think this was merely petty, and that Larry overreacted, then something has certainly gone awry if people think nothing should have been done about it.

For example, just because I wanted to meet with my bank manager when I robbed the bank, even if I had every intention of returning the money, “no questions asked,” it doesn’t make it right. Or excusable. Or wrong for wanting to protect one’s assets.

In fact, the thief ended his message with:

“If it wasn’t me, it likely would have been someone else.”

It still doesn’t make it right!

What gives you the right to rob a bank? And to say, “Better me than someone else?”

I do equate this to stealing from a bank because, to me, it’s no different. Sure, there was no violence. Sure, there were no threats. And sure, there was no actual money stolen. But he did try to usurp Larry’s name, time, and expertise, let alone his reputation.

I recommended this brilliant video before on the whole idea of “free lunches.” It’s from one of my favorite consultants, Perry Marshall, entitled “Those who bite the hand that feeds them, lick the boot that kicks them.” I urge you to go and watch it.

Bottom line, respect goes both ways.

I can’t speak for Larry, but something tells me that, if this guy’s name was truly Larry Winget, Larry wouldn’t care much. I know there are other, well-known people named “Michel Fortin” out there. It wouldn’t have bothered me if they captured my name first.

Well, it would, but not that much. After all, it’s their name, too.

The problem is, this has nothing to do with taking a username. It’s about integrity. It’s about doing what is right. It’s about respecting Larry, his time, and his name.

If you think Larry went overboard for such a petty thing, I have two things to say:

1. When is doing something wrong no longer considered “petty”? Where do you draw the line? It might seem petty, and petty theft may indeed be petty. But it’s still theft.
2. It’s a slippery slope. And if you consider this insignificant, that tells me a lot about how much you value your own name, your time, and yes, your relationships.

Think about that last one.

Anyway, way to go, Larry.

Did Larry Winget Go Overboard? originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.

I’ve done something I should have done a long time ago.

And I feel liberated.

I recommend you do the same.

That is, I unsubscribed from 90% of the newsletters I was receiving. I deleted fearlessly. Unsubscribed relentlessly. Purged ruthlessly. Without blinking or looking back.

If you think it’s not a lot, let me give you a backstory. When I was the editor of The Internet Marketing Chronicles newsletter over a decade ago (which has since been acquired by the late Corey Rudl), I subscribed to a lot of email newsletters.

Yes, lots. Like over-a-thousand lots.

I’m a speed-reader, so getting that many emails was never a big challenge. And before you conclude I was an email junkie, let me give you a few reasons in my defense.

For one, I wanted to be up on things. I wanted to stay abreast of new changes, new marketing strategies, new software tools, and so on. (I still do.)

Second, it gave me a lot of fodder while writing editorials for the then popular newsletter. I’m proud to have been instrumental in helping them grow their list from 45,000 to 160,000 subscribers, and remember that 160,000 back in ’98 was quite a feat!

And third, these emails served me well as they were also used for research purposes. As an up-and-coming copywriter writing a lot for the Internet marketing crowd at the time, I wanted to see what others were saying, promoting, doing, emailing, and writing.

But this weekend, after last week’s ubiquitous mega-launch promotional emails started cluttering up my inbox, it became the proverbial straw that broke this camel’s back.

It all started when, during the past weekend, I happened to do some spring cleaning around the house. I cleaned out the garage, went through my closet, and dumped a lot of things I no longer wear, need, or use. (Salvation Army, here I come!)

Once I was done, however, and being in the purging mood, I decided to keep purging. So I started doing the same with my email, let alone my business and my mind.

I’ve purged my inbox and unsubscribed from hundreds of email lists.

Not 10 or 20, but hundreds!

Some had single lists. But others had quite a bit more. Most marketers have on average three or more autoresponders — especially if I was listed as an affiliate. In fact, with one marketer I was subscribed to 22 lists! I mean, twenty-bloody-two!

So I had to check, check, check… scroll down… and click “unsubscribe.” Then I’d rinse and repeat. Over and over again. For close to three hours.

Feeling liberated is an understatement.

Normally, I get about 1,000 emails a day (i.e., personal emails or newsletters, as we do have staff and multiple helpdesks to handle all of our business and support emails).

This morning, I woke up to nine. Yup, just nine emails.

Granted, it’s a holiday weekend, so I might see 15-25 tomorrow. Perhaps a bit more. But it’s a far cry from the traditional 200-500 I get first thing in the morning.

(Now, I’m anxious to see who really removed me, and if I was successful. It’s going to be interesting to see who keeps emailing me or who has ignored my unsubscribe request.)

By the way, I did this using my mobile phone, since my wife and I pledged to stay away from our computers during weekends. We both take weekends off, and our productivity has increased tenfold, if not more, because of it. (This purge will boost it more, I’m sure.)

I highly recommend you do the same. Taking weekends off, or at least one day, will be one of the best productivity boosters you will give yourself and your business.

Nevertheless, a major reason for the purge was the continuously decreasing quality in information, and the disproportionate increase in promotional or cloned messages.

When I first subscribed to many of these email lists, a good bunch of them were original, inspiring, newsworthy, and offered some great advice. And yes, many of them promoted — and some were for really cool products, which I no doubt bought.

(And boy, did I buy quite a bunch of them, too!)

Lately, however, too many emails contain the same, regurgitated platitudes.

Most are pushing the same mega-launch, or some less-than-original product that’s been recycled over 20 times, without being adequately compensated with emails containing information, education, or unique content. Even if it’s just news or commentary!

Now, you might say it’s because of blogging. But keep in mind, many email lists, which used to be consistently content-rich, have switched gears over time to become more blatantly promotional — particularly with the latest, flavor-of-the-week mega-launch.

The scales have tipped quite dramatically in the last decade.

I’m a diehard capitalist, and I do believe in promoting to your lists. I always look out for some great offers I might be interested in. But I do so, provided there’s a good mix of content and promotions to balance things out.

Balance overall, not just per individual marketer.

I don’t mind if it’s 50-50. Even 60-40 or 70-30. If my inbox was filled with more promotions than content, that’s fine. The problem is, it’s now 95% promotions and 5% content.

It’s a barrage of pitch-pushing, me-too madness gone awry. Everybody seems to promote the latest and greatest tactic or system-gaming course…

… Like “How to Gain 26,754 Twitter Followers in Just 72 hours!” or, “How This Backdoor Google Strategy Cranked Up My Rankings Overnight And Pounded a Gazillion Dollars Into My Bank Account… Without Lifting a Finger!”

I mean, seriously? You’re shooting me, right? Ugh.

What ever happened to solid, fresh, helpful information?

Before you go thinking I’m only trying to get information for free, no, I’m not trying to get information for free. My wife and I have a quarter-of-a-million dollar budget each year, to update our knowledge, skills, and tools, from which we spend without batting an eye.

But I remember the days when an email newsletter was exactly that: a NEWS-letter. Content-rich, perhaps with classified ads inside, or with the occasional “solo email” thrown in from time to time. (Oh, those were the good ol’ days. Sigh.)

Instead, the Internet has become awash in useless, platitude-filled, pitch-infested, repetitive messages that never teach anything, let alone say anything new.

(If I get another “bad news” email, I’m going to vomit.)

The sad part is, there are quite a few marketers out there for whom I have a great deal of respect, and whom I’ve been following for a very long time. For many years, in fact. They’re the last people I’d expect to turn to such tactics.

But alas, I’m astounded when out of the blue I get the same, tired, rehashed copy or product pitch from them. It not only irritates me, it also deeply disappoints me. I often say to myself, nodding, “Oh no, [guru's name], how could you?”

When I say there’s a gross lack of unique content online these days, I don’t mean to imply that information should always be brand-spanking new and totally original.

We always need basics. Fundamentals. Principles.

And we do need to revisit them from time to time.

(Right now, I think that need is more prevalent than ever.)

We need them for two reasons: one, many newbies are entering the Internet marketing space each and every day; and two, we need to stop working on just making money and start focusing on building businesses instead.

Tactics make money, but strategies build businesses. Money-making businesses. Businesses that create income and not just short-term cash infusions.

And all businesses will always rely on strong fundamentals and core marketing principles, even when you’ve convinced yourself that you don’t need them.

In fact, even though I think I’ve seen them all, I still love going back to the fundamentals and reading about marketing basics. Why? Because, while I’ve heard them before, they are taught differently, by a different person, with their own unique twist.

And I love learning how different people look at the same things I do.

Anyhow, I’ve decided to cut out the excess clutter. Just like some people are packrats and keep everything for fear of throwing something that they may one day need, nature abhors a vacuum, even when it comes to email.

You can’t have more good stuff come into your life when you’re filled to the rim with the not-so-good. Sure, I might miss out on something worthwhile by removing myself from so many lists. But I value my freedom, and my sanity, more.

I know that liberating and reclaiming my inbox will eventually open it up to more productive, fresh, helpful, positive, and dare I say it, original information.

Mind you, it’s not a complete purge. There are still a few I will stay subscribed to. I doubt they will ever lower their standards — although I’ve been surprised in the past. But based on prior experience, I think they’re pretty safe.

One of them is certainly Paul Myers’ TalkBiz News. I love Paul’s stuff. I’ve been subscribed to Paul’s email newsletter for over a decade now, and it still delivers highly useful content, with the occasional incisive commentary and kick in the pants.

(You couldn’t pry me away with a 10-foot crowbar from Paul’s newsletter. It’s that good.)

Bottom line, it’s all about freedom. Isn’t it?

Freedom from clutter. Freedom from bull. Freedom from — to borrow a title from a famous science-fiction movie — the attack of the clones.

I’d like to finish with a quote I found on Twitter. It’s by Egbert Sukop, author of “How to Better Hate Your Job.” And it pretty much sums it all up. It goes like this…

“The dividing line between rich and poor: for the ‘poor,’ freedom depends on money. For the ‘rich,’ money depends on freedom.”

Purging My Way to Freedom From Email Clutter originally appeared on The Michel Fortin Blog. Please visit to subscribe to it, or Tweet This.