Crossposting from one of my discussion lists . . . David Barron’s posted his ad for his new “NLP Curse” blocking product and so here’s my take. Others are free to agree or disagree.

It’s been called an “oustanding ad” and, yes, in terms of straight out use of language to create demand, I agree, it’s quite interesting . . . particularly the way David has set it up for his newsletter where he says that this piece costs a lot more than others and that it does not have his money back guarantee . . . this increases interest and curiousity.

However, I wouldn’t reccommend that folks use the style . . .

As to how it is framed and the use of possibility and need . . . while the use of influence patterns is quite interesting, I honestly don’t like the way it’s been framed here. The ad is reinforcing negative stereotypes and preying upon people’s fears. It is also giving a false impression that NLP is about mind control and that folks should be paranoid as there is nothing they can do unless they have these particular curse stoppers available to them.

While I can see the strategy working in terms of short-term cash gain, the use of fear and paranoia for a negative marketing campaign . . . particularly one that leaves folks believing that those who know NLP or hypnosis are somehow dangerous . . . leaves me cold.

The examples given are quite powerful and compelling . . . without naming Bandler the mention of the old Mindfuck 101 shenanigins is rather well put (the course where Grinder and Bandler started the work that led to NLP with students trying all sorts of things out that are very inappropriate and hugely unethical . . . members of the workshop would routinely go to the local mall and install phobias just to see if they could).

The subject line for the post to the discussion list “NLP Curse – How To Hurt Someone with NLP” also implies that by ordering this product which is ostensibly about protecting oneself from negative NLP curses, one can somehow learn to curse others through NLP. It’s not stated, but it is implied . . . rather craftiliy. Hmmmm. The actual ad builds interest in this by coming right out and saying:

• You’ll learn at least 6 methods students of persuasion have used their skill to sneak into your mind …
• You’ll learn the pattern that destroys self-esteem.
• You’ll learn how someone can create a drug addiction.
• You’ll learn how to install impotency.
• You’ll learn the pattern that can drive someone to suicide.
• You’ll learn how someone can create a phobia that will paralyze people in their tracks.
• You’ll learn how to make a curse even worse.

These are the start offs for each line with a tag on how you can then protect yourself . . . but the emphasis is on learning the negative application. It’s an interesting way to market negative application material by pretending to protect against it. I wonder how soon David will start getting support queries like “I would like to install a phobia in my girlfriend so she will be terrified of not having kinky sex with me, but I get lost on step two of the pattern you taught us to protect ourselves from, could you give some advice on what I would need to do next?” 🙂

The ad also seems to use the language of influence in a way that perhaps the product is supposed to help folks learn to protect themselves . . . kind of a . . . you know you can be manipulated because you’re here . . . although, one would expect that the product covers other things . . . although as there are no examples given, the reader is left to create all manner of scenario “”

BTW, David . . . as you know . . . your email address dr.barron@changework.com gives the impression that you are a doctor. This is reinforced by using the “.” between the dr and barron. While the initials may be technically correct for your name, it’s rather bad form to give the impression unless you have the credentials (which I assume you don’t have as you don’t list them on your “about” bio on your webpage). Be aware that this could cause some legal hot water in the future, as in several states it is illegal or considered misrepresentation within a medical ore therapy context even for PhDs to use the title “Dr” unless they are licensed medical practitioners or clinical psycholgists (clinical, not general). That is it is illegal or considered misrepresentation if folks are working within the context of the helping professions such as hypnotherapy or counceling and give the impression they are licensed through the use of the title “Dr.” . . . PhDs are certainly allowed to use the title Dr. in an academic context. Even in places where the use of Dr. by a PhD is considered okay, it is still considered inappropriate to give the impression that one is a licensed healthcare provider, psychologist, or the like if one is not. You may be able to defend yourself in some jurisdictions by saying you were “unaware” that potential clients are getting a misimpression about your qualifications from your email address, but a good state prosecutor will note the moniker is too close for comfort. It is not unreasonable to assume that uninformed members of the public would make that assumption based upon the format for your email address so it might be wise to change it and specifically note your credentials on your webpages. If you are a licensed medical practitioner and would be considered a valid “Dr.” then I apologize for the misunderstanding and would encourage you to state so on your webpages. Otherwise . . . it comes off as a rather creepy and underhanded marketing ploy which is an impression I am sure you would like to avoid . . . it really seems not unlike the rather spurious request of a fellow in Florida to have his given name changed to “Doctor” so that he could legally call himself by that in his marketing (the request was denied).

All the best,
Brian