3 ms·

You believe something about people's behavior which is a testable proposition about the nature of material reality, like "If you push an apple off a table it wi

by patio11 14y ago

You believe something about people's behavior which is a testable proposition about the nature of material reality, like "If you push an apple off a table it will accelerate to the nearest cat." The scientific method exists. Have no worries, your apples and profits are both safe, because both those theories are absolutely false.

lutusp 14y ago
Interesting that you would mention the scientific method, then offer no evidence for your theory. I said what I did because I have seen it happen countless times in a long career that has included a lot of writing. I have the evidence. When someone makes a performance claim about the contents of a book, the book then becomes nearly irrelevant to the outcome, which hinges on the claim.
- patio11 14y ago
  Money-back guarantees virtually invariably raise sales in A/B tests. I have never seen one decreases sales in a statistically significant fashion. I have never seen a guarantee meaningfully increase refund rates. (No customer of mine has refund rates worth mentioning. I will literally mail paper checks to people who bought my software five years ago and my refund rate is below ~2%.) If you have data to the contrary, I bow to the data. As it happens, I have a product launch coming up. I will offer a money back guarantee, and I will do it in an A/B test. If I am wrong, and the guarantee statistically significantly decreases sales, I will a) have a cow and b) donate a cow to charity. If I am right, you don't have to do anything, because being consistently right at this sort of prediction makes propositional bets with authors a distinctly inferior way to increase one's income versus just being consistently right at this sort of thing.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    >> When someone makes a performance claim about the contents of a book ... > Money-back guarantees virtually invariably raise sales ... It would be nice if we both were discussing the same topic. A performance claim is not a money-back guarantee.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Money-back guarantees virtually invariably raise sales in A/B tests. The original poster didn't make a money-back guarantee, as in "If you aren't happy with my book, I will refund." Instead he made a claim about increasing the number of clients, i.e. a performance claim ("I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates."). Here's the law on that issue: URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOfExpression/LimitationsOfExpression.asp http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf... Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected." Here is another account that makes the same point: URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=107215 http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ... Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication." What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
    - ahoyhere 14y ago
      Are you seriously comparing a guy who says "Raise your professional service rates or your money back" to a guy peddling a snake oil cancer cure… or are you trolling to see what shakes out?
      - lutusp 14y ago
        The person's reason for speaking isn't the issue, the law is the only issue. My point is performance claims are actionable, but the contents of a book are not. Do you really think people only initiate legal actions when someone has actually misrepresented something? That's naive. My point was the OP was taking an unnecessary risk, when he could simply have said "If you're not happy, I'll refund your money." How complicated is that?
    - 14y ago
lutusp 14y ago
> both those theories are absolutely false. Here is a quotation from a page the cites the constitutional law on this issue: URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOfExpression/LimitationsOfExpression.asp http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf... Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected." Here is another account that makes the same point: URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=107215 http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ... Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication." What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not. Sound familiar?

by patio11 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

Interesting that you would mention the scientific method, then offer no evidence for your theory. I said what I did because I have seen it happen countless times in a long career that has included a lot of writing. I have the evidence. When someone makes a performance claim about the contents of a book, the book then becomes nearly irrelevant to the outcome, which hinges on the claim.

patio11 14y ago
Money-back guarantees virtually invariably raise sales in A/B tests. I have never seen one decreases sales in a statistically significant fashion. I have never seen a guarantee meaningfully increase refund rates. (No customer of mine has refund rates worth mentioning. I will literally mail paper checks to people who bought my software five years ago and my refund rate is below ~2%.) If you have data to the contrary, I bow to the data. As it happens, I have a product launch coming up. I will offer a money back guarantee, and I will do it in an A/B test. If I am wrong, and the guarantee statistically significantly decreases sales, I will a) have a cow and b) donate a cow to charity. If I am right, you don't have to do anything, because being consistently right at this sort of prediction makes propositional bets with authors a distinctly inferior way to increase one's income versus just being consistently right at this sort of thing.
- lutusp 14y ago
  >> When someone makes a performance claim about the contents of a book ... > Money-back guarantees virtually invariably raise sales ... It would be nice if we both were discussing the same topic. A performance claim is not a money-back guarantee.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Money-back guarantees virtually invariably raise sales in A/B tests. The original poster didn't make a money-back guarantee, as in "If you aren't happy with my book, I will refund." Instead he made a claim about increasing the number of clients, i.e. a performance claim ("I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates."). Here's the law on that issue: URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOfExpression/LimitationsOfExpression.asp http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf... Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected." Here is another account that makes the same point: URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=107215 http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ... Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication." What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not.
  - ahoyhere 14y ago
    Are you seriously comparing a guy who says "Raise your professional service rates or your money back" to a guy peddling a snake oil cancer cure… or are you trolling to see what shakes out?
    - lutusp 14y ago
      The person's reason for speaking isn't the issue, the law is the only issue. My point is performance claims are actionable, but the contents of a book are not. Do you really think people only initiate legal actions when someone has actually misrepresented something? That's naive. My point was the OP was taking an unnecessary risk, when he could simply have said "If you're not happy, I'll refund your money." How complicated is that?
  - 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

> both those theories are absolutely false. Here is a quotation from a page the cites the constitutional law on this issue: URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOfExpression/LimitationsOfExpression.asp http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf... Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected." Here is another account that makes the same point: URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=107215 http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ... Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication." What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not. Sound familiar?