Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by John on January 5, 2007:

I'd be willing to bet that "Bill in Maryland" is a micro-manager. In my experience, ALL the micro-managers I've met shared one trait in common - that they believed that their way was the one and only way; in essence, they were smarter than me. I learned fairly early on in life that, at least in one case, I could actually get my supervisor to do my work for me, or at least a portion of it. All that was required of me was to do the assigned task differently than he would have done it. He would then show me the "proper way" while I would sit back and watch him do the work.

Posted by Jim on January 5, 2007:

I'm sure John is right -- that Bill is a "micro-manager" -- but he defined it wrong: the micro surely refers to his intellect. IT'S A FRIGGING AD! You look at the pitch and you take it or leave it. Want to "look into" the advertiser? Then do it! That's what the Internet is for. It's no surprise to me that someone like that feels superior (you got that exactly right, Randy). I've seen people like him before: every day, at work. And so much so that I'll make a prediction, even though he says he's unsubscribed: he'll peek at the issue on the web site to see if you've published his letter, and then he'll whine about it.

---

You slightly underestimated Bill, Jim: while he did indeed unsubscribe (I checked), he didn't wait for the newsletter to be published and appear on the web site. Instead, he was watching the blog (probably the RSS feed) and spotted it minutes after it was published -- I posted it ahead of the issue so it'd actually be here when readers clicked through. Sure enough, you're right: he wrote me to complain about it. -rc

Posted by Aaron, Washington State on January 6, 2007:

Ads are ALWAYS hyped. It's how they work. If anything, the text ads in the Free edition are harder for the advertisers because they can't use flashy gimmicks to get your attention. It's HARD to convey convincing text to adequately describe your product/service without having any visuals to back it up immediately. I actually usually click one or both of the ads in each issue, not just because I hope it boosts Randy's revenue, but also because most of the ads are worded cleverly enough to actually get my attention.

But I digress a bit. Hey Bill, we all know you're reading this (and probably still receiving True on a secondary e-mail address), so please do us all a favor and lighten up a bit. The ads on True have always been respectful (as far as I can remember, anyway). Please stop being a drama queen.

Posted by Mary Ann on January 6, 2007:

So, Bill...do you watch TV? Read the free magazines in airline? Listen to the radio? Do you think they "check into" all the ads on there? C'mon, I don't think we need Randy to protect us. Even if he chose to fully investigate every advertiser, who would pass the test? We've all been to hell and back thanks to "reputable" companies. (Wanna hear my war stories about Comcast, Citibank, Bank of America and many, many more?)

Posted by Marc on January 6, 2007:

I cannot believe that "Bill in Maryland" wants you to pull the ads from a specific advertiser just because he has a problem with them. Does he complain to TV and radio stations if an advertisement comes from someone he has a problem with? or a newspaper? Without advertisers, free publications (such as the non-premium edition of True as well as TV and radio programs) wouldn't be free and he would be paying more for his local newspaper, as well as his cable or satellite provider! Why should you be held responsible for the advertisements that appear on your page? It's up to the consumer to evaluate an advertiser and decide if they want to buy what is being advertised.

Posted by Julie, California on January 6, 2007:

Ooh! Ooh! Can I make a prediction too?

You're going to get complaints asking why you're so mean to talk back to such a whiner, or why you dare to hold your readers up to the same standards you hold everyone else to.

I'll bet some will think that but won't write, because they're afraid you might be "mean" to THEM, too. And that's just the problem: they don't have the ability to think clearly enough to be confident in their own assumptions, or the ability to be open-minded enough to listen to an opposing viewpoint. I only ask one thing: if I am ever dumb enough to say something stupid to you, PLEASE argue with me. That's a most powerful lesson, and I want to be smarter.

---

Yes, I have gotten a couple of such complaints -- but so far, only a couple. I'm not sure if I argued with you you'd become smarter, but I greatly respect your desire to be as open-minded as possible -- it's a great start, and more than what most people want.

Why am I "mean" to readers who write without thinking first? Because it's entertaining -- and that's what TRUE is about -- having fun seeing how people dig themselves into holes. Indeed I polled the (Premium) readers asking them if I should "go easy" on letter writers who they say something stupid. They not only said no, but hell no. The write-up of that informal survey is here: http://www.thisistrue.com/dumb-readers.html -rc

Posted by Ed, Pennsylvania on January 8, 2007:

I've become virtually blind to all ads, except for those that I find unusually clever or unusually annoying (GEICO, I'm looking in your direction), unless I'm actively investigating a particular product and looking for ads. So I read about Bill, I actually look at the ads in the free issue, then I read about Bill again, paying particular attention to the TRUE policies on ads.

It just surprised me to see that the 2 ads in the issue were for products in 2 areas that are at the top of my spam subjects, weight loss and investing. I don't think this is a case of "everyone has a horror story." These are 2 areas where if you randomly selected someone's services from everything available, you would have a greater chance of getting ripped off than getting your money's worth.

To sum up, as dumb as Bill may be, I think that the current ads diminish Randy's argument somewhat and make me feel a little more sypmathy for Bill.

---

Yes, those categories tend to be more spammy. Yet can you agree that some advertisers in those sectors are legit? If so, and I do argue that, then I also argue that the advertisers who pay to be placed in a legitimate e-mail publication are vastly more likely to be legit in that sector compared to those who instead choose to steal resources to spam the message to you. There's just no comparison.

So I truly do applaud those in the more "difficult" sectors who use legit means to get their word out rather than stooping to spam -- and indeed think that for those in the market for such services should support that legitimate means of advertising and shun those who choose spam.

Last, for the record, the advertiser Bill was complaining of were not in either of the sectors mentioned. -rc

Posted by Shirley on January 8, 2007:

Before you tag someone as a "Friend Of Bill", I wanted to advise you that it's a discreet way that members of Alcoholics Anonymous identify one another anonymously. (If you've been on a cruise ship and seen a notice for a meeting of "Friends of Bill W.", yep that's us.) It is taken from the name of one of our founders, the late Bill Wilson. I've been a "friend of Bill" for 14 1/2 years.

As far as whiners about the ads go, why can't they just IGNORE the stuff? I rarely read the ads in my free e-mail. I understand that you need ads to pay for stuff, and I don't have the money to upgrade to Premium so I tolerate them.

---

While I'm not a "Friend of Bill" in the way you are, my "tagging" of Bill in that way was indeed a deliberate invocation of that concept, since it seems to me that someone who gets that worked up over trivia, and is that bent out of shape about both being right and in "right" the sense of being superior to others, is much more likely to be an addict (of alcohol or something else) than not. (Reference) -rc

Posted by Arthur in Georgia on January 8, 2007:

I'm sure you would have mentioned it if "Bill" was a Premium subscriber, and since he unsubscribed I'm sure that confirms he was not. So here's what I see: a guy who doesn't support the publication in any way, takes what he can get for free, and yet still complains about what he sees and, worse, demands a say in how the publication he doesn't support runs. You hit the nail on the head: a whining crybaby. I'd say "never listen to such folks" but you're right: it was enormously entertaining seeing your response to him, picking apart his thought process like you were his long-term psychiatrist. Bravo!

---

In the past, readers have suggested I run for office. And I never did a thing to them! The only thing worse that I can think of is being a psychiatrist for a git like that. *shudder*! -rc

Posted by Jonny in Seoul on January 8, 2007:

As a longtime "Friend of Bill" in the AA sense, I thought I'd also mention our suggested solution to the types you mentioned ("someone who gets that worked up over trivia, and is that bent out of shape about both being right and in "right" the sense of being superior to others"). It's called Rule 62 and newbies are often advised to look it up in the literature. I think it would apply to most of the people who complain to Randy. For those of you without access to AA literature, I can summarize Rule 62: Don't take yourself so damned seriously!

Posted by Jarred, Olympia WA on January 8, 2007:

Regarding Ed's comment about the "spammy" subjects of weight loss and investing, I can't speak for the investment advertisement but I actually did try out the weight loss ad about six months ago - yes, because I read the ad in True (and I'm a premium subscriber).

That $50 was money WELL spent, as I am now 30 pounds lighter, and all of that weight loss was FAT! I kid you not, I went from 225 and 30% body fat to 195 (presently) and 19% body fat. That actually represents a net muscle gain. For various reasons that the advertised product details, that is about as ideal of progress as you're likely to see, and I'm not done yet.

So, I totally support Randy's side here: unless you have actually tried the specific product and had a terrible experience, don't judge it. There are bad weight loss products out there (hint: weight loss ISN'T easy and anything that suggests it is probably won't last), but there are also athletes that actually understand the process and can give you the "true" information. I'm sure the same can be said of investment companies.

Posted by Michelle, Kansas on January 9, 2007:

Jarred's praise concerning that weight loss product has piqued my interest. I don't suppose he or Randy could tell the name of it?

---

Sorry, but I'm not going to allow my blog to become a forum for advertisers. He is talking about a regular advertiser, who has run recently and, I'm sure, will run again. -rc

Posted by George on January 10, 2007:

RE 'Bill of Maryland' - isn't that close to DC where all our dipsticks are? q;o)

Posted by Dave on January 11, 2007:

I understand where Bill was coming from in his e-mail to Randy warning about an advertiser that he (Bill) felt was not legitimate. I feel that Bill sincerely felt that the advertiser was unethical and was worried that "This is True" could be tainted by association.

Randy's "canned response" clearly explains his advertising policy. A complaint about a company is not the same as a company that is doing something illegal (that's why we have both civil and criminal court systems). If Bill had evidence that the company was doing something illegal, he should have forwarded it to the authorities and brought this fact to Randy's attention.

Advertising and marketing are used to hype their products/services and minimalize any of their poorer aspects. Smart consumers (who I believe are Randy's target audience)know this, and resond accordingly.

I hope all this makes some sense.

Posted by Dennis, Lansdale, PA on January 15, 2007:

I seem to remember learning two Latin words many years ago: Caveat emptor. Seems to sum the whole thing up to me.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on January 20, 2007:

I love this blog. With one article about people being too easily offended, and another article about advertisers, I can't help thinking about the current batch of GEICO ads (also mentioned by someone here) in which cavemen are offended by the common impression that they're stupid.

I'm not sure how the marketing aspect works out to GEICO's advantage, but I sure love how they're picking on everyone's 'right' to be a Professional Victim. Insensitive? Too bad. Look it up; there is no right in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or myriad other documents regarding the governance of the U.S. in which the people have a 'right' to be free from offense.

Don't like a word that might be offensive? Too bad. Don't like a particular ad that might be offensive? Too bad. Want my sympathy? Maybe. But that's all; certainly nothing to force the entire rest of the world to adhere to one person's (or group's) particular sensitivity. I mean, Holy Cow! (oops, don't want to offend the reincarnation people)

Posted by Rich in New Jersey on February 12, 2007:

Oh, goodness. I've worked in retail for 25 years. If you stop taking advertisers because they might have disgruntled customers with imagined (or even legitimate) issues, then I might as well close my store (and everyone else should stop shopping everywhere). Regardless of accepted customer service policy, the customer is not always right! Unhappy Customers will hopefully show up infrequently, but invariably, will show up; that's reality. You ain't happy, obtain somewhere else. We all do our best to provide services that please the majority; if you do it well enough, you stay in business. Period.

Posted by Garret Kim on March 16, 2007:

There's that word again. Disgruntled. It makes me wonder as the prefix implies that it's the opposite of, what, gruntled? Why have I never heard of gruntled customers? You'd think advertisers would rave about all their gruntled customers. So I looked it up and I found out, everybody has it wrong. Disgruntled is what happens when a pig has laryngitis.

---

Gruntle is indeed a word, though obviously used infrequently. -rc

Posted by Garret Kim on April 2, 2007:

Strange, I seem unable to find "gruntle" in the American Heritage Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, nor the Oxford English Dictionary.

I also noticed that the word "nonchalant" describes a condition of being unconcerned. Does the prefix "non-" imply that there is also the word "chalant," a condition of being concerned?

Well, if corporate leaders can make up words like "proactive," then I wouldn't be surprised to hear them making speeches that they're chalant about current issues.

---

You need a better dictionary. Gruntle is in both old and new editions of Webster's. -rc