Recently I received two intriguing questions on marketing.

And I found myself turning once again to Claude Hopkins’ advice in Scientific Advertising.  Isn’t it amazing how some advice can indeed stand up to the test of time?  Sometimes I think more of our politicians in Washington should look to history for the answers to current problems.  But
I digress …

Basically, do we follow what a “guru” claims is a sure-fire method, or our own perhaps more moderately successful campaign?

Well, in the case of one question the guru’s advice isn’t working for two marketers.  Not one, but two.  Yet, their own methods are working.  Moderately, but working.

Well, looking at it scientifically as Claude Hopkins suggested is one way to start.  I think the answer is clear from that perspective:  Do what works.  Refine or tweak it if necessary.

The hypothesis is that a certain method will work.  And it’s not working.  So the answer at least to me seems clear:  the hypothesis is wrong.

Does that mean the guru is also wrong?

No, not necessarily.  It could be the current economic climate … the method may be too highly specific for all niches … perhaps the implementation was faulty.  Or perhaps the method worked a year ago, but not now.

So, what’s the solution?  It depends.  There are too many potential variables to give an answer that applies to all.  Except perhaps to suggest that if something is working, that’s a good place to start.

There’s an old adage: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

I think Claude Hopkins would agree.