I am not a marketer.

And it is not so much opinion as fact.

YOU are right. I've said, no, PREACHED the same thing for years...about marketing.

So, we really don't have a difference of opinion on that.

But marketing is something people do. It normally is a way of securing finances, or income.

Although this board is currently being visited by many guys who do marketing, it is not about marketing. And my view is more global.

It sees marketing as one part, one aspect of life.

There are important lessons we can learn, like AIDA, although I was taught the AIDCAS formula...

Attention, Interest, Desire, CONCLUSION, Action...and most important

SATISFACTION.

But they both are about the same thing, I prefer AIDCAS, mainly because of the SATISFACTION.

Richard we both know many people, some well known gurus who don't deliver the satisfaction part.

But, my point is, that I have to take the bigger picture into consideration.

You addressed marketing. And you're right. No doubt about that.

But I address DESIRE. And I have to extend my definition of marketing to be more inclusive...not just about products for sale...but to include ideology as well.

YES, the AIDA formula stands up across the board, but the targets are different.

For desire to be the "most important part of any marketing" it has to exist.

If marketing an idea, a concept, and you are trying to influence or persuade people to accept this (so you would in fact be marketing to them)

you have to CREATE the desire. They don't have it or know it exists. OH, it would be fun to get into a discourse, and it all would come down to the filtering of stimuli as I've outlined in the past on these matters.

I'm not arguing your point. You are right.

Desire is the most misunderstood area of the marketer...

because if they really could activate desire, they would get more than a 4 to 5% response to a cold list...a highly targeted list, one with responders of recency and frequency and multiple buys...but still only get a small fraction of that universe to respond.

Which means they were inept at flaming the fires of desire.

It doesn't take but 2 or 3 people out of 100 to make you rich, right? But I look to the 95 out of 100 who do not buy...WHY?

Why, with all this NLP, and Advanced Techniques, and Tested and Proven Marekting Strategies...WHY are the marketers not able to use the formulas and get better results? What is missing?

It is my opinion that there is a major lack of understanding about motivation, and desire to begin with. That is one of the reasons I want to bring SQUARE ONE WORKSHOPS out.

You talk of a built in "want", but aside from the basic needs, most people (free world) are clueless as to what they want beyond the immediate gratifications...or what it is that would really allow themselves to be fulfilled.

Marketing appeals to superficial wants, and I don't mean unimportant, they most certainly are...but they are on the surface of human want.

The great Gary Halbert taught marketers to appeal to the "greed gland", ...and I haven't seen anything written or spoken in the last 20 years that deviates from this proposition.

So, if you are marketing at that level, then YES, of course you have to follow the "rules" of marketing.

When I put on my marketing hat, that is exactly what I do...

Although instead of the greed gland marketing, I'm choosing the path less traveled, the WE gland.

Most marketers don't get it. They don't understand it.

They know WIN/WIN...

but they don't go to WIN/WIN/WIN...

Richard I know you are a very successful marketer, and you came under some pretty heavy attack at other forums, something that will NOT be tolerated here.

WE don't attack, it goes against what WE believe. We welcome different opinions, different perspectives, different views.

That is what makes a community valuable.

Also Richard, note, I'm working hard to invite many women to this forum from areas that have nothing to do with marketing per se, I know you can argue and I accept the point that EVERYTHING must be marketed...I agree.

But, in asking for and receiving different input, WE can expand the paradigm, and get away from the gurus and their "troops".

It amazes me (although I do understand commitment and consistency) how when the guru comes under attack, the troops mobilize to his defense...and with great DESIRE to defeat the alledged attacker...YOU know what I mean.

So, feel free to express a different opinion. I don't really KNOW of any right or wrong...except when tested and it doesn't work.

In the SQ1, WE call that adjustment. Test, find out what works, continue, test, find out what doesn't work, continue, adjust...reach the goal...continue on with life.

So, what I want everyone to keep in mind, is,

that my responses are often not limited to the topic, but I'll take a step or two back and look at the global point. The bigger picture if you will.

And as always, I reserve the right to be wrong too.

Thanks for your post Richard, you are always welcome to post your opinions and hopefully we will continue to disagree on some issues, it is what makes it better for the WE...

Gordon Alexander