Should I dumb down my content for people like @vigilante and @imgal?

[Christopher777]

This was not subtle, it was so blatant that I was hoping to read a joke.

It's just that, the phrase "dumb down", really didn't register with me. We all have different offense thresholds. And I've always taken online interaction with a grain of salt since it's very different from real life interaction.

I got your point. He's got this cocky vibe, yet I could sense his good intentions. And there's the button-pushing, aiming for a reaction intent there that obviously worked. Sort of like the polarizing tactics I saw in network marketing culture.

Hehe, he really must clarify now.

So, yeah, the meaning of communication is the response HE gets so yeah lol...

He miscalibrated.

 

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

[maverick]

@AndrewNC
So which feedback was the most valuable.. and how long was the post?

 

[Jon L]

(this comment took me 41 minutes to write and was edited what felt like 387 times before posting)

I'm so glad I'm not the only one that spends a long time writing.

 

[Sheps]

Can't you just test it? Write something short and punchy, then compare how it's received. Although you'd have to give it a fighting chance. Can't make a long form post on something great then a short punchy one on why you should eat 4 raw onions a day is what I'm saying.

 

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

[JAJT]

We all have different offense thresholds.

When you specifically call out another person by name, you should either:

1. Know them well enough to be certain of where their threshold is, or
2. Assume their "offensive threshold" is nearly non existent.

And let's not forget the important last point:

3. Be prepared to properly apologize if you screw up the first two points

So far the apology consisted of "sorry you feel that way" which is quite a lot different from "Sorry, I shouldn't have done that".

 

[Sully1994]

I'm not saying that this is who anyone should aspire to be.

I'm not even saying that she shouldn't be exiled to a third world country where people live in mud huts and shit in a hole in the ground.

But dude, she used three words.

three.

She'll easily be worth a million by the end of the year.

( or be dead)

 

[Get Right]

Thoughts?

1. Apologize to Vig and Imgal
2. Include a TL;DR
3. Keep postin' and progressin'

 

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

[JAJT]

But dude, she used three words.

I had no idea who this is or what she did so I googled it and found it out.

Basically she's an idiot who said "catch me outside" as a threat to the audience on Dr. Phil in a dumb accent and has ridden her angsty attitude to fame and now charges talking fees to show up places. Was in a rap video. Etc... On pace to be worth a million as mentioned, supposedly.

Basically she's famous for being a brat.

I didn't want to write any of this but I didn't want anyone else to waste the time figuring it out either.

 

[Vigilante]

No apology needed or requested. I literally don't care.

 

[jon.a]

No apology needed or requested. I literally don't care.

I'd sure hate to be on your do not call list. Andrew? Meh.

 

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

[GuestUser4aMPs1]

@AndrewNC
This is what happens when you try to use the Forum as an ATM:



...and it cost you the trust of a lot of potential customers.
Was it worth it?

 

[Dylan_91]

So I've been getting a lot of feedback lately that my writing is too long.

My blog posts, email newsletter, guest articles on various websites, and you see some of it here.

@Vigilante and @Imgal - commented on the length of it.

GOLD - I'm sorry, but this is going to be painful for a lot of you...

View attachment 15405

For one of my free offers, I have a 7-part video course (takes an hour to go through) that will teach them everything they need to know in order to fix a specific (large) problem in their life. I created the course knowing that the people who take the time to go through it will 100% have their problem fixed.

• From a business growth perspective - If I solve this problem in their lives - they will be grateful, and they will most likely buy my book and other products in the future if I've already made such an impact for free...
• From a value-add perspective - Why water down my content and give a half-assed approach when the goal is to actually fix a problem?

But then I was talking to a marketing consultant who said it's was wayyyyy too long (along with 50 other people who have said the same thing).

She said instead, I should have a quick 2-minute video or 3 page pdf as a "lead magnet", which people can easily digest. The average attention span is less than that of a goldfish nowadays.

If I dumb down my content, I will get more subscribers, and more people engaged....

The core of my brand is to help people do big things (which require a multi-year attention span). Think similar to the dedication and focus it requires to build a business, or move up in the world of acting/art/sports.

If I dumb down my content, I'll be attracting the type of person who wants the quick fix and doesn't have the persistence to accomplish what the brand helps people accomplish.

So if I make the shorter content, I'll attract the type of people who would rather get their next social media-quick fix; which is not the type of person who usually goes on to these types of things.

Is this really the type of person I want to be helping?

So I'm thinking lately that I shouldn't compromise the quality of what I put out, based on the wrong type of people...

If somebody is truly committed to fixing this problem in their life, they'll go through the hour-long course, or spend 15 minutes to read the long article. And when they do that, they'll actually get everything they need, instead of an easy 7-step bullet point quick fix...which doesn't actually solve the problem.

Which will mean less subscribers...

There are three types of people in this world:

1. The quick-fix zombies who don't have the persistence to build anything big in their lives, yet alone read a 15-minute article or take an hour-long free course that will fix a problem in their life.

2. The ones who have the persistence and actually have the traits that will lead to them being successful.

3. People like Imgal and Vigilante who are already on track and not part of my target market.

My gut is telling me to stick with putting everything out there (not matter how long it takes) to solve the problems of people who are actually committed to taking the time and experience results in their life; instead of watering down the content to attract the wrong people.

Thoughts?

I like your posts, detailed even if they are long.

Though it seems some are speaking here on the contrary, maybe that means the market thinks otherwise.

 

[G-Man]

I'd sure hate to be on your do not call list. Andrew? Meh.

I'm shocked. You're known for being warm and fuzzy. This just hurts my feels.

 

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

[Vigilante]

I'm shocked. You're known for being warm and fuzzy. This just hurts my feels.

Jon has forgotten more than I have ever known. Fortunate that he takes my calls.

 

[jon.a]

Jon has forgotten more than I have ever known. Fortunate that he takes my calls.

What?

 

[Vigilante]

What?

I greatly respect you. From your military service to your business ideas/insight.

There's a Bob Dylan song that says "I've forgotten more than you will ever know." I think the reverse is true for us. You have years worth of experiences on me.

We are fortunate here to have guys like you and @Walter Hay around.

 

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

[MoneyDoc]

I don't think you should do anything just to please others. Do what you feel is right.

With that said, I don't think calling out Vigi and imgal was the right thing to do. Unless there's a backstory (even then...), you could've just said "should I dumb down my content - forum poll."

 

[AndrewNC]

Interesting how some friendly banter stirred up so many emotions.

Waiting around to see what else has come out of the woodwork before I reply to some of this...

 

[ZCP]

@AndrewNC Just curious, any uptick in traffic and sign ups?
Lot of controversy. Just wondering if it drove any traffic......

I thought @Vigilante and @jon.a were both over 100?!
Was it @jon.a that came over on the Mayflower with @Vigilante just two weeks behind?
Love both of you!

 

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

[G-Man]

Interesting how some friendly banter stirred up so many emotions.

Waiting around to see what else has come out of the woodwork before I reply to some of this...
View attachment 15440

Dude, you can't get un-gentlemanly with people, then respond with "I was joking" when it goes sideways.

As someone who's been called out for being an a**hole here multiple times, I can testify that people here are quick to forgive if you're quick to apologize.

Like I said: I like your writing, but I can't understand what you were trying to accomplish with this.

 

[Christopher777]

When you specifically call out another person by name, you should either:

1. Know them well enough to be certain of where their threshold is, or
2. Assume their "offensive threshold" is nearly non existent.

And let's not forget the important last point:

3. Be prepared to properly apologize if you screw up the first two points

Agreed.

Though, here's the thing. When relating to (or at least observing) other people when you have an extremely developed resistance to social pressure aka thick skin, you often see what others overlook. And it's sometimes tricky because too often, you have to go back down a notch to still be able to relate aka, you're still human.

It's like, you're almost too nihilistic or stoic (whatever) because of what you have gone through in life and you sort of find it funny when people take things too personally. In this case, a miscalibrated attempt, or a forum experiment to gather feedback, for (marketing, value providing and menacing purposes). YET still remain a fully functional human being.

On the other hand, any person that achieves a purely nihilistic perspective (which is advantageous in some ways) BUT have lost their ability to relate to others are what we call "crazy peeps".

I write about Metacognition by the way. Your reply is completely logical and valid. My point is, from the Meta context, what was seen in this thread, there was a lack of choice, between stimulus-response. @AndrewNC 's post was the stimulus. And the responses were "humanly predictable". When you operate from Meta, instead of just being strictly logical and computer like in your response, you retain the ability to be impartial and distance yourself from what's happening and from there, you're operating on a totally different level.

I was quite glad that @Vigilante said he literally does not care. That's badass.

There's also the matter of context. In this case, Andrew broke the commandment of context. He didn't provide any. The surface level appearance of the post dominated.

He just went on with the deed and this hints at me that he was not Meta when he posted. Maybe, maybe not. But most probably. So few people can go Meta.

This also touches on the topic of boundaries and the grey area between being assertive and not taking it personally.

I also noticed that this kind of thing happens all the time, everywhere. From our families, friends to romantic relationships.

A loose random example : Your girlfriend/wife made you wait at the restaurant for 2 hours for whatever reason. This was the second time she did it. And you love her so much.

Do you get angry in an instant? Do you cut her off and ignore her? Do you clarify boundaries? Do you break up with her? Do you brush it off and act like nothing happened?

If you were Meta and your woman was not, you're gonna have to make sacrifices to lead the situation to a direction you desire.

Stimulus. Response. Do you have a choice?

 

[jlwilliams]

I'm a firm believer in long format sales letters and full length articles. I bemoan the short attention span "content" that is the new norm as much as the next geezer. That said, you are missing the opportunity to better your output by being dismissive.

 

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

[Sully1994]

Agreed.

Though, here's the thing. When relating to (or at least observing) other people when you have an extremely developed resistance to social pressure aka thick skin, you often see what others overlook. And it's sometimes tricky because too often, you have to go back down a notch to still be able to relate aka, you're still human.

It's like, you're almost too nihilistic or stoic (whatever) because of what you have gone through in life and you sort of find it funny when people take things too personally. In this case, a miscalibrated attempt, or a forum experiment to gather feedback, for (marketing, value providing and menacing purposes). YET still remain a fully functional human being.

On the other hand, any person that achieves a purely nihilistic perspective (which is advantageous in some ways) BUT have lost their ability to relate to others are what we call "crazy peeps".

I write about Metacognition by the way. Your reply is completely logical and valid. My point is, from the Meta context, what was seen in this thread, there was a lack of choice, between stimulus-response. @AndrewNC 's post was the stimulus. And the responses where "humanly predictable". When you operate from Meta, instead of just being strictly logical and computer like in your response, you retain the ability to be impartial and distance yourself from what's happening and from there, you're operating on a totally different level.

I was quite glad that @Vigilante said he literally does not care. That's badass.

There's also the matter of context. In this case, Andrew broke the commandment of context. He didn't provide any. The surface level appearance of the post dominated.

He just went on with the deed and this hints at me that he was not Meta when he posted. Maybe, maybe not. But most probably. So few people can go Meta.

This also touches on the topic of boundaries and the grey area between being assertive and not taking it personally.

I also noticed that this kind of thing happens all the time, everywhere. From our families, friends to romantic relationships.

A loose random example : Your girlfriend/wife made you wait at the restaurant for 2 hours for whatever reason. This was the second time she did it. And you love her so much.

Do you get angry in an instant? Do you cut her off and ignore her? Do you clarify boundaries? Do you break up with her? Do you brush it off and act like nothing happened?

If you were Meta and your woman was not, you're gonna have to make sacrifices to lead the situation to a direction you desire.

Stimulus. Response. Do you have a choice?

Agreed.

Though, here's the thing. When relating to (or at least observing) other people when you have an extremely developed resistance to social pressure aka thick skin, you often see what others overlook. And it's sometimes tricky because too often, you have to go back down a notch to still be able to relate aka, you're still human.

It's like, you're almost too nihilistic or stoic (whatever) because of what you have gone through in life and you sort of find it funny when people take things too personally. In this case, a miscalibrated attempt, or a forum experiment to gather feedback, for (marketing, value providing and menacing purposes). YET still remain a fully functional human being.

On the other hand, any person that achieves a purely nihilistic perspective (which is advantageous in some ways) BUT have lost their ability to relate to others are what we call "crazy peeps".

I write about Metacognition by the way. Your reply is completely logical and valid. My point is, from the Meta context, what was seen in this thread, there was a lack of choice, between stimulus-response. @AndrewNC 's post was the stimulus. And the responses where "humanly predictable". When you operate from Meta, instead of just being strictly logical and computer like in your response, you retain the ability to be impartial and distance yourself from what's happening and from there, you're operating on a totally different level.

I was quite glad that @Vigilante said he literally does not care. That's badass.

There's also the matter of context. In this case, Andrew broke the commandment of context. He didn't provide any. The surface level appearance of the post dominated.

He just went on with the deed and this hints at me that he was not Meta when he posted. Maybe, maybe not. But most probably. So few people can go Meta.

This also touches on the topic of boundaries and the grey area between being assertive and not taking it personally.

I also noticed that this kind of thing happens all the time, everywhere. From our families, friends to romantic relationships.

A loose random example : Your girlfriend/wife made you wait at the restaurant for 2 hours for whatever reason. This was the second time she did it. And you love her so much.

Do you get angry in an instant? Do you cut her off and ignore her? Do you clarify boundaries? Do you break up with her? Do you brush it off and act like nothing happened?

If you were Meta and your woman was not, you're gonna have to make sacrifices to lead the situation to a direction you desire.

Stimulus. Response. Do you have a choice?

Regardless of context, this is a tone deaf post.

Even if vigilante and Imgal had not been specifically called out, It would still read with condescension . It wrongly implies that shortening text somehow equates to
"dumb downed" and "over simplified".

This isn't even about writing style. It's about having empathy for your audience and listening when they give you suggestions on how to improve your craft.

It shouldn't take 50 plus people hammering away at you saying , "dude your shit isn't engaging enough to warrant its length".

After receiving comments like that, you should be asking for tips on how to better your style.

Dismissing the source of criticism as people who "just aren't smart enough to grasp my genius" is pretentious.

 

[Argue]

Egoism is unhealthy.

 

[Christopher777]

Regardless of context, this is a tone deaf post.

Even if vigilante and Imgal had not been specifically called out, It would still read with condescension . It wrongly implies that shortening text somehow equates to
"dumb downed" and "over simplified".

This isn't even about writing style. It's about having empathy for your audience and listening when they give you suggestions on how to improve your craft.

It shouldn't take 50 plus people hammering away at you saying , "dude your shit isn't engaging enough to warrant its length".

After receiving comments like that, you should be asking for tips on how to better your style.

Dismissing the source of criticism as people who "just aren't smart enough to grasp my genius" is pretentious.

Point taken. Good stuff.

Even if he was pretentious though, he can condescend the hell out me and I wouldn't even lift my pinkie finger. I'd gladly take him on his intellectual gladiatorship no offense Andrew, it looks like you messed with the smartest guys on the planet lol

There must have been some truth to the LATER PARTS of the post because I guess that's what really hit home. Even though it was said in a condescending manner, it still has merit.

This thread is enjoyable.

 

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

[Christopher777]

Egoism is unhealthy.

True. It's also the same thing that responds violently when condescended.

If you had no ego, you would be totally at peace, like a monk, on the top of a mountain.

But we all do. It's self-evident.

I'm simply saying that we can transcend it. Aka (not controlled by it)

 

[Fox]

Reminds me of your other thread that tarnished Sinister Lex's name to get more clicks.

Good content on this forum always rises to the top. It doesn't need clickbait titles or needlessly attacking Senior members to gain views.

Having read into and listened to Vigilantes backstory it sucks to see his name being used in this way.
Also to use a popcorn gif after everyone takes the time to help guide you is extremely distasteful.

 

[biophase]

Interesting how some friendly banter stirred up so many emotions.

Waiting around to see what else has come out of the woodwork before I reply to some of this...
View attachment 15440

Not good. Probably would have been better to not even post this. What was the point? Are you waiting for the fire to get bigger before you douse it or pour kerosene on it?

 

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

[Locomote]

Not good. Probably would have been better to not even post this. What was the point? Are you waiting for the fire to get bigger before you douse it or pour kerosene on it?

My thoughts exactly...

 

[IceCreamKid]

Andrew, stop. Just stop.

Or if you do want to post further then how about a genuine, "My fault, I apologize. I'm human and I made a mistake like any other human does". Saying stuff like, "I'm sorry you feel that way" just makes things worse.

We all have said some crazy stupid shit in our lives. At least I know I have.

You're not going to suddenly be seen as a lesser person for making some mistake. If anything, it makes you seem more authentic.

This forum is a community and we're all in this together so please stop stirring things up man. Tearing down SinisterLex, Vig, Imgal...come on man. Life is too short for this. Let's go make some positive changes to help our fellow man/woman.