Hoping to sound relatively coherent as it's 11.30pm here!
My point is that advertisement implies not one word of what you are saying
Ahh...but it doesn't need to. All it needs to do is get the click. It implies that you may be wasting your time in your biz opp (so all those who are currently not getting their required success in their MLM are going to wonder if they're in the wrong one)...so here's the emotional pull...the emotional problem of the vast majority of MLMers. Then it goes on to give the solution: "Find Your Perfect Business...". It DOESN'T say - "Find your perfect MLM" or "Find your perfect business opportunity"...but just "your business". There's a subtle difference.
If an individual can rise above their MLM...if they can change their mindset to one that portrays themselves as owning their own business...and if that business is built around their strengths, skills and talents...then they are half way there to their required success (whatever their own definition is). If that business is built around their MLM opportunity, then great, but sometimes their uniqueness is better off utilised elsewhere. What I would hope to see is that this programme takes people on that journey.
An ad, especially on this medium, can't possible say all of this because of the 2-3 second rule. In the old days, in ad agency land we used the "7 second rule". That is, the ad had to be read AND grab the target market's attention AND make them do something - all within 7 seconds. These days with the advent of the internet and other technologies where we are BOMBARDED with ads constantly, combined with the fact that we are becoming savvy ad consumers, this amount of time has dropped considerably. If you can't get someone to click within the first 2 or 3 seconds, you've had it. So all the ad is required to do is to "get the click". This is what marketing does - it asks people to raise their hands to say "Yes, I'm interested in finding out more". Then that person should enter a marketing and sales funnel (not sales and marketing...that's the wrong way around) which will take them through a decision making and buying process.
Where you CAN get away with longer copy and giving more of the "what happens" is with advertorials in print media. Consumers are in a different mindset when they sit down with a newspaper or magazine, so will read longer copy. Advertising on the internet HAS to have an immediacy about it, by the sheer nature of it: it's a very impatient media. People surf and whizz around the net (and this will get even worse with the new mobile technologies coming through) so something has to reach out and grab them by the throat to take effect and get the click. There is no time for long stories, or "this is what you get". If I were Stephen Little (the guy behind this ad) I would do an offline campaign as well in the print media that network marketers, franchisees and other biz opp seekers read and do advertorials or PR pieces, explaining my service in a little more detail. We don't all see just one medium, so a multi media campaign - online AND offline - will always be FAR more effective, and will satisfy the needs of people like yourself, who perhaps need more information before they go further.
And, yes, Steve Little is using attraction marketing. I have no idea whether there's an MLM opportunity at the end of the road, but ANY marketer of ANY product or service should be using attraction based marketing. This is what the professional marketing industry has been using since time began (that is, bringing people to them) and it's only now that network marketers are touting it as some brand new way of doing things. No. It may be new to network marketing, and maybe to internet marketing, (and obviously now, to internetwork marketing), but I can tell you that as a real life marketer, what's being taught now is only what the rest of the commercial world has been doing forever. So, all Stephen Little is doing is using proper, professional marketing methods (whatever new name people like to call it), that for me - as a marketer who's seen thousands of creative concepts and campaigns over my time - ticks all the right boxes.
As for needing mobiles - no, I disagree. As human beings, we don't need a phone. It makes life easier, I agree, but we don't actually need them. We WANT them so that we can be in contact all the time (why though?!), but we don't need them. As humans we need shelter, food, water, safety, warmth and love & companionship. After the basics are met, all other things are aspirational and "wants", not needs.
OK, so we now live in a modern, technological age. But when I was growing up, I can remember being a Girl Guide (yeah, yeah, I know) and "Being Prepared" meant having a 2p piece to be able to make a phone call from a public phone box. (Along with the safety pin, the plaster and a spare tissue). And we all thought we lived in a modern age then.
OK, so you might like being able to call anywhere in the world at the touch of the button, when you're lying on a beach in the Bahamas, but you don't NEED to. Landlines have always worked to call abroad, at least in fairly modern times. BUT...if you lost everything today...and I mean literally everything...and found yourself out of the street with nothing, what would you do? Your first thoughts will to make yourself safe, find a roof over your head and get something to eat. If you needed to ring someone, and you found a coin in the street, you would use a public landline phone. You would not be rushing out trying to get yourself a mobile phone.
Once you've got yourself back on your feet again, and you're secure, and you know your family's safe, then, and only then, would you consider getting a mobile phone again. Or a TV. Or anything else technological for that matter. If it came to my mobile or feeding my kids, the mobile would go everytime. I would still have the ability to speak to people with the landline. Actually, I only use my landline for business, but that's my personal decision. It may not be yours, but if it got taken away, you could live without it. I know this, because we all did 20 years or so ago!
Technology companies play to our aspirations (an emotion). They pay ad agencies with very clever creative directors and copywriters LOTS of money to come up with ads that convince us why we "need" them. Not want them, but need them. And, as I said in my last post, we don't buy on price. Mobile phones seem to be all singing, all dancing these days, so phone companies are going to have to differentiate in one of three factors: the style (the new i-phone for instance), what it does (the Blackberry) and monthly pricing. The pricing will be the last factor that we use in our decision making process. We get sucked in to all these amazing features, and the fact that it looks good, (and in my case, it has to be bright pink!), when all we want is to call someone and speak to them. We buy a mobile because we like it, not because of its price or monthly charges (although we'd obviously look to getting the best deal on monthly charges, but that's down to the network, not the phone itself).
Mobile networks still have to compete against landlines and convince us why we would want to spend extra money each month when we have a perfectly good landline phone. I can pick up landline, dial a number and talk to anyone in the world. No extra features other than an answer machine. It's an ordinary looking handset, and it's not even hot pink! But it does the job I need it to do, and that is, enable me to communicate with someone. And my monthly mobile bill is MORE than my landline, because I have a package with my landline that gives me free calls up to an hour in most major countries around the world.
Anyway, that's enough for me for one evening, methinks!
Apologies for any typos - it IS late, and I've lost all ability to stype properly.