The Game & Lifestyle Epiphany

Marketing machine: A 'device' in which you shovel potential customers in the top, and customers come out the bottom. Has a gas pedal too. The harder you push the gas pedal, them more customers come out the bottom. A real mrktng machine has this attribute: The gas pedal is under the marketER's control, not the marketEE's control.

I never said so-called 'magnetic' marketing is detrimental to a mrktng machine. On the contrary, it is most often ESSENTIAL to a well-funtioning machine. All I object to is, calling it 'magnetic.' That name is misleading. There's nothing 'magnetic' about it. That's all.

I use strategies like that all the time! I would be lost without them! I just don't call them magnetic. They are not.

Actually, some would say, being 'a magnet,' which I think is the wrong way to go (or to strive for, anyway), DOES NOT include using those so-called 'magnetic mrktng' methods exactly BECAUSE those methods are NOT truly magnetic. They DO involve ACTIVELY contacting the prospect REPEATEDLY -- which is a method that I DO advocate.

So, in summary: I DO advocate what is commonly called 'magnetic' markeitng (a la D. Kennedy), because it IS effective (but not really magnetic). And I DON'T advocate trying to 'be a magnet,' 'build it and they wil come,' etc.

Defining your universe (gather a list of potential customers), then bugging them repeatedly (you reaching them, not the other way 'round) IS the way to build an effective marketing 'machine.' No matter what Seth Godin says.

Make sense?

-- TW

Being a 'magnet' (or trying to become one) isn't 'detrimental' to building a mrktng machine! It can only help!

The question is, how MUCH can it really help? THAT'S the question one has to ask oneself BEFORE spending a lot of time + money + energy making becoming a 'magnet' as a goal. THAT'S what I would caution against -- thinking it's gonna solve more problems than it really will.

Cheers!

-- TW

Aloha TW,

Being a student of Dan Kennedy for many years, I don't see any difference between your thoughts and what Dan Kennedy espouses. It seems to me that we are (I am ) getting hung up on semantics.

I do agree with everything that you have said -- and I think Dan would too.

Aloha,

Jason

What Kennedy says to do is right on -- it's just not 'magnetic,' and shouldn't be called 'magnetic.' That term is misleading.

Conversely what SHOULD be called magnetic (and is 'magnetic') is NOT the way to go, imo.

So, Kennedy, yes. Magnetic, no.

-- TW