Providing Value DOES NOT Equal Money

[SteveO]

In the most simplest example, you tell them how the property value is going to double within the next 5 years. You show them 3 other houses that have done so in the last 5 years. Are you providing value? No. Are you convincing them that there is potential value because they will give you money. YES.

Spoken like someone that has no understanding of my business...

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[c_morris]

@Utopia
Every reply to you in this thread has been relatively short and to the point, but for some reason you need to spend who knows how long typing out long winded replies in an effort to prove your point. A point, I might add, that has little hope of being made on a forum whose members value the purpose of value in their businesses and lives.

Also, would it kill you to give credit to the members whose messages you quote!

 

[MidwestLandlord]

The government convinces me to pay taxes??

Yeah, and the value they provide in exchange is my NOT going to jail.

Still value provided.

Hell, even a mugger provides value.

"Give me your money and you won't die"

Not dying is pretty valuable I think.

You aren't here to debate, you're here to get your drama fix...it's obvious by your illogical and frankly asinine responses.

 

[Invictus]

Honestly, it seems like you're just trying to be difficult.

You're not looking for a discussion where we all exchange ideas and grow together.

Because it's a simple discussion. "Yea, you're right Utopia. But providing value makes convincing someone to pay you infinitely easier."

You're arguing over semantics and technicalities. That, really, the only reason people get paid is because they convince someone else to pay them.

What do you want everyone to say?

You haven't uncovered some amazing secret.

=
My whole point in all this is adding value is great, yet it is not necessary to obtaining money. This goes contrary to what some are trying to do here, but this is what happens in the real world whether we like it or not.

You're not wrong. You don't have to provide value to obtain money. It's not 'necessary'.

I don't think anyone here would really disagree. MJ has made several threads on 'bro-marketers' and how they make money without offering any true value.

The reason this forum is so hardcore about providing value is for two reasons.

1) It's the right thing to do. Sure, capitalism is amoral by definition, but most of us here aren't. A business that provides value is the right thing to do.

2) It's simple and reliable. Create a product that helps people. That's safe and reliable. You don't have to rely on smoke and mirrors. You don't have to rely on funnels. You don't have to rely on copywriting.

If what you're providing really helps, then you don't have to worry about being 'exposed'. You don't have to worry about your marketing falling through.

Sure, you can work more on convincing people to give you money. You can also rob banks.

But, providing true value is safe. It's reliable. It usually doesn't end with public shaming or jail time.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[mrarcher]

The government convinces me to pay taxes??

Yeah, and the value they provide in exchange is my NOT going to jail.

Still value provided.

Hell, even a mugger provides value.

"Give me your money and you won't die"

Not dying is pretty valuable I think.

You aren't here to debate, you're here to get your drama fix...it's obvious by your illogical and frankly asinine responses.

I see it like insurance. A lot if money goes to things like military spending which I never see but I've never worried about my house being levelled or used as a base by guerrlla fighters.

 

[WJK]

I guess there is a lot of confusion behind the word "VALUE"

And I guess there is a lot of naivetivity with the "free webinar training" culture.

I would like to bring my example:

I do shampoos. it's a bottle of water with a 10% of other stuff.
There are thousands of shampoo in the market.

I offer a free small size sample so people could try the smell and how it leaves their hair, I make them aware that this is a free sample and if they like it and have it available daily, they have to buy the bigger size.
My packaging, colour, feeling, smell is all engineered to trigger an emotional response ( we can go to the frikkin moon but we buy stuff because we "like" it)

I'm I providing value? I don't know, am I?

Someone will say they love my shampoo and under the shower it gives them 5 minutes of escape from reality and makes them dream about being beautiful.
Someone will say I'm crazy.

So to recap: someone will find value in what I do, and I want to get paid for it.
If you hand out free samples everyday, you are providing a ton of value (maybe) and someone "maybe" give you money

So, where I come from, we call that "priming the pump." You have to give before you get. And the "value" for you is to create a sense of obligation in your prospective customer -- because you did give them something -- that they hopefully used -- and they got that 5 minute worth of feeling beautiful.

 

[NanoDrake]

So, where I come from, we call that "priming the pump." You have to give before you get. And the "value" for you is to create a sense of obligation in your prospective customer -- because you did give them something -- that they hopefully used -- and they got that 5 minute worth of feeling beautiful.

"you have to five before you get" well I guess that's persuasion principle #1 isn't it?
The value for me is to create an experience, to create a feeling, to create a product that can cast a dream.
Forget about the hours of research, lab testing to make safe formulas, using top ingredients, it's all about what people want to feel.
They want escape, I deliver.
They want clean and smooth hair, I do that too

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Iammelissamoore]

It's just not true. It can happen and does often, but it's not an absolute.



Great example Mr. Shampoo. Let's take two examples to prove this:

Girl 1: sees the shampoo marketing loves it, feels that her life will be better, buys (this was all convincing someone to give you their money), and then she receives the product and her life is actually better for purchasing it.

Girl 2: sees the shampoo marketing loves it, feels that her life will be better, buys (this was all convincing someone to give you their money), and then she receives the product and she is allergic to one of the ingredients, finds herself in the hospital and $10k in debt because of the stay.

ONCE AGAIN THE VALUE YOU PROVIDED HERE DID NOT RESULT IN MONEY. IT WAS THE CONVINCING OF SOMEONE THAT DID.

Notice how all of it is just a process of convincing someone to give you their money. Their marketing, the messages, and your perception all contribute to them giving you their money.

You overlooked one aspect of the convincing concept, and don't get me wrong, convincing IS important, but, so is stickability.

In your scenario of girl 2, guess how much bad publicity she is willing to share about her horrible experience. Guess the virality of the horrible experience brought forward by many other customers who would share in similar negative experiences? Guess what the lawsuits filed against their company, due to negligence on their part, they'd have to face. The financial dip the company will experience can end them before they begin.

Think about it, I am sure you can come up with at least one trusted brand you supported over the years, that, due to one inferior change, which no longer served your need, due to their negligence, or greed, you no longer decided to purchase their product. Not only did they convince you to buy the "new" and "improved" product, but, in the same purchase, they convinced you to no longer continue purchasing this now inferior product.

Now, don't get us all wrong here, whatever beliefs you have recognised based on your experiences in business, those are yours to practise as you see fit, BUT, you are mostly looking at the Value Principle for short-term reasons, and not for the longevity it can offer.

What genuine value does for a product/service is that after a period of time "convincing" customers about it, you no longer have to continue carving budgets solely for advertising, because the product/service can stand on it's own. The Value/Quality of some products/services can be so exceptional, that it actually becomes a culture and it spreads like wildfire, sometimes without killing your budget in advertising. One classic e.g. Johnny Cupcakes. Whenever they create a new collection of tee-shirts, by the time they do an advert - IF they even decide to, their tee-shirts are sold out. They just have to send out a tweet "New T-Shirts available" and that does it. They don't have to convince people to buy the new Tees, they don't have to run over-the-top campaigns, they just don't. A lot of fans of the brand have gone as far as tattooing the logo onto their bodies.

Value = Quality = Longevity!

The Value aspect guarantees your product/service a permanent space in your industry, without you having to continuously break the bank trying to keep convincing people to invest in what is offered.

 

[masterneme]

You DON'T convince people, people convince themselves.

And we do it by making some internal calculations around the value proposition and acting upon the decisions made.

This thread is a perfect example of this process:

-Value was provided to you in form of experiences and ideas.
-Your beliefs and perceptions made you transform the experiences into thoughts.
-You made some internal calculations around your perceived value.
-You acted upon that and decided that providing value doesn't equal money.
-You acted even further creating this thread spreading your thoughts (value).
-We made our internal calculations around that value proposition and acted upon it.
-More experiences and ideas (value) come to you.

No one convinced you to create these beliefs around money and value, you did.

Unscripted has many pages talking about this too and you already rejected it because you want to keep your bias going.

Which is another way to say that the value proposition is not good enough or you didn't "buy it".

 

[Utopia]

You DON'T convince people, people convince themselves.

And we do it by making some internal calculations around the value proposition and acting upon the decisions made.

This thread is a perfect example of this process:

-Value was provided to you in form of experiences and ideas.
-Your beliefs and perceptions made you transform the experiences into thoughts.
-You made some internal calculations around your perceived value.
-You acted upon that and decided that providing value doesn't equal money.
-You acted even further creating this thread spreading your thoughts (value).
-We made our internal calculations around that value proposition and acted upon it.
-More experiences and ideas (value) come to you.

No one convinced you to create these beliefs around money and value, you did.

Unscripted has many pages talking about this too and you already rejected it because you want to keep your bias going.

Which is another way to say that the value proposition is not good enough or you didn't "buy it".

Totally agree with this, and the only difference in what I was proposing in my view is semantics. Whether or not you convince someone or somehow you are convinced is irrelevant for our discussion.

As regards to other points, nothing in any of what I have said has been illogical, it's my intent to make this as logical and objective as possible (this means we look at observable facts and not shit like "if that's what you believe you won't be in business long" because that's what I think. This is important because humans make error in their thinking and judgment).

I don't care to argue this point as no one has really made a logical point that dissuades what I have proposed. Instead, I would rather prefer to look at the implications. Obviously some of what I have proposed resonates with a few of you and if not, looking at it deeper might help.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Utopia]

WE ARE DEPENDENT ON OTHERS IN ORDER TO MAKE MONEY

Another thought or concept that might smack you in the face. Hell, I still feel goosebumps when I think of this.

If making money means that we have to convince others to give us that money (whether by providing them value, making them think they will get value, scam them, bro market them, whatever) then what has to be true is that we will need others to get money.

No matter which way you try to get around this, and I have tried, this has to be true.

You need to convince your employer that your services are still worth whatever he pays each pay period. Whoever bought your ebook had to be convinced (one way or another) that buying your ebook was worth giving you money, if they weren't convinced you wouldn't have money. The government does not receive any money from its people unless they are convinced they need to give it money (in whatever way the people are convinced-doesn't really matter).

[Keep in mind this is a very loose definition of convince someone that they need to buy from you. If you have a better phrase for this, go ahead, however for the purposes of this conversation, convince someone to buy from you takes many forms- whether they are put on by your marketing, you sway their decision making process, whether the government has punishments for not paying, it doesn't so much matter how they are convinced.]

In all of these examples, what is true is that if someone wasn't convinced that they needed to pay the seller, then the seller would not have any money.

So yes this makes you dependent on others for money.

But hold on one second, how can this be beneficial and useful for us knowing this?

If we know that we aren't going to get money by any other way than to convince others to buy from us, then we have the power to put the onus of our communication on ourselves. Most importantly:

The meaning of my communication is the response I get.

If I am not selling anything, then my communication, my actions, my behaviors, etc. needs to change. If I am not selling anything then it is a good thing because it allows me to adjust my actions to better align with my convincing of others to buy my products.

This could be:
• Better marketing- showing your customers better that they are likely to receive benefit from my product. MJ could change the book title from unscripted to a more benefit oriented name that one could be easier convinced of buying.
• Taking care of my current customers better- someone mentioned that if you scam others you won't have a business long. I agree, and you can take care of your current customers better, get more referrals and testimonials and new customers will be more easily convinced to give you their money
• Get a different product- if no one likes my product and my ability to make money is dependent on others to buy it, then I should probably get a different product
• Talk to new people- not everyone is going to love your product or will be easily convinced to buy your product, try other people who are more receptive
• Much more ish you could do.

So if obtaining money is dependent on others how does this create a problem for most people?

Simple. Most people depend on one person (an employer) in order to receive money. People here at the fastlane probably already know this, but this causes a problem in redundancy. If I lose my ability to convince this one person to give me money, then I have a problem at least until I convince others to give me money.

This is something simple we can all understand here, so I'm not going to go too far in depth with this, but any time you have one employer, one business, one key customer, or one source for money you are setting yourself up for big problems.

So what's the solution?

Very simple as well. Acknowledge that you are dependent on others for earning money and then get as many others as you can so that you don't have to count on one or a few for acquiring your money.

Then you become a master of communication and an ability to convince those others to give you money. Of course providing value is a good idea, but as evidenced earlier it's not necessary. Again, it will make your job as a communicator much easier and you won't be facing as much of an uphill battle if it is already in your customers mind that they are likely to benefit from your offering. This is where your convincing (influencing) is already working.

Next, I want to relate this to other key areas of life. It has been said that making sales is very similar to sales, but what about physical fitness?

But before then, a question you might want to think about is, "How can I convince the most people to give me the most money?" I believe this is the question gurus like Tony Robbins asks themselves.

 

[Dolf112]

Having been a salesperson for a company with zero integrity I don't think you can really understand these concepts fully until you have seen both sides of the coin.
I have seen someone make himself a millionaire by force feeding people sales and working himself to the bone.
It comes back to the reason we are all here imo. We want freedom, separation of time from money.
The only way to really make this happen is to provide value.
The easiest way for me to understand it is the difference between a buyer and a customer. The latter is a repeat buyer who finds the value and keeps coming back for more which causes your wealth to grow exponentially while you sleep (In a lot of cases).

If it's just money you want, go and find a 100% commission sales role with a training program.
If it's freedom and not having to beat people over the head with buzz words, jones effect, fear of loss tactics that are manipulative and unpleasant for the next 5 years only to find that when you stop working 60 hour weeks pushing rather than pulling, which is referenced in Unscripted , that the money stops and you have no real wealth that you want...

Value to create lifetime customers is the only way.

 

[WJK]

WE ARE DEPENDENT ON OTHERS IN ORDER TO MAKE MONEY

Another thought or concept that might smack you in the face. Hell, I still feel goosebumps when I think of this.

If making money means that we have to convince others to give us that money (whether by providing them value, making them think they will get value, scam them, bro market them, whatever) then what has to be true is that we will need others to get money.

No matter which way you try to get around this, and I have tried, this has to be true.

You need to convince your employer that your services are still worth whatever he pays each pay period. Whoever bought your ebook had to be convinced (one way or another) that buying your ebook was worth giving you money, if they weren't convinced you wouldn't have money. The government does not receive any money from its people unless they are convinced they need to give it money (in whatever way the people are convinced-doesn't really matter).

[Keep in mind this is a very loose definition of convince someone that they need to buy from you. If you have a better phrase for this, go ahead, however for the purposes of this conversation, convince someone to buy from you takes many forms- whether they are put on by your marketing, you sway their decision making process, whether the government has punishments for not paying, it doesn't so much matter how they are convinced.]

In all of these examples, what is true is that if someone wasn't convinced that they needed to pay the seller, then the seller would not have any money.

So yes this makes you dependent on others for money.

But hold on one second, how can this be beneficial and useful for us knowing this?

If we know that we aren't going to get money by any other way than to convince others to buy from us, then we have the power to put the onus of our communication on ourselves. Most importantly:

The meaning of my communication is the response I get.

If I am not selling anything, then my communication, my actions, my behaviors, etc. needs to change. If I am not selling anything then it is a good thing because it allows me to adjust my actions to better align with my convincing of others to buy my products.

This could be:
• Better marketing- showing your customers better that they are likely to receive benefit from my product. MJ could change the book title from unscripted to a more benefit oriented name that one could be easier convinced of buying.
• Taking care of my current customers better- someone mentioned that if you scam others you won't have a business long. I agree, and you can take care of your current customers better, get more referrals and testimonials and new customers will be more easily convinced to give you their money
• Get a different product- if no one likes my product and my ability to make money is dependent on others to buy it, then I should probably get a different product
• Talk to new people- not everyone is going to love your product or will be easily convinced to buy your product, try other people who are more receptive
• Much more ish you could do.

So if obtaining money is dependent on others how does this create a problem for most people?

Simple. Most people depend on one person (an employer) in order to receive money. People here at the fastlane probably already know this, but this causes a problem in redundancy. If I lose my ability to convince this one person to give me money, then I have a problem at least until I convince others to give me money.

This is something simple we can all understand here, so I'm not going to go too far in depth with this, but any time you have one employer, one business, one key customer, or one source for money you are setting yourself up for big problems.

So what's the solution?

Very simple as well. Acknowledge that you are dependent on others for earning money and then get as many others as you can so that you don't have to count on one or a few for acquiring your money.

Then you become a master of communication and an ability to convince those others to give you money. Of course providing value is a good idea, but as evidenced earlier it's not necessary. Again, it will make your job as a communicator much easier and you won't be facing as much of an uphill battle if it is already in your customers mind that they are likely to benefit from your offering. This is where your convincing (influencing) is already working.

Next, I want to relate this to other key areas of life. It has been said that making sales is very similar to sales, but what about physical fitness?

But before then, a question you might want to think about is, "How can I convince the most people to give me the most money?" I believe this is the question gurus like Tony Robbins asks themselves.

I agree, we are dependent on others for money. And I would go a step further with your thinking...

My heart burn comes from the idea that of "convincing" others to buy anything. The motivation to buy has to come from the buyer having a perceived need or strong want. My product, or good with an attached value, has to satisfy or fill that need. If I approach them with dollar signs in my eyes (showing that my focus is on ME making money), I'll fail every time. If I go through the song and dance to "convince" them, then they tend to get buyer's remorse and cancel the deal, or they become passive aggressive with me. I only count my money after the deal is inked, the goods are delivered, and the buyer is happy with what they've received from me, and its relative value to the price they have paid.

People don't buy things -- they buy solutions to their painful problems and perceived needs. The "thing" itself, as an object, is incidental and has no intrinsic value. The value is attached only with applied use.

Notice I said "painful". Humans act when their lives hurt in some way -- not when they are happy or content.

People don't buy an impersonal lecture from a guru. They buy time with guy, who they think understands and can speak directly to them -- he can help them fix their lives -- without that fix hurting too much or costing them too much money... And his message is most effective when it is delivered into a group of like minded people -- who each thinks that the speaker is talking directly to them and their problem... Shall I go on?

I would personally change you last question to, "How can provide the most value, to the widest group of people, who are willing and able to pay me fairly for that value?"

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[masterneme]

Totally agree with this, and the only difference in what I was proposing in my view is semantics. Whether or not you convince someone or somehow you are convinced is irrelevant for our discussion.

As regards to other points, nothing in any of what I have said has been illogical, it's my intent to make this as logical and objective as possible (this means we look at observable facts and not sh*t like "if that's what you believe you won't be in business long" because that's what I think. This is important because humans make error in their thinking and judgment).

I don't care to argue this point as no one has really made a logical point that dissuades what I have proposed. Instead, I would rather prefer to look at the implications. Obviously some of what I have proposed resonates with a few of you and if not, looking at it deeper might help.

I don't think the only difference is semantics.

When you interact with people and your intention is convincing them your focus is in a totally different place that when it is in providing value.

The cold simplified objective truth about business is that to make money you need to ask for money.

Now look at how different the scenarios are wherever your focus is:

-You approach people and directly ask for money. That's begging.
-You threat them with a gun. That's robbery.
-You try to convince them through "salesmanship". That's manipulation.
-You give them value and ask for money in return. That's a business relationship.

In every context people think about "what's in it for me" (value in return) and make decissions.

The last scenario is the only one with a 2-way communication, is the only win-win situation.

Again, convincing is an illusion because it's the value (what's in it for me?) what makes the sale, and if it's an illusion your statement is false.

Another example to illustrate this:

-My friend wants to have sex regularly with different pretty women.
-He's fat, has zero confidence and wears ugly sports clothes with food stains.
-He spends a year on diet and going to the gym until he becomes a beefcake.
-He also reads a couple of seduction books, changes his style and stops being filthy.
-Now being a very attractive man he has no problem getting dates and spending nights with many women.
-When you ask him the secret to his success he says: "I'm a master seducer with foolproof pickup lines".
-When you ask women they say: "He's a moron but his a$$ and abs... he's so hot I can't resist!".

 

[jlwilliams]

For those disinclined to read my ramblings, I will summarise by previewing where my post ends up. Make a radical change, and let us know how it goes.

First, anybody who says that the differences in any discussion are only semantics doesn't really know the significance of the word "semantics." Words have meanings and the validity of any argument is inseparable from the words chosen to make that argument. Salesmanship means using words as tools. Take semantics seriously.

To the meat and potatoes of Utopia's argument. You aren't wrong about the value of convincing people to pay you. You are also correct in your observation that the amount someone makes is not always proportional to the value they create or deliver. Where I think you may be getting off the proverbial reservation is that you seem to be getting sucked into despair. It sounds like you are mere steps away from "FTW! I'm going to get rich as a charlatan!" and start a career as a fraudster. Ok, maybe a little bit of an exaggeration, but you get my drift. You had an experience that made you see things differently than you had and it made you question everything. Even questioning the value of value. Suck it up. Take it in stride. Grow from it.

What are you really getting at? What need are you trying to satisfy? Did you really start and follow up with this thread thinking that you have cracked the code by putting marketing over substance? Figure on converting MJ, Vigilant Andy and all to this new eppifiny? Probably not. So what then? What is it you want? Do you want to let off some steam because you feel like information product marketing has betrayed you? Do you want validation that you should focus more on sales? Internet arguing as a sport? I doubt it's that shallow, but I question if you had a clear view of your purpose. What's the end game of your premise?

Personally, like you may have, I decided that my past career had been long on production and short on sales. I mean... I sold my goods and services...but I didn't really know what I was doing. I succeeded largely on passion and the ability to deliver but I didn't leverage persuasion in a substantive way. A couple years ago I started reading more sales and marketing books. I got insurance licenses and a job with an IMO with good training. Commission only sales is like the gladiators arena of learning salesmanship. 2017 was one of the hardest years I've lived. The growth hasn't been comfortable, but my growth is measurable and accelerating. Maybe what you need is a commission sales job. Put your current online pursuit on a slow but not dead back burner and go work at a car dealership. Then again, maybe you need to join the merchant marine and go to sea for a few years. I don't know what, but you definitely are ready for a change. Maybe change what you do, maybe how you do it, or maybe just the way you think and feel about what you do.

Make a radical change, and let us know how it goes.

 

[WJK]

I don't think the only difference is semantics.

When you interact with people and your intention is convincing them your focus is in a totally different place that when it is in providing value.

The cold simplified objective truth about business is that to make money you need to ask for money.

Now look at how different the scenarios are wherever your focus is:

-You approach people and directly ask for money. That's begging.
-You threat them with a gun. That's robbery.
-You try to convince them through "salesmanship". That's manipulation.
-You give them value and ask for money in return. That's a business relationship.

In every context people think about "what's in it for me" (value in return) and make decissions.

The last scenario is the only one with a 2-way communication, is the only win-win situation.

Again, convincing is an illusion because it's the value (what's in it for me?) what makes the sale, and if it's an illusion your statement is false.

Another example to illustrate this:

-My friend wants to have sex regularly with different pretty women.
-He's fat, has zero confidence and wears ugly sports clothes with food stains.
-He spends a year on diet and going to the gym until he becomes a beefcake.
-He also reads a couple of seduction books, changes his style and stops being filthy.
-Now being a very attractive man he has no problem getting dates and spending nights with many women.
-When you ask him the secret to his success he says: "I'm a master seducer with foolproof pickup lines".
-When you ask women they say: "He's a moron but his a$$ and abs... he's so hot I can't resist!".

Love this post. I laughed and laughed at this example!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[WJK]

Commission only sales is like the gladiators arena of learning salesmanship.

I cried all the time during my first 3 months in real estate. That was in 1976 -- 42 years ago, and there was no sales training available -- other than a couple classic books that I couldn't afford to buy at that time. I was just a kid in my early 20s who looked like a 16 year old. Everyone around me was at least 40+ and most were male. I was doggedly determined to make it work. Through my commissions, I made the same money that the male salesmen made, which was unheard of in that day. Going into real estate was the one of the best decisions of my lifetime.

 

[OlivierMo]

I searched the internet and traveled the world looking for an answer to this question.

When I began, I looked at online gurus courses, their webinars, and all of the things they had to say about starting an online business.

Unfortunately I even hired a business coach who I thought would help me with this answer, but I am grateful that wasn't a more costly mistake or a reoccurring nightmare that I am seeing many others face on the online environment today.

And while the title of this post may go in direct violation of what many of you believe or what has become a positive enlightening value judgment by so many well-respected fastlaners here, I have to point out out this truth:

Providing Value DOES NOT Equal Money

What I like about the fastlane is that so many of you are focused on this offering of value. @SinisterLex's recent post about the online gurus and their cult followers and the continued attempts to help out @AndrewNC are among the ones that warm my heart with their good intentions.

Yet, let's get down to a truth that I would like to bring light to (for the purposes of my own reflection and that to which I might be able to help another person not make the same mistake I made).

I have been doing some consulting, coaching, and training sessions for over 3 years now. I've wanted to discover "the secrets" to business all along, but I've become disenchanted by them, even disgruntled.

Following the advise of gurus or whoever else, I led with if I provide people with value then I will be rewarded with money. To this end, I taught a training class every week, sometimes twice a week. I grew a community of people in two different cities and when I wanted to travel I even took the sessions online.

To be fair, I did have people approach me for my services which I profited from, yet something was missing.

I studied Rockefellar, Carnegie, and the Rothchilds. I learned some pretty cool things and also sensed there was something more in their wealth acquisition. Sure, it could be argued that they provided value to a lot of people. I noticed this, yet this didn't line up with current online gurus, politicians, the government, or people who were actually failing their customers.

For example, I had a friend who did Russ Ruffinos client on demand. He would be proud Lex, it's exactly like you described. He told me of the processes that they go through after he is accepted in the program. For Russ to do a million dollar month, he has to come up with 100 clients at his $10k price point, or a little less figuring that some go on to his higher price tier. Nonetheless, my friend told me that only about 1 out of 10 people make it.

This means that about 90-99 people are not receiving the value that they signed up for. They are not receiving their $10,000 worth of value. To a contrasting viewpoint of one forum member (I forget who this was), they are selling a dream, and they are profiting from it immensely.

To this end, it made me look at this belief that "Providing value = money". This cannot be true. Because if this is, then the more value I provide then the more money I will make. If Russ somehow gets his clients to 3/10 who succeed, he is not going to make any more money. Did he provide more value? To this I would say yes.

The problem with value is that it is subjective and in the eyes of the beholder. I find it a fantastic aim for those here at the forum and the intent of it all here is positive, yet it has me at odds with how to really make it financially in the world.

My breakthrough happened last week when my advisor told me not to do any free online trainings anymore. This was a change long overdue and something that I knew I had to do. But immediately when I did it, it reinforced more of my thinking, specifically Providing Value DOES NOT Equal Money.

I told them on the call that I would now be charging a monthly fee. It wasn't a surprise when 1/5 signed up for my monthly paid training and then it hit me:

Convincing Others to Give You Money = Money

It really is as simple as that.

The reason that 20% of my students gave me money is because I convinced them to. The reason Russ Ruffino has a business that is (looks) successful is because he convinces people to give them money. If you are reading this and have a job, you get money because you (or someone else) convinced your employer that you should get that money.

There are some amazing people here that are all about giving value and I applaud that. In addition to this, there are some people who are spreading their message, making millions, and who are not all about giving value.

I've heard Russ argue or at least imply that if he can change the life of one business owner, then it was the price of the others who he didn't serve was worth it. Simply put, I'm trying to provide value for you all, but only a few will be able to accept it.

What really is the answer to it all?

You have to find your own answer on what you do and where you will go, but if you want to find a model for making money this is it. Sometimes value, real value that you can actually provide will get you money, but this is when someone is convinced enough of that value they will get to give you money. Do not be mislead, value can lead to money, but it is not absolute.

If you doubt this, you can look all around. One of the masters of persuasion of our time is Tony Robbins. The value he provides is subjective and often times untangible, but what cannot be denied is that he has convinced a lot of people to give him a ton of money.

This has been a post that has been weighing on my heart and something that I believe has been holding me back. The nature of things are to constantly evolve. While there is a part of me that wants to go against those gurus who do their webinar thing, it also should be the case where the rich getting richer inevitably turns out better for humanity.

Sometimes I feel like my ethics get in the way of becoming like rich governments and politicians, yet I also wonder, if it is survival of the fittest, where am I.

Convince Others To Give You Money = Money

Interesting post. Value may indeed be subjective. But also if someone's offering the same valuable good or service then prices will come down. Then value becomes the ratio cost / output or cost / quality of the service. So if you offer bad quality for an expensive price your value sucks. If you provide tons of value with better courses, better follow up, better teaching skills you may increase your price because the value is higher. When I freelanced I noticed that being cheap didn't pay off. Assuming you provide great value, tt's better to get less clients but the ones paying the most so you have more time to create that value.

 

[Utopia]

Some great responses.

What are you really getting at? What need are you trying to satisfy? Did you really start and follow up with this thread thinking that you have cracked the code by putting marketing over substance? Figure on converting MJ, Vigilant Andy and all to this new eppifiny? Probably not. So what then? What is it you want?

In all honesty, my whole intent of this post was to challenge this new conclusion I came to. My hope was that it could be destroyed with logic and objectivity since I had so long clinged to the idea that providing people value would bring me money. It's one of those ideas that makes you feel good, one that if you paid a guru to tell you, it makes you and the guru look good.

The motivation to buy has to come from the buyer having a perceived need or strong want.

In my experience this has generally been true. However, what is more important than anything is that a person buys because it is the best choice (in their available options of choices for them to make) IE. They were convinced of buying, somehow someway.

They buy time with guy, who they think understands and can speak directly to them -- he can help them fix their lives -- without that fix hurting too much or costing them too much money... And his message is most effective when it is delivered into a group of like minded people -- who each thinks that the speaker is talking directly to them and their problem... Shall I go on?

They buy a way to make their life better.

I would personally change you last question to, "How can provide the most value, to the widest group of people, who are willing and able to pay me fairly for that value?"

Absolutely not. Your phrase is implicit with tons of judgments and will be difficult to give our brains direction. Fairly according to whom? Who is the judge of what is fair or not, you, god, my customers? To this point as well, value is too subjective. Direction and focus is what I realize is most important than anything. But to your point, there is another question that might be just as good, if not better:

"What actions must I take or what must happen for the most people to pay me the most amounts of money?"

Of course, you can alter yours however you see fit, but this is more beneficial for the one looking to obtain large amounts of money. I do have a piece in my question about helping others to as it is important to me to leave others better off.

To our next guy's point, language and communication is important. Semantics is not:

-You try to convince them through "salesmanship". That's manipulation.

Again this is a judgment, with it's reliability depending on who made the judgment. What is manipulation and who is the judge of manipulation and a good salesman? Is what was described in Lex's thread about how people have webinars and closing high ticket sales and how they have this down to a science is this manipulation? Many different people are going to have many different opinions about this, including the guru taking everyone's money.

Let's try to be objective here. Objective means knowing for a fact, not someone's opinion or judgment.

-You give them value and ask for money in return. That's a business relationship.

Obviously you got lost somewhere in the earlier posts where this was clearly proved wrong. To your point what you stated could be more accurately phrased:
"You give them the opportunity to see how their life/business would be better working with you, then you ask for money to make that happen."

Another example here could be:
-The government makes me file taxes and somehow x% of that tax money goes to a cause that is asinine in my mismanaged government.

Call it a win win if you want, government gets money and you don't get a penalty.

You are also correct in your observation that the amount someone makes is not always proportional to the value they create or deliver.

This is so key! If value=money, then this would be demonstrable somehow with an equation. Whether that is an exponential function, a linear function whatever, but where it goes wrong is providing value=$0. If this can be true, then it must be true that making money can't only be a simple function of providing others value.

Where I think you may be getting off the proverbial reservation is that you seem to be getting sucked into despair. It sounds like you are mere steps away from "FTW! I'm going to get rich as a charlatan!"

Haha nope, I just had my eyes open and wish someone had put this post in front of me or lectured me on this earlier. I probably wouldn't have read the post or I would have reacted negatively angrily as many of you had anyhow.

But also if someone's offering the same valuable good or service then prices will come down. Then value becomes the ratio cost / output or cost / quality of the service. So if you offer bad quality for an expensive price your value sucks. If you provide tons of value with better courses, better follow up, better teaching skills you may increase your price because the value is higher. When I freelanced I noticed that being cheap didn't pay off. Assuming you provide great value, tt's better to get less clients but the ones paying the most so you have more time to create that value.

Price is a function of supply and demand. This can be proven with economics. Without government intervention or other factors, price will rise (usually) depending on increased demand and decreased supply. So when your product or service is one of a kind (low supply) and they can't find it anywhere as they have tried (demand) then you will more often then not be able to charge higher prices.

Another example to illustrate this:

-My friend wants to have sex regularly with different pretty women.
-He's fat, has zero confidence and wears ugly sports clothes with food stains.
-He spends a year on diet and going to the gym until he becomes a beefcake.
-He also reads a couple of seduction books, changes his style and stops being filthy.
-Now being a very attractive man he has no problem getting dates and spending nights with many women.
-When you ask him the secret to his success he says: "I'm a master seducer with foolproof pickup lines".

I was interested in the answer to this one as well because one could argue that giving a woman more value can lead you to have better success with women. More on this to come.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Patrick Besong]

I can totally agree with this. My software, MovieCaptioner, is used the world over by such organizations as Apple, NASA, most US agencies, many colleges and universities, and many famous business such as Starbuck and the Opraph Winfrey Network (OWN), but i'm still not rich 11 years later.

 

[masterneme]

I can totally agree with this. My software, MovieCaptioner, is used the world over by such organizations as Apple, NASA, most US agencies, many colleges and universities, and many famous business such as Starbuck and the Opraph Winfrey Network (OWN), but i'm still not rich 11 years later.

price(value) * volume = become a millionaire

How?

price > 0
value is boolean so is either a 1 or a 0
volume > 0

In your case either the price or the volume is too low to make you rich.

And for the OP here you have more algorithms:

value = a need/want met or a problem solved
price = the amount of money you are asking for
price(value) = get money or not depending on value being 1 or 0
price(value) * volume = business

How is value determined?

-If I'm a beggar the people will have a sense of rightfullness or goodwill for giving me money.
-If I'm a robber the value is staying alive.
-If I'm a scammer I'm transforming value from 0 to 1 by lying and manipulating people's perception.
-If I'm an entrepeneur I'll manipulate price and/or volume to get recurring income and the value is provided by listening to the marketmind and giving people what they want.

It's that simple, if you don't provide value you get nothing in return.

Now you could say that value can be higher than 1 and I'd agree, so let's add an "added value multiplier":

price[avm(value)] * volume = ultimate business algorithm

added value multiplier = 1 or more depending on different factors, for example:

-Urgency. Someone's life may depend on a pill or a procedure and it will dramatically increase the value of the offering.
-Good marketing AKA "convincing" people about the benefits of the product.
-Social proof. Many people using your app and having good reviews increases the perceived value because of the increased trust.
-Brand passion. Your true fans are so in love with you that even that crappy mp3 player you released ages ago was "amazing" in their eyes.
-And so on...

 

[Utopia]

THE PROBLEM WITH VALUE

I like providing people with value, making their life better, but there is a very real and very big problem with having it by me focus of my business efforts.

I'm liking this thought process more:

price(value) * volume = become a millionaire

Again value is too subjective for our purposes and unclear for our minds to direct us as efficient as possible.

Again, objectivity is what we are after. This is why we can through all this garbage out:

-If I'm a beggar the people will have a sense of rightfullness or goodwill for giving me money.
-If I'm a robber the value is staying alive.
-If I'm a scammer I'm transforming value from 0 to 1 by lying and manipulating people's perception.
-If I'm an entrepeneur I'll manipulate price and/or volume to get recurring income and the value is provided by listening to the marketmind and giving people what they want.

Why?

Because this is you projecting your world view on us, inaccurately and ineffectively. What is a beggar, who is the judge of a beggar? Is one a beggar if they work at a car dealership and ask for money all day? It's unclear and UNOBJECTIVE. Same with "scammer", same with "manipulate". While our definitions might be close for this, it's not good enough for objective reality.

Which brings me to the point of value.

Value is subjective. It is in the eye of the beholder. What is valuable to one person is not valuable to another person and yet the reverse can be true or not true.

This is why it can be challenging to see what people find to be valuable in the marketplace. The whole purpose of A/B testing is to make this OBJECTIVE.

Which I suggest is the whole point of this post.

The good news about value is we can make it objective. If we have 100 people on our sales page and 50 people click buy, then we know that what we were offering to 100 people appeared to be valuable to 50 people enough to buy. However, we have not provided value yet and we have money.

So, I wanted to get to the other areas of life as some may still not get this. If I take a girl out for 5 dates, maybe I have provided value, but if I want to make her my girlfriend the only true way to make her my girlfriend is to convince her to be my girlfriend.

This can happen by taking her out to 5 dates (providing value), but it's in fact not necessary. Some may disagree with this, doesn't really matter, what I know to be a fact is that you get a girlfriend, you have sex with someone of the opposite sex, you get married, etc. etc. because you convince them to. They see it as the best option available to them so they cash in and hope to get value.

In a marriage, often the women will want a guy who she sees adding value to her life over the years. Sometimes he beats her and leaves her thousands of dollars in debt (negative value), but what was true is that at some point in her life, when she married him, she was convinced to do so.

However, one place this does break down is in your health and fitness. Specifically talking here, if you want to get buff at the gym or lose weight, there is no one but yourself you need to convince to do so. This is what is so great about your fitness is that it all depends on you (for the most part).

So, if you are poor, have terrible health, and your relationships suck, starting with your fitness could be the best option for you since it is all about yourself and you putting in the effort.

However, with business and relationships again you are dependent on others. And no you don't have to provide people with value, but you must convince others of giving you money. You can do this with your product- you are an attractive dude with a haircut and abs, your marketing- you are skillful in conversation and present yourself masterfully, or many other ways all of which were talked about on this business forum.

I thank you all on this discussion because it has been fantastic to get a further grasp on this more accurate view of the world. As of this writing it has at least benefitted me $1300 in the last week. And I'm still committed to giving my clients value.

Not really interested in going further on this, unless anyone else has any more thoughts and questions. Say what you want about "being that guy", but the rigidity and subjective thinking garbage can and is more harmful to others at times.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

Say what you want about "being that guy",

FYI, that post was not in anyway a reference to you or this thread.

Clearly there's been some two-way discussion here.

 

[SteveO]

FYI, that post was not in anyway a reference to you or this thread.

Clearly there's been some two-way discussion here.

Whether you did not intend it to be, I strongly felt that he was. I did not even defend my position as he was so far off base, yet made a statement about my business like it was fact.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Weather you did not intend it to be, I strongly felt that he was. I did not even defend my position as he was so far off base, yet made a statement about my business like it was fact.

And that's one of the many reasons why I didn't even bother engaging in this thread. But others have.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[masterneme]

Of course value is subjective no one said otherwise...

When we say providing value we mean giving something valuable for other people.

So if you sell a product that thousands of costumers buy monthly because it solves a problem/covers a need you're actively and objectively providing value.

In other words you know you're providing value because the feedback you get not because your judgments of what you're giving away.

There's an entire chapter in Unscripted talking about this that you decided it has no value, so in your specific case value = 0.

-A beggar is, objectively, a person who begs for money.
The value is in whatever people get in return, good feelings or the sense of doing the right thing, something subjective. But they objectively got value from that "transaction".
-A rober is, objectively, a person who uses force and intimidation to take your money.
The value is in whatever people get in return, good feelings for not being killed or maybe a story to tell to friends, something subjective. But they objectively got value from that "transaction".
-A scammer is, objectively, a person who uses lies and manipulation to convince people to buy something that is not what is advertised or doesn't work.
The value is in whatever people get in return, in this case a mental contruct built around lies, something subjective. But they objectively got value from that "transaction", except that in this case is temporary and it will go away again when the buyer realizes he's been scammed.
-An entrepeneur is, objectively, a person who offers goods and/or services to cover needs and/or solve people's problems.
The value is in whatever people get in return, needs covered, problems solved and whatever they get as a consequence of that, something subjective. But they objectively got value from that "transaction".

The thing is, providing value doesn't equal money but, whenever money changes hands it does as a consequence of an exchange in value.

I think this all boils down to a simple misunderstanding, your assumption that we have been talking about value as a measure given from the providers and not the receptors.

 

[AllenCrawley]

 

[Deleted50669]

Providing someone with value makes it a hell of a lot easier to convince them to give you money. Do not confuse the event (someone giving you money) for the process (creating value that someone needs). You are event focused - this is cancerous to success. If you walked up and asked me to give you money I'd tell you to F*ck yourself because you aren't showing me value. Check out the salary comparison between a CEO and CMO, there's a reason a CMO is paid more than the CEO is many cases; they communicate value to customers. Sales asks for money, marketing communicates value before sales can even pretend to be relevant.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

I knew allowing this thread to continue was a mistake, especially to debate on a topic I clearly discussed in a book I spent 3 years writing. And since he don't want to read my thoughts on it, I refuse to read his.

Lesson learned for allowing a debate about what boils down to "You guys need air to breathe! Without it, you die!"

And now since the original author thought it wise to attack the big value providers at this forum (I deleted it) this thread is done. Kaput.

On the bright side, this thread is great example of how we determine value.

So I guess he wins. Value is subjective. And my subjective interpretation of this thread is it is worthless and proves zero value.

Thread closed.