Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
New PU Sales Page (feedback?)
a survey before, and one after finishing -or maybe a week after finishing-
That's pretty much what they did at CFAR. but one before, one 1yr later. I'd say 'don't overcomplicate' and just do what they did, perhaps to the point of cloning the survey questions (that apply) and adding a few more (could be exercises from PU, or some life events that matter to PU alumni; like getting a promotion, having fired a bad boss or politics animal, having won a big frame battle, etc). For this, I'd say doing something (even if not optimal) is better than doing nothing. Because there's exactly zero precedent, it could work really well for marketing. And many dating gurus are not sophisticated enough to chase you and do the same; this requires some basic knowledge of stats :). It would leave them in the dust, hand-waving, and offering (fake) videos of approaches on youtube as evidence that their method works.
I haven't yet looked deeply into how they did it, but I originally thought they send a survey before the course, and one after.
That would take a long time to reach a large enough number of responders.
So I'm thinking to abbreviate the process with a survey of those who've already gone through PU, and ranking their "before" VS " after".
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 8, 2022, 10:41 pmSo I'm thinking to abbreviate the process with a survey of those who've already gone through PU, and ranking their "before" VS " after".
That would force people to remember how they were before PU (which could be a long time ago). Self reporting questionaires are borderline useless in social science (as credible as 'healing crystals'), but they are even more dubious if you ask for things long ago instead of in the present.
CFAR did a good effort to evaluate their course's effect. They ran a longitudinal study on the effect. But a founder, high profile rationalist Julia Galef left unsatisfied with the results of the survey. And she has good reasons to do this!
Over the next several years, as rationalism became not only the de facto brand of self-help in Silicon Valley but also an intellectual movement followed by pundits and executives alike, CFAR’s profile grew; soon, the nonprofit was running workshops across the country and teaching classes at Facebook and the Thiel Fellowship. But for CFAR’s founders, it was the empirical confirmation of their work that mattered most. Early on, they began conducting a controlled study to determine whether the workshops were demonstrably helpful. They surveyed 40 participants, assessing their before-and-after answers to questions like “How together is your life?” and “How successful do you feel in your social life?” The study found that, one year after the workshop ended, participants showed decreased neuroticism and increased self-efficacy, but to Galef, the results weren’t sufficiently rigorous. “What was it about the workshop?” she says. “Was it the classes or hanging out with like-minded people that makes the difference?” Conducting more tests would have been too expensive. “My vision was we’d come up with hypotheses about techniques, keep the ones that work, and discard the ones that don’t. It turned out to be much harder than I’d realized.”
In 2016, Galef left CFAR, unsatisfied with what she had been able to accomplish there. Instead, she began working on her first book, which, after five years, will be published by Penguin on April 13. [_The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t_](https://www.amazon.com/Scout-Mindset-Perils-Defensive-Thinking/dp/0735217556?ascsubtag=%5B%5Din%5Bp%5Dcknew6htv000093ln3h77lhzd%5Bu%5D1%5Bt%5Dw%5Br%5Dnymag.com/intelligencer%5Bd%5DD%5Bz%5Dm&tag=thestrategistsite-20) is a fitting debut for someone who has considered herself a “populizer” of the rationalist movement. “I take these ideas I think are great and try to explain them to a wider audience,” she says.
So in terms of methodology, abbreviating the process by asking PU alumni to compare their former self with pre-PU self is ... well, not something that would convince me or anyone with any kind of scientific training. I know it takes a long time to complete PU (vs their course that is 4.5 days!) and that doing what they did (1 year gap) gets pretty much impractical. I don't know what the solution is. Just putting my hat on the ring on this one.
Thank you, LoF, a strong reminder that too strongly pursuing the shortcut can actually lead to poor work, and send the opposite message.
I agree with you.
And still, albeit much criticism to such a survey would be well founded indeed, that doesn't mean it would have zero value.
People can still have an idea of how they improved and how different/more effective they can be. Whether that perception is accurate or not it's a valid concern. But even allowing for large margins of errors, it may still provide readers with, well, something.
And from a marketing perspective, what may raise some concerns in a scientific-trained individual may instead convince a not-so-scientifically-minded individual.
#12.2 BONUSES
Bought Yes! by Cialdini last year and, finally, now got around to reading it.
Reading #6, "When does a bonus become an onus?", Cialdini makes a case that Kolenda has also stated in his Sales Psychology course.
Kolenda says to be careful of giving away your business's services for free to the same person too much because it will begin to anchor the value of your services in the receiver's mind as being free.
Similarly, Cialdini agrees in this book, hence Lucio's note in its review:
5. State the Value of Free Products
If you are giving something for free or as an add-on bonus, you should always state its value.
If you don’t, people will feel like it’s worthless.
I think that the Bonuses section could be more persuasive if it shares the value of each of the bonuses.
Currently, the value of either of the bonuses is not shared which could lead to the reader feeling it's probably not worth much (which couldn't be further from the truth):
*Image of the current Bonuses section.
BOOM!!
Thank you so much, Ali, yet another gold nugget.
One of the reasons that I originally omitted the prices is that the price was only a tiny percentage of PU, so not only you don't have that "wow, what a bonus effect", but you may have the effect of "it's a worthless bonus".
But what you say makes sense.
And to avoid the risk of "worthless space-filling ebook", I added a price more in line with the content, rather than old price tags.
From this thread:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 29, 2022, 1:37 am(...)
I'm thinking about whether "charm" may provide the biggest draw as compared to, say, "charisma" or "leader" -Ie. "become a better leader of men in 3 months"-.
I think there are pros and cons to both.
This is the current headline now:
Become a leader of men in 3 months.
Learn how to earn respect, get more dates, lead men, and win at life.
Here are my thoughts:
Become a leader of men in 3 months.
"Leader" may provide a bigger draw and might be more accurate to what a course on power dynamics can do for its students. (Since we often think of leaders as being powerful, I think many will intuitively understand the connection between leadership and a course on power).
At the same time, it might also negate the site visitors who are women.
"Charm", on the other hand, does include both demographics and is still accurate to what power dynamics can help people achieve (since for one to be charming they must have a high personal value—at least in the environment they're in).
However, most people don't actually know what charm is (and often confuse it with charisma), so they likely wouldn't be able to easily make the connection between "charm" and "power dynamics" (i.e. they might think, "What does power have to do with being charming?").
Plus, while charm might appeal to a bigger/broader market, "leader" might position TPM to dominate its smaller (yet more niche) market, helping it to convert higher because it speaks to the specific needs of those who came to TPM seeking a specific solution (as Bel noted in the marketing thread).
So, of course, if it's possible to split-test, that would be the ideal approach (in true Lean Startup fashion :).
But, if not, I might go for something like this:
Get others to respect you...
A really, really great note from Bel that I agree deserves to be here.
The only minor change is that by saying "learn how to XYZ", the focus of the sentence is on the fact that buyers will be getting "learning".
And, "learning" is not what the buyer wants, it's only a means to achieving what they actually want (which is social and life success).
So, by omitting the "learn" part and going straight into the "get others to respect you", the focus of the sentence is now on the buyers getting their desired outcome(s)/incentive(s).
...win more romantic partners...
When I first read the headline "become a leader of men" I thought to myself, "Well, that sounds a lot like 'become an alpha'."
But, I think TPM gets a free pass in utilizing the "become a leader of men" phrasing because its blog content promotes a different type of high-quality man (one that's more of a high-flying eagle than a "red pill wolf").
So, as far as high-quality leaders go, there were really two main roads in my eyes for framing the customer's incentive:
- Start getting multiple romantic partners or
- Win one high-quality long-term partner
There isn't necessarily space for both in the tagline.
So, I went with the former because it's sort of implied that if one has the ability to get multiple high-quality women, then they can surely get one for an LTR when they're ready (or just pick from one of the high-quality women they're already seeing).
Note: I also ruled out the phrasing "get more dates" because I felt the thoughts of some readers could be:
- I don't want dates, I just want romance: and great seducers don't have to spend time/money on meals (so I don't want to have to either after paying for this course).
- I shouldn't have to go on "dates" when others recognize me as a high-status leader: they should just be willing to go home with me because I'm the highest-status person in the room (so if I'm still having to spend time/money on the whole date/provider routine, maybe this course won't make me as much of a high-status leader as I'm hoping).
These aren't necessarily true statements/conclusions and they're sort of a beginner's way of looking at dating, in my opinion.
But I think that when people imagine an attractive, high-quality leader that many women admire, they imagine a leader who's already enjoying an abundant dating life with multiple beautiful romantic options, not a bunch of tedious meals and dinners with women who are still playing games.
So, especially since, for the guy, the meal is often just the means to the end he's hoping for, rather than saying "win more dates", maybe let's just frame the high-status leader as having already achieved the end he wants :).
...and become an attractive leader among average men.
This is what spoke to me in the copy for PU back in 2019 without me realizing it.
The prospect of becoming an extraordinary man among ordinary men.
So, I took a similar angle at that here (and would be happy to read if anyone feels it does/doesn't resonate for them).
Happy to read any thoughts/feedback.
BOOM!
Awesome as usual, Ali.
I'd wonder how come you went for "attractive leader".
If I'd have to put an adjective there I may go for something like "superior", "admired" or even the omnipresent "successful".
Reason being that the "attractive" seems to be covered in the previous line with the romantic partners bit. So you may lose a chance of adding another angle with an adjective that has less overlap, and introduces a new angle.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 31, 2022, 6:54 am(...)
I'd wonder how come you went for "attractive leader".
If I'd have to put an adjective there I may go for something like "superior", "admired" or even the omnipresent "successful".
(...)
Yeah, great point, "admired" sounds much better to me :).
On second thought, I just remembered why I opted for "attractive".
My concern was that "admired" can make PU seem like it's only/mainly a leadership course (since admiration implies "looking up" to someone).
That could put PU in a box as only being for leaders, emerging leaders, or aspiring leaders (possibly making everyone else feel like PU isn't for them).
The idea behind being "attractive" is that it's more encompassing of everyone who simply wants to win more friends and romantic partners (i.e. a better social and dating life).
But, I can see how the "attractive" gets blended with the "romantic partners" and can come across as really saying "sexual attractiveness".
So, here's another idea:
Become a leader of men in 3 months.
Get others to respect you, win more romantic partners, and become a charismatic charmer among average men.
Now, PU gets the best of both worlds.
It's for those who want to be more high-status (a leader of men), charismatic, and charming—all rolled into one groundbreaking course.
Happy to read any thoughts :).
P.S.
I think it's imperfect, but I also think it's a good step in the right direction.
