YOu have to have hear me out here. I've started to subscribe to some of the newsletters that the smartest marketing people in the world are behind, and I've been totally shocked at how absolutly terrilby some of them do. I'm actually starting to think that in some ways it might be part of the marketing plan: Here is why. Us against them is one of the very strongest bonding themes you can use with a human being. Don't believe me, try this. Ad: "needed: Healthy young men to travel to strange foreign lands to kill strangers. Your chances of being killed or maimed yourself are very high, and you will almost certainly watch some of your best friends die in front of you" Not too appealing, but people are joining the army to fight a common foe. It's happened for ages. So I read these things and they go on and on about the idiots moving the market this way, and the evil manipulators etc. And some of these letters are making tens of millions per year for the propriator. Anyway this is just something that has struck me as interesting. This being ET I'm sure I wont have any problem finding a stack of people who agree with me, but I'm actually kind of surprised and I honestly do think some of them are losing on purpose as a well thought out strategy for keeping customers and I aint kidding.
I don't normally swing trade but I've been watching a site that makes stock recommendations. I put the highest rated ones on a list and then check them out in 30 days. So far they are 10 for 10 winners. I had a sneaking suspicion that the site might have some merit because as a whole it has a very large following. Nothing exclusive about it. If it keeps working out, I might start making swing trades myself.
1) People want different things from the market. 2) Some want to make money. 3) Some want entertainment. 4) Some want to be affiliated with other like-minded people. 5) Some are looking for a spouse. 6) Some want to show off their intellect. 7) Some want to exploit others. 8) Some like to make "bullet points" on message boards.
have you order a very popular dish but it tasted bland? my theory is it was a good dish but it took time to make. Then after a while the manager figured out most of people couldn't tell the diff anyway so they watered it down. So the dish may tasted bland but the manager still rake in the dough.
Only a miniscule percent of newletters beat the S&P on a risk adj basis. past one business cycle. And those don't beat by enough to make the effort worthwhile. They all have great excuses on why they lost. I've even watched one well known guy change the calls on his public website after bad calls. IMO most newsletter subscribers are gamblers looking for a fix or naive newbies that don't know any better. The gold bug/inflation guys are the worst at what you're talking about. There's always a conspiracy about why gold's not at $10,000.
Agree. And the bonding is SO STRONG in those types of newsletters because it really appeals to a conservative audiance who feels ignored. So then they have this special group of people who get it,and damn the man we are standing up to them with them help of our fearless leader Guru Sham. Anyway I could be totally off base with this...but I dunno. I once crashed my own server on purpose to increase my sales and it worked like friggin crazy...so crazy shit happens out there. Brandon
btw, here is why this works. It makes it look like sooooooooo many people are ordering from you that you cant even keep up (social proof). Then when you put the server back up worry that its going to crash again and they need to get the order in right away before the deadline (scarcity) Brandon
Just yakking but maybe the quote from the link below plays a role in continued success of the newsletter. My first thoughts on your post were Cramer, there is a marketing strategy in play, you can throw tomatoes all day long at that guy and this doesn't change a thing. his strengths must come from his followers and how he adapts. Secondly, on the other extreme which I haven't thought about too much is Buffett and his shareholder letters or interviews, he doesn't come across as a leader nor a follower. "The traditional notion that leaders are active and followers passive is also mistaken and contributes to misconceptions about the organizational functions of superiors and underlings. Behaviorists now recognize that active followers influence leaders at every level of the hierarchy, and that leadership itself is a process, not a person." http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19920901-000004.html