Church of the Invisible Hand
Will Robots Take Your Job?
So, Jane (a totally made up social justice warrior) was out protesting her job today.
She was demanding that her employer pay her $15 dollars an hour to bag burgers and give customers bad attitude.
Her employer only operates at a 3.5% profit margin, but Jane has a right to a living wage.
She spent all day waving her sign and shouting out sound bites she learned from her gender-studies professor.
Tomorrow, she'll go into work, and realize that she protested herself out of a job. She'll walk into her place of employment, and be greeted by a shiny new kiosk. Sucks to be Jane.
Now, while it's easy to laugh at Jane, she isn't the only one facing this problem. Yes, low information, entitled brats will be the first to have a robot replace them. But, is that where it will stop?
Now, before you start calling me Peter Joseph, hear me out.
I am a devout capitalist. I would be miserable in a Venus Project utopia. But, I am a realist, and my head is not in the sand when it comes to automation.
In the coming years, more and more labor jobs will be replaced by robots.
Is this the end of society as we know it? I doubt it.
But, will it bring a lot of change? Almost certainly.
As the horse and buggy disappeared, the cab industry was born. And sometimes, automation actually increases labor in a field.
So, what about you? What will happen to your job in the very near future? What are your chances of being replaced by a robot, like poor little SJW Jane?
Well, today I came across this interesting article. It talks about some of the least likely jobs to be replaced with robots. Is yours on the list?
Hint, if you're on my mailing list, you're already in a better position than most. (see number 1)
Written by Nathan Fraser Direct Response Copywriter Marketing Consultant High Priest of Propaganda
How to Fear-Monger for Fun and Profit
I once heard a prominent fear-monger in the "truth" community make this analogy.
While defending his sensationalized way of reporting, he said he was not fear-mongering. He claimed that "if your house is on fire, and I'm warning you to get out, that's not fear-mongering." And it raised some interesting questions for me.
I don't like to fear-monger. And I feel bad about the times in the past when I did.
Maybe it's that I don't like wasting energy on things I can't control. Especially when there are things I can control, that could use that energy.
Maybe it's that I don't like to take on anything with a defeatist attitude. I feel like a lot of the "truther" doom and gloom sets people up for failure. You don't send your team into a game, convinced that the other team has already won. And that's what a lot of these "truth" mouthpieces are doing.
Can I stop putting the word "truth" in quotes now? You get my point.
Anyways, in my content, I have always been careful not to be guilty of fear-mongering. And now I'm starting to rethink my previous condemnation.
So, there are two different ways to sell an idea.
You see this in every movement. You see this in every bit of direct response copywriting. You have to agitate the situation, and then promise a solution.
I've heard Ben Settle say that you gotta get into your customers pain point, and you gotta rub salt in that wound.
Ray Edwards says you need to know your customer's pain point. You have to explain it to them, better than they can explain it to themselves. And then you have to show them how bad it can get if they don't fix the issue.
Now, this is one part of copywriting that I've always found distasteful. I do it, but I always feel kinda dirty about it. Until today.
So, here's the deal.
I'm re-writing my sales page, over at Podcast Blastoff. And so I'm going over a bunch of articles and interviews about sales pages. And I heard someone explain it in a way that I never thought about it. The part that I always thought of as fear-mongering, that is.
He said this, and I'm paraphrasing;
People tend to suffer in silence.
They don't want to talk about their problems. Either because they don't want to burden others, they're embarrassed, or a bunch of other reasons.
And here's what a lot of us do. We know we have a problem. We know we need to fix it. But we don't talk to anybody about it, and we have no idea on how to fix it.
So we ignore it. It sits in the corner, all blurry and confusing looking. And we pretend it's not there.
So, now you're selling something that will solve that problem.
Maybe it's a societal problem, and you're selling a new way of thinking to solve it.
Maybe it's a lack of information, and you're selling a course to teach people.
Maybe it's a lack of buttons problem... Well, I'm not sure if that's a thing.
Anyways, someone has a problem, and they're ignoring it. And you have a solution, but it does them no good if you can't get them to buy. To help them, you have to put them in a mindset to take action.
So, how do you do that?
Well, you reverse engineer.
You know what their problem is. And you know the reason they haven't taken action yet is because it's still out of focus for them. There's a monster in the corner of the room, and they either can't see it clearly, or are choosing not to look.
So you have to make it clear for them. You gotta point out the fangs. You gotta describe the glowing red eyes. You have to bring the threat into focus. You gotta make so they can no longer pretend it isn't there.
If you can do that, they'll be ready to solve their problem. And they'll assume that you know the solution. They might even beg for you to sell it to them. And you should.
Just as long as what you're selling will really solve the problem. And that's where the trouble comes into play.
The technique works.
I use it, and I see results. But I also see other people use it to sell false promises.
I see televangelists use it to sell tickets to Heaven. I see politicians use it to sell greater restrictions on freedom. I see opportunity marketers use it to sell git-rich-kwick schemes. And I see professors use it to sell failed social systems to impressionable college kids.
It works. No doubt about it. But I think I dislike it for how often it's been abused.
But just because people can abuse it, does that mean you shouldn't use it in your marketing?
Obviously, I use it. And up until today, I did so with a heavy conscience. But now I'm re-thinking my position.
What say you?
How to Offer Less and Charge More
A few years back, my mom passed away.
When she was alive, she leaned on me, pretty heavily. I paid her bills, I ran her around, I listened to her constant complaining. It was enough to drive me insane. But I'd trade everything I have for just one more afternoon with her, to tell her that I love her, one last time.
I miss her now, and I often remember things about her that I didn't appreciate nearly enough when she was alive. You don't know what you've got til it's gone.
You see, economics is a lot more emotions driven than we'd like to think.
Supply and demand is not just a statement of logic. It's a statement about emotions. It's a statement about what drives us. It's a statement about our values. And we tend to only recognize something's true value when it's scarce.
So, how can you make this work for you? How can you get people to recognize the value of what you have to offer? The answer is simple. Make it scarce.
Let's take a look at the three most common forms a scarcity, and how you can use them in your marketing.
Urgency is time based scarcity. It is the idea that something will only be available for a limited time. You might still be able to find this item later, but not here and not at this price. If you don't act before this deadline, you will miss out.
When something has a sense of urgency attached, we know that we have to act now, or forever hold our peace.
Rarity is quantity based scarcity. The idea that only so many exist, and thus, they are more valuable than their counterparts.
Rarity is what floods Central Park with Pokemon Go players in the middle of the night. Rarity is what makes a wheat penny more valuable than an equally weighted piece of copper.
There are millions of Pokemon out there, and billions of pennies. But when you find a rare one, you place more value on it. Because rare is scarce, and scarce is valuable.
Exclusivity is scarcity based upon status. The item or service itself may not be scarce, but the client who has access to it is.
Think of a Rolex watch or a Ralph Lauren shirt. These items are not scarce in the real world. But because of the status applied to them, they can be sold at way over their cost to produce.
Another example is a therapist who only books appointments with celebrities. They are probably no better than any other therapist. But they exclude most people from their services. This allows them to charge more to those they do accept.
When you create scarcity with exclusive access, you drive up value in the minds of those you exclude, and those you accept.
So there you have it.
Three simple ways to add scarcity to whatever it is that you provide. Three simple ways to increase the value of whatever it is that you provide.
Next time you run a sale, consciously apply urgency. Next time you have a limited supply, use the rarity to your advantage. Use scarcity to your advantage.
One last note.
Companies often give free products to people with high status. This is a way to increase the Exclusivity factor of their own products. And it often works. But is can be used in reverse.
In 2011, Abercrombie and Fitch offered to pay "The Situation" to STOP wearing their clothes. Mike Sorrentino, of MTV's Jersey Shore, was actually offered money to not be seen in their clothes.
Exclusivity is just as much about who you choose not to serve, as it is about who you do serve.