I've noticed some people (or is it one person registering as different people?) posting on this forum and others both publicly and privately with a new marketing/advertising strategy for Landmark/Sterling.

The headline:

Just take a few of our seminars and then get out![/color:103d85d5e6][/size:103d85d5e6]

The copy:

Curious about Landmark or other LGATs? Worried that you might become a "true believer?" Well, now you'll be glad to know that you can take just a few of our seminars, say no to most of it, gleaning only what's right for you, and escape unscathed! That's right! Now you - yes, you -- can spend only a few thousand dollars on brainwashing and a few hundred hours volunteering before you leave. Imagine! A few months of transformation and indoctrination, and you can be a 'tweener, too! Sign up today! And be sure to tell your friends how you escaped without harm![/color:103d85d5e6]

:roll:

So here's my hypothesis: Landmark is testing a new advertising strategy (see above), and we (and people on other forums) are the focus group. They're testing this new approach on us because we're a tough group to convince, and if they can convince us, they've hit pay dirt! Then they can go out and use this argument when the "it's transformed my life" approach doesn't work.

There was one guy on alt.Landmark who was asking for everyone's input about how Landmark could be "changed" to make people happy, but when I pointed out that he was simply looking for input to come up with a new marketing strategy, he disappeared. I think this is the new appraoch they've come up with to test.

Whadaya think?

I have seen the old tactic of, "just try it and see for yourself, and leave if you don't like it" used for a very long time, and by different people.

Don't you think that might be an anti-landmark person posting that?
After all, using the term brainwashing, and talking about "a few hundred hours volunteering", are extremely negative presuppositions.

I think it could be an anti-Landmark person, messing with people, and making fun of the Landmark sales technique of, "just try a few seminars, and then leave if you don't like it, and take what you want out of it".

But on the other hand, ANY person who tells another person to go to a Landmark, or other LGAT, is just attempting to lure the suckers into the tent, so the professionals can take over.

Its like extreme religious movements who use free meals, or basketball camps, or rock music to lure kids to an event, then they can try all of their methods to get at them, "FOR THEIR OWN GOOD", of course.

Coz

I'm the anti-Landmark person....my "ad" above was meant to be an over-the-top rephrasing of what I've been hearing from a few supposedly "neutral" people online when it comes to Landmark. These folks say they wouldn't recommend it, but then they go on to say they got a lot of good stuff out of it and that you should attend but leave quickly. :D

I'm not sure whether these are truly "tweeners" who can't see the forest for the trees, or whether this is someone (or a collection of someones) testing a new marketing approach to see how it flies -- or what sort of arguments people will raise against it.

As you've said, anyone truly anti-Landmark (or anti-any cult or LGAT) would never recommend attendance to anyone. They'd tell them to stay far, far, far away.

So the fact that this person/these people DO recommend "just attending a few seminars" leads me to believe they know exactly what they're doing...which is recommending Landmark while trying to appear fair-minded or even slightly anti-Landmark.

Sounds like just another permutation of the "free" personality test.

They know full well that once they "get the ball rolling," they stand a pretty good chance of hooking the more impressionable types, which are the ones they want in the first place.



Ellen

I'm not as familiar with all this as you are, but I think I've heard of a free personality test as a way to hook people into Scientology.

I think this "I got out with no ill effects and you, can, too!" approach is even more nefarious. These people are approaching people who HAVE heard that LEC is a cult and DO feel it's dangerous, have even gone so far as to check out culteducation.com, and are trying a new slant to convince even those people to try it.

I think they're reworking their approach to counter the info that's out there on the internet, at sites like this (and others) by admitting that some people think LEC's bad, but "those people are lying...after all, I did it and I made it out OK!"

They're spinning their new approach after watching and reading what people think about LEC on the internet. That's why some come aboard trying to find out how "outsiders" view LEC and what they can do to "improve" it, and then others test the waters online by seeing if this new line of reasoning is something people will fall for.

The internet is dangerous to LEC (and others), so they have to find some way to counteract what's out there. Trying to seem neutral and acknowledging the information that's negative -- while "proving" that information is wrong because they made it out OK -- is yet another way of convincing people that LEC ain't so bad.

Mary writes:

>>The internet is dangerous to LEC (and others), so they have to find some way to counteract what's out there. Trying to seem neutral and acknowledging the information that's negative -- while "proving" that information is wrong because they made it out OK -- is yet another way of convincing people that LEC ain't so bad.>>>


Doesn't seem like much of a selling point......


Especially when they are trying to convince people that what they are selling is "extraordinary," "awesome," "phenomenal," or "miraculous."


Cialdini, (in "Influence"), talks about the tactics of using human nature against people:


Offering someone something, or giving someone something, puts them very often into an obligatory position. Nice people feel they should offer something in return. The Hare Krishnas made millions "giving" flowers to people in airports


"Getting the ball rolling," is what I think he calls "the yes set." Once you establish common ground or an issue upon which you can agree, a customer (mark) is more likely to agree with what you say next. In addition, once someone makes some sort of declaration, he most likely feels an obligation to hold to that declaration in order to remain consistant. Don't know why but lots of people are fooled by this one. That is why Landmark stresses "commitment" so much. They know people feel obligated to continue. They also know that vanity or ego will keep people involved as it is often just too shameful to admit you were duped or used or "victimized."



Ellen

Quote

Once you establish common ground or an issue upon which you can agree, a customer (mark) is more likely to agree with what you say next. In addition, once someone makes some sort of declaration, he most likely feels an obligation to hold to that declaration in order to remain consistant. Don't know why but lots of people are fooled by this one.

Exactly. In this case, the LECcie could establish common ground with a person who's visited the rickross (or other) site and read anti-LEC information like this:

"I agree with you that some people see LEC as a cult. And that there are some people in LEC who become "true believers" and walk around converting people and spewing LEC rhetoric. But I'm not like that! I'm like you! I'm a reasonable person. I can see both sides of the issue. I don't engage in black and white thinking, like those crazy one-sided people on rickross. I've tried LEC myself and I made it out OK! See how normal I am? I got some really good learning from LEC, took what I wanted, and threw away the stuff that didn't work for me. You, being like me, could do the same thing! I can see you're a reasonable and intelligent person, like me. So although I wouldn't recommend LEC, my advice is to just sign up and do a few seminars, then get out!"

Now, I'm not saying that's their initial approach. Of course, first they'll try the "It transformed my life!' approach. But if that doesn't work, what's the next tactic? How do you convince people, in the world of internet access, that the information they now have available to them is wrong? You establish a common ground. An "intelligent, reasonable, smarter than the average 'true believer,' you're smart like me and can just get the good stuff from LEC" common ground.

Just a theory.

Glam

I like to point those people to Dick Sutphen's site.

[www.ctyme.com]



Ellen