-TW
July 8, 2009, 08:25 PM
I'd be much better talking to people like Sir Richard Branson than to local biz owners in my local C of C -- if that gives you an idea.
I really want to help people -- and I know I could -- if I could just get them to give me a chance to hear me out. It's like Zig Ziglar says -- a message can travel around the world in a split second, but often it takes years for it to travel that last 1/2-inch (the ear canal).
That's why I keep at it -- trying to figure out how to get through to the right people -- so I can be helpful. I know the ideas would work -- just as Don Alm's ideas would work -- if you could just figure out how to get the ideas through to people who'd be receptive to them.
Let's take this as a REAL-LIFE example...
A local magazine in my hometown. It's NEW, and it's called VIVACITY. It's one of those local, independent, slick magazines -- available FREE at supermarkets, etc. Full of slick photos + feature articles. Supported totally by ADS.
Now, as I flip through the pages, I see maybe 25 ads. What do those ads represent? They represent to sum total of the ads the poor shlubs (sales reps) who went into the trenches and 'sold' the ads.
Why were the results 25 ads, and not 225 ads? Because the 'other' 200 potential customers said "GET LOST!" to all the arm twisting + begging (or whatever sales techniques were employed).
Conversations going something like this: [whatever technique used to *finally* talk to the decision maker] -- then it comes out that "this" is about advertising in a magazine, to which the response is: "Sorry - not interested [click]."
Did those 200 summarily say 'get lost' because the magazine would not produce results???
maybe -- but maybe not. Maybe all (or much) of that rejection is due to businesses having their 'incoming new ideas filter' (just plain) set on ***KILL***.
Also, note to Ankesh -- if they had used YOUR method(s) (aka passive), they would have gotten no ads, perhaps.
So 25 is much better than none -- but no where near as good as 225.
The 200 that rejected the 'idea' of the magazine actually being a HELP to them did so REGARDLESS of whether the 'idea' of the magazine was a good one or a bad one. I contend it's the result of an overall POLICY of rejecting new incoming ideas, WHATEVER they may be.
THAT'S the brick wall I am beating my head against -- willingly (but whiningly).
-- TW
PS: I made up the numbers above, but I think they may be pretty accurate.
I really want to help people -- and I know I could -- if I could just get them to give me a chance to hear me out. It's like Zig Ziglar says -- a message can travel around the world in a split second, but often it takes years for it to travel that last 1/2-inch (the ear canal).
That's why I keep at it -- trying to figure out how to get through to the right people -- so I can be helpful. I know the ideas would work -- just as Don Alm's ideas would work -- if you could just figure out how to get the ideas through to people who'd be receptive to them.
Let's take this as a REAL-LIFE example...
A local magazine in my hometown. It's NEW, and it's called VIVACITY. It's one of those local, independent, slick magazines -- available FREE at supermarkets, etc. Full of slick photos + feature articles. Supported totally by ADS.
Now, as I flip through the pages, I see maybe 25 ads. What do those ads represent? They represent to sum total of the ads the poor shlubs (sales reps) who went into the trenches and 'sold' the ads.
Why were the results 25 ads, and not 225 ads? Because the 'other' 200 potential customers said "GET LOST!" to all the arm twisting + begging (or whatever sales techniques were employed).
Conversations going something like this: [whatever technique used to *finally* talk to the decision maker] -- then it comes out that "this" is about advertising in a magazine, to which the response is: "Sorry - not interested [click]."
Did those 200 summarily say 'get lost' because the magazine would not produce results???
maybe -- but maybe not. Maybe all (or much) of that rejection is due to businesses having their 'incoming new ideas filter' (just plain) set on ***KILL***.
Also, note to Ankesh -- if they had used YOUR method(s) (aka passive), they would have gotten no ads, perhaps.
So 25 is much better than none -- but no where near as good as 225.
The 200 that rejected the 'idea' of the magazine actually being a HELP to them did so REGARDLESS of whether the 'idea' of the magazine was a good one or a bad one. I contend it's the result of an overall POLICY of rejecting new incoming ideas, WHATEVER they may be.
THAT'S the brick wall I am beating my head against -- willingly (but whiningly).
-- TW
PS: I made up the numbers above, but I think they may be pretty accurate.
