The 3-Minute Machiavelli

Master these techniques and rule the world.

Ad hominem. Attacking your opponent, as opposed to his position.

Ad nauseam. Attempting to persuade by endlessly repeating an idea.

Appeal to authority. Citing prominent people to support your position.

Appeal to fear. Creating unwarranted anxieties to support your position.

Appeal to prejudice. Using emotive terms to associate moral goodness with your position.

Bandwagon. Attempting to persuade by arguing "everybody shares my position."

Beautiful people. Attempting to persuade by claiming attractive people share your position.

Big Lie. Attempting to persuade by repeating a fiction. 

Black-and-white fallacy. Attempting to persuade by oversimplifying possibilities.

Cherry picking. Attempting to persuade by selectively telling the truth.

Common man. Attempting to persuade by claiming "plain folks" agree with your position.

Cult of personality. Attempting to persuade by flattering yourself.

Demonizing. Attempting to persuade by painting your opponent as a monster.

Disinformation. Attempting to persuade by forgery or by deleting official records.

Euphemism. Attempting to persuade by disguising unpleasantries with innocuous words.

Euphoria. Leveraging morale-boosting spectacles, holidays or handouts to persuade.

Exaggeration. Attempting to persuade through hyperboles.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). Attempting to persuade by disseminating mis- or disinformation that undermines your opponent.

Flag-waving. Attempting to persuade by proclaiming your patriotism.

Framing. Attempting to persuade by artfully controlling public narrative.

Gaslighting. Attempting to persuade by sowing doubt, denying facts, or misdirecting your audience.

Gallopbombing. Attempting to persuade by asking an opponent difficult questions in rapid fire, making them look uninformed.

Glittering generalities. Attempting to persuade by using emotionally appealing words without substance.

Guilt by association (reductio ad Hitlerum). Attempting to persuade by suggesting an opponent's position resembles that of someone we despise.

Intentional vagueness. Attempting to persuade by remaining fuzzy.

Labeling. Attempting to diminish your opponent by using a single word or phrase.

Loaded language. Attempting to persuade by using strongly emotional words.

Lying. Attempting to persuade through deceptions.

Managing the news. Attempting to persuade by "staying on message."

Minimization. Attempting to persuade by denying the implications of a fact.

Name calling. Attempting to persuade through bad names.

Non sequitur. Attempting to persuade with illogical arguments.

Obfuscation. Attempting to persuade with confusing generalities and undefined words and phrases.

Oversimplification. Attempting to persuade with simple answers to complex questions.

Pensée unique. Attempting to persuade with a single overly simplistic phrase.

Quotes out of context. Attempting to persuade by editing your opponent's statements.

Rationalization. Attempting to persuade by sugar-coating your own questionable acts and beliefs.

Red herring. Attempting to persuade by citing a compelling, but irrelevant, fact, and claiming it validates your position.

Repetition. Attempting to persuade by repeating a slogan.

Scapegoating. Attempting to persuade by assigning blame to an individual or group.

Slogan. Attempting to persuade with a striking phrase.

Stereotyping. Attempting to persuade by labeling an opponent and her followers in ways that arouse prejudice.

Straw man. Attempting to persuade by misrepresenting, and refuting, your opponent's position.

Testimonial. Attempting to persuade with others' glowing statements about you.

Third-party technique. Attempting to persuade by asking your followers to accept as authoritative the opinions of others, such as celebrities, soldiers, preachers, journalists, and scientists.

Thought-terminating cliché. Attempting to persuade with an over-used folk wisdom.

Transfer. Attempting to persuade by superimposing one or more images on others.

Unstated assumption. Attempting to persuade by avoiding disclosure of your ridiculously incredible assumption.

Virtue words. Attempting to persuade with high-minded, flowery words.

Windfall for Event Organizers

Event organizers can expect a windfall as companies boost their spending on face-to-face, according to Reuters.

The windfall comes at the expense of publishers reliant for revenues on companies' ad dollars.

"Organizers of conferences and trade shows are benefiting from a shift in the way marketing budgets are allocated, with companies spending less on advertising and more on events," write reporters Esha Vaish and Noor Zainab Hussain.

Research firm Outsell pegs the spend for B2B events by US companies this year at $28 billion, a 4% increase over 2016. US companies will spend $35 billion on ads this year, a 6% decrease.

"While the battle between traditional and online media outlets has grabbed headlines, companies are often skeptical that advertising with either translates into sales," write Vaish and Hussain. "Hence the shift towards events."

While conferences' and trade shows' prospects are closely linked to the economic health of the industries they serve, the shift of marketers' dollars to events offsets revenue losses due to other factors, such as government-imposed travel bans.

Kettle Logic

President Trump this week told The New York Times he made no money from business dealings with Russians, but would fire special counsel Robert Mueller were he to try to confirm that.

"I mean, it’s possible there’s a condo or something," Trump said. "So, you know, I sell a lot of condo units, and somebody from Russia buys a condo, who knows? I don’t make money from Russia. In fact, I put out a letter saying that I don’t make—from one of the most highly respected law firms, accounting firms. I don’t have buildings in Russia. They said I own buildings in Russia. I don’t. They said I made money from Russia. I don’t. It’s not my thing. I don’t, I don’t do that. Over the years, I’ve looked at maybe doing a deal in Russia, but I never did one. Other than I held the Miss Universe pageant there eight, nine years."

Translation: I never make money from Russians, except when I do.

"Look, this [investigation] is about Russia," Trump continued. "So I think if he wants to go, my finances are extremely good, my company is an unbelievably successful company. And actually, when I do my filings, peoples say, 'Man!' People have no idea how successful this is. It’s a great company. But I don’t even think about the company anymore. I think about this, because one thing, when you do this, companies seem very trivial. O.K.? I really mean that. They seem very trivial. But I have no income from Russia. I don’t do business with Russia. The gentleman that you mentioned, with his son, two nice people. But basically, they brought the Miss Universe pageant to Russia to open up, you know, one of their jobs. Perhaps the convention center where it was held. It was a nice evening, and I left. I left, you know, I left Moscow. It wasn’t Moscow, it was outside of Moscow."

Translation: Were he to examine my finances, Mueller would discover I make tons of money from Russians, despite what I say. But I never think about the money, so the whole matter is actually unimportant.

A masterful display of kettle logic.

Kettle logic is a form of rhetoric through which you use several arguments to defend yourself with no concern for inconsistencies. Using kettle logic, you string together contradictory statements to make your case, presenting them as if the contradictions don't exist.

French philosopher Jacques Derrida named the form of argument after a story told by Sigmund Freud in The Interpretation of Dreams:

A man is accused by his neighbor of damaging a borrowed kettle. The man defends himself by claiming that he returned the kettle undamaged; that it was already damaged when he borrowed it; and that he never borrowed it in the first place.

The inconsistencies between and among the different arguments, Freud said, aren't apparent to the dreamer, because the logic of dreams allows contradictory things to be admitted simultaneously.

Wake up, Mr. President.

This Ain't Customer Service!

Today's post was contributed by Michael J. Hatch. He is a sales, marketing and business development consultant with over 20 years' experience working with Fortune 500 companies, associations and government agencies.

Say what you will about Gen X, Y and Z, but one thing is certain: the generation of companies they run and that we all buy from don't understand customer service.

Go to most corporate websites these days and try to find a phone number to call. And if you're lucky enough to find a number, you're most likely to get an automated answering system. Good luck trying to get through that! It literally is not possible.

Tech companies in particular do not want you to talk with them.

They hide the staff and, more often than not, offer no phone numbers for reaching their so-called "customer service" reps. You must communicate through email or—worse—live chat.

Live chat, in fact, seems to be the default communication solution for most companies these days. It really shouldn't be called "live," because it's deadly:

• First, you prompt the chat feature and wait for a reply. You get a friendly "We'll be right with you" reply, but then... nothing... ever... happens...
  

• While you are waiting, if you get up to grab coffee or answer the doorbell, you inevitably miss the reply and are promptly disconnected... and must start all over again.
  
  
• The next time round, you wait at their pleasure for a response, finally get one, and type in a description of your situation. Then you wait... and wait... and wait...
  
  
• Every round is a repeat-sequence of send-and-wait, send-and-wait. Of course, while you are waiting, the rep is servicing two other customers in the background.

This ain't good customer service. It ain't even mediocre customer service. It ain't customer service at all.

God bless the few companies that do actually give you a customer service phone number and a live person to talk with—perhaps even someone who actually knows something about the company's product.

Those are the companies that recognize that, in today's crowded markets, customer service is a strategic differentiator and a crucial piece of the whole customer experience—and those are companies that will win in the battle for high-spending customers.

Collateral Damage

Until the autopsy results come in, we can only guess why Steve the Security Robot drowned this week in Washington, DC.

May he Rust in Peace.

Automation—including marketing automation—is only as good as the weakest link in the process.

The weak link in marketing automation is content.

Marketers go to all lengths to create pretty logos, websites, blogs, banner ads, brochures and tradeshow booths, but allow marketing automation to sully their brands.

They program Mark the Marketing Robot to:

Annoy prospects. They program Mark to assume a form-fill means the prospect welcomes one or two cloying emails every single day for 20 days. Trust me, she doesn't.

Confuse prospects. They program him to send long-winded, self-absorbed emails that spew largely irrelevant product features. They never bother to communicate a core—or convincing—value proposition; only a lot of sales-talk.

Offend prospects. They program Mark to send emails with click-bait Subject lines, unproven or exaggerated claims, typos, grammatical errors, and pointless and presumptive closes.

It's no wonder so many CMOs struggle with marketing automation.

It's the content, stupid.