It all started as a tweet:

Most gurus surround themselves w/ sycophants to build their egos. And most gurus don’t like me because I’m not a sycophant.

Actually, it started before that.

You see, yesterday (August 11, 2010) I was talking on the phone with a close friend. In a roundabout way, he discovered a certain guru does NOT like me… even though I’ve spent quite a bit of money on his products.

I don’t mind if a guru doesn’t like me. That suits me fine. But I wondered… Was it something I said? I’ve spent a lot of money with this guru and I don’t believe I’ve ever said anything negative about him in public.

That’s when it struck me.

Most of these gurus surround themselves with sycophants so they can perpetuate the belief that they’re little demi-gods. They remind me of King Nebuchadnezzar — a man who believed he had achieved his status through his own strength.

Twelve months later [Nebuchadnezzar] was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon. The king reflected and said, “Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?” (Daniel 4:29,30)

When a person becomes overly prideful and takes more credit for his success than he should, he’s in danger of divine correction. In the case of Nebuchadnezzar, his correction was one of the more extreme cases:

…and he was driven away from mankind and began eating grass like cattle, and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair had grown like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds’ claws. (Daniel 4:33)

Anyway, one of the things that bugs me is how gurus like to take all the credit for their own success. They’re so full of themselves that if anybody says they’re less than all-powerful, you’re anathema.

Guru: What? You won’t bow down to me, the almighty GURU?

Me: No. But thanks for asking.

Guru: Depart from my presence!

Surrounding yourself with sycophants is a recipe for delusion. At first, you may have self-doubt. But that will be washed away by the slobber of your rabid fans faster than you can say “I’m awesome.”

The delusion will be powerful indeed.

A delusion of pride will make you do stupid things. For anybody who has read the Bible, this should come as no surprise. Proverbs 16:18,19 says:

Pride goes before destruction,
And a haughty spirit before stumbling.
It is better to be humble in spirit with the lowly
Than to divide the spoil with the proud.

Speaking of doing stupid things… and dividing spoils with the proud… have you read about The Internet Marketing Syndicate?

It’s a syndicate supported by sycophants. If you haven’t read about it yet, you should. (Be forewarned: There are swear words.)

-Ryan M. Healy

Listen to This Blog Post:

Late last week, on January 28th to be exact, four suspicious nominations were submitted to the recent post where I invited you to nominate your favorite Internet marketer.

After reading them, I suspected they were fake nominations. Here they are in the order they were received:

Comment #1

“TERRY KARLIN”

I would like to nominate Mike Filsaime.

His success speaks for itself. I’ve bought many of his programs through upsells.

Comment #2

“JOHN CARMICHAEL”

I am amazed that no has yet nominated the coolest IM guy ever: Frank Kern.

Frank is 100% down to earth, genuine, always over-delivers and completely devoted to customer service.

I love his videos and his laid-back attitude. His Mass Control 2.0 is awesome for any serious marketer. I was delighted to recently sign up for his monthly continuity program at only $297 per month. What a steal for such great material.

–John

For the record, “Terry Karlin” and “John Carmichael” both posted their nominations 7 minutes apart from IP address: 24.5.xx.47

But it gets better. Because then these two comments came in a few hours later:

Comment #3

“TERRY GOMEZ”

I would like to RYAN DIESS.

His Perpetual Launch model and software is sheer genius!

Through a clever piece of scripting you can make it look like you are giving a live webinar and hence capitalize on the “urgency” of a live event (cf. Jeff Walker’s Product Launch Formula) without the stress of actually delivering a live event. The software he provides completely automates the process and leads the viewers to believing whatever their active imaginations’ want. You can segment your list and mail to selected portions each week about the “event.”

His prior partnership with Perry Belcher, convicted felon, should not be held against Ryan.

Comment #4

“MARK PASSION”

My nomination for trusted, high integrity, high impact IM guy is Frank Kern.

Why? So many great products … and just view this super professional video on “The State of the Internet”: [link removed]

It’s rather long (about 30 minutes) but jam-packed with great information and just remarkable in what Frank says. It speaks volumes about his clear integrity and desire to make a difference for all of us in IM.

In a pattern nearly identical to the first two comments, “Terry Gomez” and “Mark Passion” both posted their nominations 12 minutes apart from IP address: 64.134.xxx.148

Digging a Little Deeper

It’s uncanny how similar the tone and even the words are in all of these nominations, isn’t it? Let’s examine some of the similarities.

First of all, there are the shared IP addresses. Both pairs of comments appeared on my blog the same day spaced a few hours apart.

Second of all, I find it humorous that while inventing four different people, our mystery commenter couldn’t even think of four different names. He had to use the name Terry twice: Terry Karlin and Terry Gomez.

What’s more, there’s “Kar-lin” and “Car-michael” used as last names in the first pair of comments. Obviously, the mystery commenter couldn’t use “Car-lin” and “Car-michael” — that’s too obvious. So a letter “K” was used in Terry’s last name.

Third, each of the four comments is completely anonymous. No gravatars. What appear to be fake email addresses used on all of them with the possible exception of Mark’s (he has come back to comment a few times).

Fourth: What’s most interesting of all is the similarity in word choice between John Carmichael and Mark Passion. Look at this:

“I am amazed that no has yet nominated the coolest IM guy ever: Frank Kern.” -John Carmichael

“My nomination for trusted, high integrity, high impact IM guy is Frank Kern.” -Mark Passion

Funny that both John and Mark like to use the acronym “IM” instead of spelling out Internet marketing. (Mark even uses the phrase a second time in the span of three paragraphs.)

Both John and Mark like to use a lot of superlatives. Their nominations are quite salesy and product focused.

In fact, Frank’s products are used as evidence of his character: “over-delivers,” “awesome,” “a steal,” “great material,” “great products,” “great information,” “remarkable.”

John and Mark really like the word “great,” don’t they? And is it just me, or do their comments sound more like thinly veiled sales pitches than genuine nominations?

Mark Passion’s Passion

Mark must not have liked how I flagged his comment along with the other three as being fake. He returned to my blog on Saturday night to try to defend himself. Here’s his comment verbatim.

Hi Ryan,

My entry to your excellent blog was NOT a fake!

Sorry to have to correct you, but my nomination of Frank Kern is quite legitimate. (As is that of my girlfriend for Ryan Deiss!). We wrote our nominations on the same laptop, right after each other given our joint visit to your blog. Is there something wrong with that?

I’m not sure what you hoped to achieve by publishing the IP address– Is that meant to somehow silence my voice and cancel my vote through some cloaked threat that you can hunt me down via a simple-minded IP lookup??

Please keep an open mind and please do allow everyone to link to Frank Kern’s simply remarkable “State of the Internet Address” at [link removed]

If you have some real evidence or verified data that Frank Kern should NOT be nominated, then by all means please post it publicly so that we can all see it and make up our own minds. Your censorship of the link smacks of totalitarianism. Let’s keep the web open for everyone to decide for themselves.

I’m sorry if my nomination offended you but I did follow your guidelines.

Thanks!

Mark

In addition to this response, Mark used his anonymous twitter profile (“TraderPassion”) to tweet my post.

But of course he twisted the truth to make it look as if I had christened myself “sheriff” to clean up Internet marketing. He also claimed I was preventing Frank Kern, Mike Filsaime, and Ryan Deiss from being nominated. See for yourself (click to enlarge):

None of Mark’s claims are true.

I have not anointed myself sheriff. I’m not trying to clean up Internet marketing. And I’m not preventing legitimate nominations.

I am trying to prevent fake nominations. Big difference.

In my opinion (and I could be wrong), all four of the nominations I’ve listed above are fake. And I’m not afraid to say it.

The Holes in Mark Passion’s Defense

In Mark’s defense of himself, he claims that he and his girlfriend were using the same laptop to read my blog, and that’s why the two comments came from the same IP address.

I don’t buy it.

Most females I know would not nominate a guy for his “sheer genius” and then immediately deliver a blatant sales pitch for “a clever piece of scripting” designed to fool would-be customers.

(Ladies? Can I get an amen?)

And what normal person comes out of nowhere saying, “His prior partnership with Perry Belcher, convicted felon, should not be held against Ryan.”

I also find it unusual for Mark Passion to be so passionate about promoting Frank Kern. This goes beyond a nomination. Twice he has attempted to link to Frank’s blog — the second time with the admonishment to “keep an open mind” and “please do allow everyone to link to” Frank’s blog.

Huh??

This is not the behavior of a normal person nominating someone.

Then there’s the issue of Mark’s Twitter account, TraderPassion. (Update: As of 2/2/2010, this Twitter profile has now been deleted.) Notice how Mark tries to spin the story to make the gurus look good and make me look bad.

Based on what I know about Frank’s products, it appears to me the person behind this is trying to turn this into a story about how Frank Kern, Mike Filsaime, and Ryan Deiss are really the good guys who’ve been unjustly attacked.

Frank did the same thing when he got busted by the FTC. He took the story and turned it into a selling point.

Last but not least, there’s Mark’s parting comment: “I’m sorry if my nomination offended you but I did follow your guidelines.”

Oh, yeah. That’s right. I didn’t say, “No fake comments.” So like any normal person, Mark thought it would be totally okay to pose as multiple fake customers and plug his favorite gurus’ products.

Disinformation, Subterfuge, and Propaganda

One of the problems with the Internet is the ease with which you can pretend to be someone you’re not. The temptation to be anonymous is too tempting a power for some.

If you’ve read the comments on Salty Droid, you’ll often see a dissenting voice appear. More often than not, it’s a guru engaging in some kind of subterfuge.

Back when people were finally becoming disillusioned with James Brausch (a.k.a. “Diego Norte”), James himself lead a campaign of disinformation on Crunch Gear to confuse people and make it look like he was really a good guy.

He even took the fight to a different web site and made false accusations against the author of the original post, John Biggs. Biggs then had to run a follow-up post to defend himself. The comments got so crazy on the second post that he was forced to close them. He wrote:

I’m closing comments because whatever Ponzi scheme these guys are running it’s clear they’re crazy as all get out.

Fortunately, there’s no army of interns leaving fake comments on this blog. At least not yet.

So far, it appears that the fake comments are coming from either Frank Kern, Mike Filsaime, Ryan Deiss, or one of their buddies.

Either way, it’s kind of sad that in the absence of legitimate nominations they’ve resorted to fabricating nominations so they’ll get on the list of ethical Internet marketing teachers.

Which, in case you hadn’t noticed, is a good way of making sure you’re not included on the list.

-Ryan M. Healy

P.S. Mark Passion tried to make the argument that censoring his comment “smacked of totalitarianism.” Let me point out that propaganda is a technique much favored by totalitarians. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung come to mind.

So when you think about it, my censorship of Mark’s propaganda is fighting fire with fire. A totalitarian technique requires a totalitarian response.

P.P.S. Contrary to the recent propaganda, legitimate comments are welcome. Post one below.

One of the things I’ve learned as a copywriter and marketing consultant is that whenever somebody tries to sell you “big numbers,” you need to crank up your B.S. detector to “red alert.”

We’ve all heard it at one time or another.

“Hey, Frank. Listen, man. I’ve got a really good opportunity. Now, keep this quiet, but I think this thing is going to the moon! We could make a quarter million, easy, when this thing takes off. All you need to do is…”

And then Frank’s buddy lowers the boom. Since Frank doesn’t have his B.S. detector set to “hyper sensitive,” he’s going to get creamed. Worse, since he bought into the B.S. — and effectively lied to himself – he never sees it coming.

In hindsight, after his wallet’s a few thousand bucks lighter, Frank will swear up and down it wasn’t his fault, that his buddy really is a good guy, and that he “just didn’t know” it was going to turn out so bad.

And that’s the way it often goes with grandiose promises of making millions (or even thousands) overnight.

About 5 months ago, a client wanted to find some “super affiliates” who would guarantee they could deliver 1,000 new customers within a certain period of time.

When I heard this, my B.S. detector was going absolutely crazy. To my knowledge, the number of super affiliates who can deliver 1,000 new customers in a pinch can probably be counted on one hand. Yet my protests fell on deaf ears.

Now, the client naively asking for guarantees of this magnitude was bad enough. But that wasn’t the worst of it.

The worst part was the affiliates who promised they could actually deliver 1,000 customers!

The client and the affiliates were now accomplices. And they were fooling themselves.

Because in spite of the “guarantees,” not a single affiliate came close to delivering even 100 customers.

Keep in mind, this is just one example of many I could share. I’ve seen guys downright convinced they’ll create $50,000 a month in a few months’ time — only to find themselves broke and facing foreclosure.

More recently, a guy offered to promote one of my client’s products, promised to do all the work, and claimed he could sell 100 units, easy. He was wrong on both counts. Total units sold: Six.

On and on it goes.

There’s nothing wrong with being an optimist. But I prefer to be a realistic optimist — somebody who bases his optimism in reality and not on fairy tale dreams that don’t have a prayer of coming true.

So here’s how to protect yourself from big numbers and oversized promises: Discount them. And don’t be shy about discounting.

Never forget that you’re a direct response marketer. You have the unique advantage of being able to “predict” the outcome of just about any promotion.

If somebody tells you you’ll make $20,000 in back-end profits, automatically discount that number. Then, if you can get access to some real figures, run the numbers yourself, based on what you know, and see if the big promise holds up to scrutiny.

If it doesn’t, you just saved yourself a lot of wasted time, effort, and financial resources you’ll never be able to recoup. And if the numbers actually do hold up, congratulations. You just found yourself a rare opportunity, indeed.

-Ryan M. Healy

In case you missed it, a doctored image of Obama as the Joker went viral yesterday after physical posters started showing up around Los Angeles.

Most things that go viral online start online.

But this started off-line… in one single U.S. city. Then it exploded on the Internet.

So there is clearly something about the poster that works. Here’s a picture of it in case you haven’t seen it.

At first, I thought, “Whoa. That’s really good.” It got my attention. I felt it made it a point — not necessarily on a conscious level, but on a gut level.

Then my friend and political opposite (Rob Siders) pointed me to an article in which Robert Dougherty makes an excellent point:

The Joker was many things, but he was hardly a socialist. In fact, the Joker is the polar opposite of a socialist, and anyone who watched The Dark Knight would know that. Socialism is the result of an all-powerful central government that runs every aspect of life — but the Joker subscribes to anarchy, one of socialism’s polar opposites.

And as much as I dislike Obama (and all mainstream politicians), I had to agree: Obama is not an anarchist. He’s a socialist. (Not to say socialists are good guys… their mass extermination projects have been among the greatest atrocities in history.)

So if the comparison is inaccurate, what is it about the Obama/Joker poster that works? Why did it go viral so quickly?

I think it’s because of the raw emotion created by blending Obama’s face with the Joker’s makeup. When you first see the poster, your brain isn’t thinking, “Oh, c’mon! The Joker is an anarchist. How could somebody be so stupid!”

And that’s the point: You’re not thinking. You’re feeling.

So on one level, the poster is very effective. It breaks through the noise. It gets to you. (Isn’t this the first job of all good advertising?)

But on another level, the poster loses its punch. Because it’s hard to make the logical connection between Obama and the Joker.

All good advertising must have a strong emotional appeal — and then be well supported by logic and proof. In this case, it seems the second ingredient is missing.

What do you think? Sound off and leave a comment.

-Ryan M. Healy

You might wonder why I asked you to tell me your favorite brands a couple weeks ago. The reason I did this was to prove a point: brands are powerful.

In a world of information overload, brands are even more important. They give us a decision shortcut — a way to side-step all the choices we’re faced with every day.

We don’t evaluate dozens of different brands every time we go to buy a certain type of product. We do our evaluation once, maybe twice, then we default to our “brand of choice” for months, years, and possibly decades.

This is the power of a brand.

In a way, we are brainwashed… or brandwashed… to make certain buying decisions.

Does this mean that brand-name “image” advertising is good advertising? No. In fact, most image advertising is terrible. Yet brands thrive in spite of their advertising. The question is Why?

If you look at all the brands people listed as brands they love, you’ll find that most of them deliver more than just a product or service; they deliver a positive memorable experience.

For instance, Apple, Amazon, and Starbucks were all listed more than once. And all of them deliver an experience.

• Apple offers a fun, low-stress environment where you can demo all their computers and ask as many questions as you want before you buy. (Of course, they have an amazing product, which doesn’t hurt either.)

• Amazon offers a fast, convenient buying experience that is customized to you and your buying habits. Ordering is easy, prices are hard to beat, and Amazon’s personalized recommendations often lead you to new musicians and authors you would have otherwise never discovered.

• Starbucks offers more than just coffee — they offer a pleasant environment where you can relax, read, study, visit with friends, or check your email. When you buy a cup of Starbucks coffee, you’re also buying ambiance.

Starbucks also showed up on my list. That’s because my wife and I used to go on dates at Starbucks. It was our favorite hang-out both before and after we got married. We’ve been going to the same Starbucks/Barnes & Noble combo for more than a decade now. That’s a lot of talks and a lot of memories.

So each time I support Starbucks, I’m buying not just the coffee (which I happen to like), I’m also buying my memories and all those good feelings I’ve associated with Starbucks.

In my view, people love brands that:

• Create a (positive) memorable experience.
• Stand for a certain value system or world view.

I believe a “memorable experience” is created primarily through one of two ways.

First, there is the experience that is designed to be extraordinary from the get-go. Take Disney, for instance. There’s nothing like it. And you’ll always remember the time you spend there because of that.

Second, there is the unexpected experience, usually in the form of outstanding customer service. This is why USAA showed up on my list. They’ve repeatedly given me excellent customer service. I haven’t experienced that anywhere else. So USAA stands out big time.

Now, here’s where it gets interesting because people hate brands for the same reasons they love them. We hate brands that…

• Create a (negative) memorable experience.
• Stand for a certain value system or world view.

Two examples…

Example #1: I hate Borders because I’ve repeatedly had bad experiences at their stores. And not just at one location — multiple locations. I was so upset by how I was treated at these stores that I literally “black-listed” them for years and refused to even step foot in one. Even today, years later, I will go out of my way to support their competitors.

Example #2: I strongly dislike Wal-Mart because of the values that run the company. Their approach to business is to save money at any cost — costs to the environment, costs to third-world countries, even costs to taxpayers. This is not what I believe in, so I intentionally avoid shopping at Wal-Mart.

So you see, we love and hate brands for essentially the same reasons. Interesting, eh?

Glenn Livingston dropped by and left an insightful comment. I’ve reproduced some of it here:

When I was a Fortune 500 consultant, we were involved with an advertising agency which wanted to promote the belief that people could define themselves by the three brands they absolutely couldn’t live without. They’d ask people what a typical day would be without those three brands. [...] Is your brand one of the 3 your customers couldn’t live without?

What a powerful question that is!

This is not to say we can all create “indespinsable brands” — but it’s certainly something worth striving for.

Remember: The more choices there are, the more important your brand is. Because a brand is how we shortcut the decision-making process. So, believe it or not, having a strong brand is important even for information marketers.

Case in point: How many blogs do you read on a daily/weekly/monthly basis?

I bet your daily blog list is short indeed. Maybe 3-7 blogs, max.

Taking a cue from Glenn, a good question to ask if you’re an information marketer might be, “Do I write one of the three blogs my customers couldn’t live without?”

Keep this in mind whenever you write blog posts… create information products… or do anything that defines (or refines) your brand.

-Ryan M. Healy

P.S. If you participated in my brand question from the previous post, thank you. It made this “thought experiment” much more interesting.

You can tell a lot about a person just by looking at the brands they’re passionate about.

It opens up a little window of insight into that person.

With that in mind, I thought it would be fun to see what brands you’re passionate about — the ones you buy on a regular basis or talk about to your friends.

And if there are any brands you particularly hate, feel free to mention those, too.

I’ll go first:

• Starbucks
• Barnes & Noble (I hate Borders)
• New Belgium Brewery (makers of Fat Tire, etc.)
• Never Summer
• USAA
• Juice Plus+
• Blistex Herbal Answer
• Panera Bread

Want to participate? Just leave a comment below listing the brands you love (or hate).

-Ryan M. Healy

P.S. This isn’t completely frivolous. I will be writing a follow-up post. The more responses we get, the more interesting it will be.

If you ever needed proof that we make emotional buying decisions, look no further than the smart car.

The smart car is a tiny two-seater that appeals to environmentally concerned folks. (I’m guessing the majority of the buyers are either single or married with no kids.)

You don’t buy a smart car because it’s a logical thing to do. The reason you buy a Smart Car is to make an “environmental statement.” Let me offer some proof:

Right now, a base “smart fortwo pure” costs $11,990.

And a base Toyota Yaris costs $12,205.

Of course, the Yaris includes air conditioning and power steering standard; the smart fortwo pure does not. So if we add those features in, we’re now up to $13,040 to get a similarly equipped smart car.

Alright, so how do these two cars stack up?

Compared to the smart fortwo pure, the Yaris has:

• double the seating space
• a 50% bigger engine
• 36 more horse power
• 35 more ft-lbs of torque
• vastly more luggage space
• 2.4 extra gallons of fuel capacity
• anti-lock brakes (standard!)
• and a higher top end (the smart fortwo has a max speed of 90 mph)

So what does the smart fortwo have going for it?

Well, you get slightly better gas mileage (33/41 vs. 29/36). And you get a car designed to be recyclable from the start. In theory, it is more earth friendly.

The reason I bring all this up is because humans are emotional creatures. We make emotional decisions in spite of logical justifications.

If we bought on logic, then nobody would buy a smart car. After all, who wants to pay MORE money for the privilege of driving a car that has far fewer features and capacity?

In this case, making an “environmental statement” is a valuable enough emotional benefit that people will pay good money for it.

What is the core emotional appeal of your service or product? What emotional benefit are people buying when they buy from you?

If your product’s emotional appeal is strong enough, it will trump logic — bringing you more passionate buyers who are willing to spend more money with you.

-Ryan M. Healy

On Monday, I took my wife and two older kids to Ringling’s Barnum & Bailey Circus here in Denver. To get to the Denver Coliseum, we first had to drop off our youngest with my mother-in-law, then drive for 40 minutes north through downtown.

We parked, hiked in a few blocks, picked up our tickets at Will Call, and finally found our seats ringside on the lower level.

Which leads me to concessions.

During intermission, guys were walking up and down the rows hawking sno-cones, cotton candy, and light-up doo-dads.

My daughter asked if we could get some cotton candy. Normally, I say “no” to such requests. Then I thought: “This is probably the one time we’ll be at a circus for the next two or three years. Why not?”

And so I decided I’d get her some cotton candy. I handed her a $5 bill and flagged down the cotton candy man.

“How much?” I asked.

“$12,” he said.

At this point, a normal, sane person would politely decline. After all, $12 for a wimpy little bag of cotton candy is practically theft.

But momentum was not moving in my favor.

You see, as I’ve explained, we had spent more than an hour just getting to the Denver Coliseum… we had already spent $44 on tickets and $5 on parking… I had given my daughter $5 to buy the cotton candy… and I had just flagged down this guy to help us.

I couldn’t back out now, could I?

Nope.

So I pulled out a $10 bill, combined it with the $5, and turned over the cash. We got our cotton candy, and my daughter proclaimed it was “the best day of her life.”

As I sat there thinking about what had happened, I knew exactly why I’d spent $12 on cotton candy.

It was commitment and consistency in action.

After taking so many steps in one direction, I didn’t want to change course. To do so would have been inconsistent with all the steps I had already taken.

The principles of commitment and consistency are what drive back-of-the-room sales after people have gone to great lengths to attend a seminar. And they are the same principles that take people from opting in to a list… to ultimately becoming customers.

How can you use commitment and consistency to ethically boost sales in your business?

-Ryan M. Healy

During my career as a freelance copywriter, I’ve encountered a few exceptional negotiators and a handful of con men.

How do you spot a con man? First, it helps to know the definition.

According to Princeton’s WordNet, con man is short for “Confidence Man: a swindler who exploits the confidence of his victim.”

With that in mind, here are three traits to watch out for.

Flattery

This is the first and foremost thing to look out for. A compliment is normal. Flattery is not.

Whenever somebody flatters me, I watch my wallet. Flattery is normally a prelude to an unusual or out-of-the-ordinary request.

The psychology works like this:

Flattery makes you feel all puffed up and great about yourself. But this is a set up so you’ll agree more easily to whatever request comes next.

You are more likely to make a bad decision when you are feeling overconfident. Flattery is an easy way to build your confidence.

“…a flattering mouth works ruin.” Proverbs 26:28

Bragging

A person who brags is not necessarily a con man; he could just be insecure.

It’s the type of bragging that matters.

Some people brag about how good they are at a specific skill. This is your garden variety braggart, relatively harmless.

Others brag about their good character or how much money they give to their church, poor people, etc. This is your con man variety of braggart.

It is designed to get you to lower your guard… to get you thinking about what a good person it is you’re dealing with. Next thing you know, the con-man lowers the boom.

Watch out for people who brag about their good character.

“But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret.” Matthew 6:3,4

Unrealistic Promises

A common negotiating tactic is to build neediness in the other party.

For instance, a potential client might tell you that there’s “huge” potential, and that you could make “tens of thousands of dollars.”

He’s building your confidence to the point where you believe this future pay-off will really happen.

The next thing he’ll do is ask you to work for free for an indeterminate amount of time. If you believe the vision he’s painted, you might agree to unreasonable terms, work hard for months… then never see a single cent.

“Like clouds and wind without rain is a man who boasts of gifts he does not give.” Proverbs 25:14

Safeguard Yourself

A con man uses all kinds of techniques to build your confidence in yourself and in him. Once your confidence is high enough, you’re in a vulnerable position. That’s how you get conned.

Ask yourself: “Am I feeling overly confident? Why?”

Ask yourself: “Why is this person flattering me? Why is he telling me all about his good deeds? Why is he promising me a huge pay-off somewhere down the road?”

Answer these questions. Be honest with yourself. Don’t be taken in.

-Ryan M. Healy

P.S. The truth is finally coming out about certain marketers who do business on the Internet. Here are two posts that “name names”:

• Internet Marketing Retires
• Internet Marketing on Life Support