PDA

View Full Version : A new perspective – The business of selling freedom




hazek
12-07-2010, 09:16 PM
Not a day goes by that I don't wonder how one can affect change in people and convince them to explore and adopt new beliefs about political systems that we live under. It seem that this is such an impossible task since every person when they are at or passed the voting age already has learned some sort of a beliefs system.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein

First I think it's important to realize that no one is born with a certain set of beliefs rather we learn them in our childhood from our parents, the community we live in and the media we're exposed to.

Second I think we have to understand that beliefs are subjective. Beliefs are the assumptions we make about ourselves, about others in the world and about how we expect things to be. Beliefs are about how we think things really are, what we think is really true and what we therefore expect are likely consequences that will follow from our behavior.

Here's a simple definition:

A belief is an assumed truth.

We create beliefs to anchor our understanding of the world around us and thus, once we have formed a belief, we will tend to persevere with that belief.

It now seems pretty obvious that changing beliefs of a whole nation might prove more then difficult. :)

Third and probably the most important our beliefs even though taken as truths can change. They change as we continue to grow and gather new experiences. They can also change as we gather new information from books, the media, or professionals. As we learn new things and they ring true for us we adopt or embrace new beliefs. We aren’t consciously thinking about this fact, or calling it such, but it is in fact what we all do.


Well if I haven't lost you yet you are probably wondering where I'm going with this and what I meant with the title - The business of selling freedom.

If you think about it when we try to “convert” someone to our way of thinking or when we try to “wake them up” to the truth or when we try to “convince” them to care about their freedoms we are in fact trying to teach them a new set of beliefs – ours! In effect we are trying to sell them our beliefs. And here's my point. I think we should look at this process as a business.

The product are our beliefs, the employees are us and the customer is the rest of the nation.

So if we are in fact in the business of selling our beliefs then we have to approach it as such. How do businesses normally find customers? They seek people with needs and then they try to fill those needs with their product. So if our product are our beliefs we need to figure out why the rest would need to buy into them. And it's pretty simple. Our beliefs offer answer to problems. So the needs that our customer has are problems. These problems are not the same for everyone so if we want to sell our product to the most customers possible we have to get really good at figuring out which problems haunt which individuals.

I had this idea where we could make a webpage with a list of various social economic problems that our customers might have and then offer the solution through our set of beliefs.

I know this sounds pretty basic and it's almost what say Ron Pauls webpage for his presidential run was but it's different. It's different because that page was selling Ron Paul and you already had to have his beliefs to buy in and vote for him. This should not be our primary goal. I think it would be a lot easer to sell Ron Paul once we sold them on our beliefs it would actually be practically automatic.

But answers to problems are many and many sell them. The government makes daily sales of it's answer to problems and people make daily purchases. So how do we achieve our beliefs being bought instead of the ones of the statues quo. How does any company convince their customers that their product is the right product for them if their product is not the only one of it's kind out there?

We have to follow some simple sales guidelines:
As well as getting good product information to the people, it is important to translate the product's features into benefits for the customer, thus making it easier for them to buy in. Good product information, including the packaging, is important. The product information should be informative, true and complete. Ideally, it should give the prospect all the information they need to buy in on the spot. When selling the product one-on-one to a prospect, translating the information to benefits is even more important.

There's countless of sites out there that offer these tips, for example this not necessarily the best example but the one I clicked on first and most of their tips apply to belief selling too: http://ezinearticles.com/?10-Tips-On-How-To-Sell-Your-Product&id=708067

Remember it's not about what is true is about whether someone believes it to be true.



So there you have it. I think the reason we are having such a hard time selling our beliefs faster and to more customers lies in our method of how we approach this task. We like to teach people and argue with them about why our beliefs are true when we should be trying to identify their problems and show them how they can be solved through our beliefs and in effect sell them our beliefs.

Getting Ron Paul elected is just the next natural step ;)

hazek
12-07-2010, 09:17 PM
Man this got longer then I wanted it to be, I hope at least some of you will read it :)

sevin
12-07-2010, 10:32 PM
Good post. This is exactly the problem with some Ron Paul supporters, they just go around telling people, "You're wrong, and here's why." Even if you make great points, offended people automatically resist. Instead you have to show them how a limited government could improve their lives.


I had this idea where we could make a webpage with a list of various social economic problems that our customers might have and then offer the solution through our set of beliefs.


This is a great idea!

hazek
12-08-2010, 10:48 AM
See, this interview is exactly what I mean:

John Stossel Interviews Dr. Ron Paul[/B] (Never aired) :
Part 1 (of 6) (http://tinyurl.com/StosselRPInterview1of6)
Part 2 (of 6) (http://tinyurl.com/StosselRPInterview2of6)
Part 3 (of 6) (http://tinyurl.com/StosselRPInterview3of6)
Part 4 (of 6) (http://tinyurl.com/StosselRPInterview4of6)
Part 5 (of 6) (http://tinyurl.com/StosselRPInterview5of6)
Part 6 (of 6) (http://tinyurl.com/StosselRPInterview6of6)


In this interview Ron is being asked for his positions on various issues that probably concerned the voting public. And even though I agree 100% on every single on of them I completely disagree with how he presented most of them.

For example his main moto is: I don't want to be your president because I want to do things for you but because of the things I don't want to do for you.

You think this statement resonates with the general public?? It doesn't! Average Joe will say: "well what the hell do I need you for if you aren't going to do anything for me?!" [B]because they don't realize that by doing nothing for them he is actually helping them!

Instead Ron should say: "I want to be your president because I want to restrain and limit your government to it's proper roll of national defense, protection of the borders and enforcement of contracts and the law. I want to protect your civil liberties, ensure your freedom of choice in any matter and let you keep all of the fruits of your labor!"


Now the average Joe will understand: "oh cool, he wants protect my country and keep the government out of my daily life, I love it!"


It's the same message but delivered in a different way and it makes a huge difference!!

Talking points from the interview:


Use of drugs

Ron's answer: Under the constitution the president and the federal government doesn't have a say in it. I would leave it up to the states to decide

Better answer: I would give the states the freedom to choosing which ever way
Gay marriage:

Ron's answer: I'd like to see the government out of the marriage questions, I think it's a religions function not a state function but again I would leave it up to the states

Better answer: Again I would give the states the freedom to choose.
Eliminating departments

Ron's answer: There's no authority for them, they prove them selves inefficient and there's no evidence they can do a good job or make good choices and provide good services while getting payed for by your tax money which usually goes to the special interests

Better answer: I want to protect the people from inefficient and unauthorized monopolies payed for with their tax money and instead let them keep that money and give them the freedom to choose the best service for the lowest price from the free market. So I don't see it as a question of "do we need these departments" but rather a question "why would we even want them if we can get far better services for far less money from the market place"
Policing the world:

Ron's answer: It's not our responsibility and it doesn't even work because of too many unintended consequences of us using force and bombs

Better answer: I would want protect the American people from unintended consequences and hatred from the world which usually stems from policing the world through us using force and bombs. I would want to set an example of a free and prosperous country here at home which others would want to emulate and I would want to help other nations to negotiate.
Is war justifiable:

Ron's answer: Sure, if we are attacked we have a right and the obligation to defend our country but I do not believe there's ever a moral justification to start a war. We shouldn't have gotten involved in Korea or Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. It actually makes us less safe since the religious fanatics over there can use our presence as a recruiting poster and motivate individuals to kill our soldiers

Better answer: Sure, if we are attacked we have a right and the obligation to defend our country but I do not believe there's ever a moral justification to start a war. Not only that but I want to protect the American soldiers from getting killed because of our misguided foreign policies, I want to protect the American tax payer from the unnecessary burden of the cost of a war and I want to protect the American way of life by setting an example that others would want to follow not attack. I want to stay out of the way and let the regions of the world figure it out amongst them selves


All the "better answers" are saying basically the same thing just in a different way but that makes a huge difference!

It's called reframing and you can read about it here: http://changingminds.org/techniques/general/reframing.htm

Pericles
12-08-2010, 11:09 AM
100% on target. Why do people vote for Ds or Rs? Most do because they think it will benefit them - it is just the way people are.

3rd party voters (including independents) are more idea motivated.

hazek
12-08-2010, 11:14 AM
Yes and ideas ultimately turn into benefits for people so I think it's our loss of potential voters if we don't word them as such.

EDIT: Sorry I worded it badly :P

Pericles
12-08-2010, 11:20 AM
Yes but ideas ultimately turn into benefits for people so I think it's our loss of potential voters if we don't word them as such.

I'm agreeing with you. The key to shifting that support from the existing parties is to convince people that freedom is a benefit to them both economically (all most really care about) and politically.