The aftermath of the misbehaving LinkedIn Group member
First, let me share some great posts from my academic and other friends:
- From Mailroom to Boardroom: 10 Modern-Day Execs Who Started at the Bottom Board of directors
- 10 Great Google+ Hangouts for Book Nerds Nerds
- 50 Unique Colleges Every Non-Traditional Student Should Consider 50 Unique Colleges
- 12 Questionable Factors Behind Traditional University Rankings 12 Questionable Factors
- The 20 Coolest Smartphone Apps in College Sports 20 Coolest Smartphone Apps
- 20 Colleges With the Smartest Content Marketing Smartest Content Marketing
- 8 Ways to Make Friends In Your Online Classes Make Friends
- 8 Cartoon Houses We Wish Were Real Cartoon Houses
- 20 Awesome College Social Campaigns from This School Year Social Campaigns
- The 10 Best Job Markets U.S. Grads Have Faced Job Markets
Should a brand use a porn star’s tweet?
You answer the question. LoJack did successfully in this tweet I shared this week:
LinkedIn group member aftermath
The way I ended the conflict is I offered a flag of truth. I stated that continuing the discussion is like “beating a dead horse.” An alternative statement (see Wiki at dead horse) is “flogging a dead horse.” The main person who started the conflict – fictional Craig from my first post – agreed to end the discussion. But I also mentioned I wouldn’t get involved in off-site email conflicts between him and other members.
In case you missed it last week, his absurd statement was, ” ‘I’m a copywriter, do you know what a copywriter does? They work for ad agencies. Do you work for an ad agency?”
Here’s some things I noticed:
- Many folks who responded to his absurd statement were professionals themselves. Many had decades of marketing and copywriting experience.
- The main instigator Craig seemed to strive on emotional responses. So the angrier they got – like the incredible Hulk – the better the results for him.
- I did play “theater of the absurd” charades with him throughout the dialogue.
- Craig sometimes went off on tangents – like serving in the military, for which he was proud of. He had no “stated” respect for those who didn’t want to serve. He also didn’t agree with being a conscientious objector, even though there is US military policy and legal system precedents to address the topic.
- When a newbie asked for copywriting advice, some of those professionals arguing against Craig stepped forward. Craig didn’t offer any advice of his own – except he did state what he did to get where he was, in a prior response.
- Another respondent I call Witty, seemed to get off on the humor – like my playing “theater of the absurd” charades. He said something humorously in passing – if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. I did notice this person and his wife started their own ad agency. So by making this statement, he is an ad agency member not agreeing with Craig.
- What you do or say in social media can come back to haunt you. Craig appears too enamored with his own self ability to worry about this aspect – but he really should.
- Once I did respond to another member and mentioned David Ogilvy in passing. Since I got the name spelling wrong in a cut and paste operation, he accused me of knowing nothing about Ogilvy. I had to respond he was making an illogical conclusion. Then I did supply external references confirming David had different failed careers before he entered advertising – at least, from the perspective of others.
- Craig claimed to be a devote Christian. Yet I haven’t witnessed identical behavior in my other Christian based membership groups. I have seen similar behavior exhibited when someone defends a “Sola scriptura” (see Wiki at Sola scriptura) position through a narrowly focused and legalistic denominational lens. An example would be a fire and brimstone view of hell, instead of either an annihilation or universal reconciliation position.
My position was that his statement was not self-evident. I also stated this philosophical riddle: “If a tree falls in a forest, and no one’s there, does it make a sound?” If you can answer that riddle, you have a good idea what the thread was all about.
Anyway, the modern rendition of the Hatfield and McCoy feud is now over. Members can get back to normal discussions.
Sure, I run the group. I’m not a decades old agency member and I basically just tap into direct response and inbound marketing stuff. But I can still give members some answers, like I did for the following question:
So here’s the challenge: Come up with a header for affordable cellphone/mobile phone contract deals without using the word cheap or affordable!
Have you ever played with the Visual thesaurus ? You can play with the tool free.
Why are you putting affordable cellphone/mobile phone contract deals in the header? Is this a client need? If not, embed it in the body of the copy deck somewhere.:
- Find some psychological element that appeals to the demographic user group (i.e it makes them feel smarter, sexier, etc.).
- Come up with a leading benefit it provides (i.e. with XXX you save 20% on bills over leading competitors, etc.).
- As an exercise, trying making a list of 100 different headlines. You will find it gets the creative juices flowing.
Much of what I have learned and imitated comes from paying careful attention to how direct response copywriters like Clayton Makepeace, Brian Keith Voiles, Ben Hart, etc., approach problems like this. Never learned the fancy Image or Brand stuff – probably never will.
Filed under: Education, Marketing, Social Media | Tagged: Advertising and Marketing, Ben Hart, Business, Copywriting, Craig, David Ogilvy, Google, Hatfield–McCoy feud, Linkedin, LinkedIn Group, LoJack, Password, Public relations, Social Media, Twitter |