Post Text: The Post Text opens with a question. It’s vague. Then he breaks it down into a list. Still vague.
“Most people assume it’s physical appearances that impact the success of a persuasion.” Source required. This is bullshit, and he’s bending the truth to suit his own message.
“Listen up” is unnecessary, and comes across as condescending.
I would’ve started the copy after this. The rest is a waste of space.
Then he tries to hit you with the scarcity angle. His ebook is not available in stores. (I’ll be surprised if this still works in 2019.)
“Naturally, these battle-tested secrets within this guide are worth a fortune”, he says, then adds, “which means if you want to reserve your copy, you must do it now.” There’s no connection whatsoever between these two points.
Why must I reserve it now if it’s worth a fortune? This makes no sense.
The comments in the thread are equally unkind.
Visual: The video lasts 1min34s. It’s not interesting. In fact, it’s hard to watch. It’s just the ad creator rambling on about how thick his book is, and how it’s full of tricks from the real streets of New York. Because, he claims, professors don’t know about this stuff.
(Where does he think his “Influence” techniques came from? NOT from Dr. Cialdini? How about Richard Thaler, Dan Ariely, Daniel Kahneman, or even Amos Tsersky and the other behavioral economists, who have tested their hypotheses in real-life settings? How does this guy think studies are conducted? On paper only?)
Either he’s ignorant about how studies are actually conducted, or he’s a dishonest actor, and he’s lying to you. As you can see, this approach is problematic because he’s trying to uproot everything we already know as marketers.
And considering we’re the target audience, convincing us otherwise is going to be an uphill battle.
Headline: The Headline uses the formula “Everything you knew about X is wrong”. It can be effective if used against non-experts or people who haven’t made influence a part of their profession.
Another way it can be effective is if you focus on something small, not influence as a whole, but a part of it.
Example: For instance, if someone says to me, “Everything you knew about boxing is wrong,” I’d be like, “whaaat?” since I’ve been boxing for as long as I can remember. But if someone said, “Everything you knew about when to use the heavy rope is wrong”, I’d be curious.
Here’s another example: Focusing on a specific ingredient we thought we knew something about, like tumeric. If someone said, “Everything you know about tumeric is wrong,” it might pique my curiosity.
Notes: In the video, he does provide a specific example from a specific page: Finding a common enemy, he says. Unfortunately, this isn’t a novel technique he discovered on “the real streets of New York”, but has been a famous technique used in propaganda for decades.
In fact, there’s even Cult of Copy’s very own Colin Theriot who promotes it as well.
Not to mention, it’s also related to Dr. Cialdini’s likeability theory of finding and working toward a mutual goal to build rapport.