Scientific Advertising – The Original Playbook for Persuasion

In Scientific Advertising, Claude C. Hopkins lays the groundwork for everything we now call direct response marketing. This episode distils the key principles behind measurable, effective, and ethical advertising.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Welcome, welcome. Welcome to the Deep dive.
Today we're embarking on a journey into a topic that, well,
whether you realize it or not, it subtly influences almost
every decision you make and pretty much every product you
buy. We're talking about advertising.
But here's the question I want you to maybe wrestle with right
from the start. Is advertising purely an art

(00:20):
form? You know, a wild, unpredictable
gamble. Or is it something far more
precise? Maybe a meticulous science with
measurable outcomes. That's a really fascinating
question, isn't it? Because for a long, long time,
it absolutely felt like a gamble, like a throw of the
dice, right? A creative gamble where the
outcome was, well, less about strategy and maybe more about

(00:41):
just hope you'd spend a fortune and just, you know, cross your
fingers. You absolutely nailed it.
And that era of, let's call it, hopeful gambling is precisely
what we're here to unpack in this deep dive.
Our mission today is to extract the essential, timeless
knowledge from a book that I have to admit, it utterly
surprised me with its enduring relevance.

(01:02):
We're diving into Claude C Hopkins scientific advertising.
Now, if you're thinking, hold on, this book is over 80 years
old, Isn't that just dusty old theories?
Let me tell you, as the Forward boldly states, the ideas within
it, well, they ring as true today as they did when first
written. It's kind of like finding a
blueprint for a modern skyscraper hidden away in some

(01:25):
ancient scroll. It really is.
It's far more than just an old book.
It's practically the Rosetta Stone for modern marketing.
You could say Hawkins wasn't just observing the advertising
landscape, he was actively shaping it.
He invented, or at least perfected concepts we now just
take for granted. Things like test marketing, the
widespread use of coupons, product sampling, even what we
now call preemptive positioning.Preemptive positioning?

(01:46):
Not exactly. Basically, it's being the first
to really stake a claim on a particular benefit or feature In
the public's mind. You get there first, say we are
the brand for X, and it makes itincredibly difficult for
competitors to follow without just looking like, well,
copycats. He wasn't just some theorist
writing things down, he was a real pioneer out there doing.
It wow, OK, And for anyone listening who maybe craves a

(02:10):
shortcut to being genuinely wellinformed on what truly drives
persuasive communication, this book is described as offering
more real world wisdom than likea whole bookshelf stacked with
modern marketing tax. Our promise to you today is to
make these insights not just relatable, but hopefully
genuinely engaging. We want to pull back the curtain

(02:31):
on how Hopkins transformed advertising from what he
famously called a black art. Right, that mysterious,
unpredictable thing. Exactly into a tangible,
measurable, and ultimately, you know, profitable science.
OK, let's unpack this. The idea that something as
creative, as seemingly sort of out there as advertising could
be as precise as, say, physics, that's where it gets really

(02:54):
interesting for me. In the very first chapter of the
book, Hopkins lays out this hugeparadigm shift, how advertising,
which was once like this risky gamble, evolved into what he
calls a reasonably exact science.
He says it's based on fixed principles and well understood
causes and effects. That sounds pretty bold.
It is bold, especially when he says it turned advertising into

(03:14):
one of the safest business ventures.
Think about that phrase, safe advertising.
That's a huge claim for something that's still maybe,
for many people listening feels like a bit of a dark art.
You know, an expense you try to minimize rather than a reliable
investment host. When you first read that, did
you feel a bit skeptical? How could something so reliant

(03:35):
on, like human psychology, so prone to fads and fleeting
attention, ever become safe? Oh, absolutely.
Skepticism was my first reaction.
Totally. You imagine, you know, the Mad
Men era. Brilliant creatives just
throwing cool ideas at a wall and then maybe something sticks.
Yeah, the hope part again, exactly.
But Hopkins completely flips that on its head.

(03:56):
He says the profound impact of this shift was turning that high
risk speculation into something with so little risk.
And he explains how these advertising laws were
established, which is where it gets really interesting.
He points to the pivotal role ofthe large advertising agencies
back then. He describes them as storehouses
of advertising experiences. Like libraries of what worked.

(04:18):
Precisely. These weren't just ad factories.
They were like massive laboratories.
They were running hundreds of campaigns, testing literally
thousands of plans and ideas, and crucially, meticulously
watching and recording the results.
So, as he puts it, no lessons were lost.
It's just huge. It's like they were building
this colossal communal database of what worked and, maybe just

(04:41):
as importantly, what didn't. Imagine if every failed
experiment in scientific historywas meticulously documented for
the next generation to learn from.
That's the scale he's talking. About exactly.
And he notes that these agenciesbrought together a high grade of
talent. These weren't just isolated
individuals working in their ownlittle bubbles.
They were brilliant minds, working in cooperation, learning

(05:01):
from each other and from each new undertaking, developing into
what he called masters. And crucially, he points out
that individuals may come and go, but they leave their records
and ideas behind them. The knowledge stage.
Yes, this fostered an incredibleenvironment for collective
knowledge building. It meant the next generation
didn't have to constantly reinvent the wheel, didn't have

(05:21):
to start from scratch. This systematic process
transformed these agencies into clearing houses for everything
pertaining to merchandising, he says.
Nearly every selling question which arises in business is
accurately answered by many experiences.
It's basically the scientific method, but applied to the often
chaotic world of commerce. So it wasn't just about, you

(05:42):
know, a sudden flash of genius or some incredibly catchy
slogan. It was methodical observation,
meticulous data collection, and continuous learning from both
the wins and the losses. Learning from failure is key.
And the ultimate proving ground for all of this, according to
the author, was something calledkeyed advertising and using
traced returns largely through the use of coupons.

(06:05):
He explains this in chapters 1 and 4, emphasizing how these
principles were proved by repeated tests.
And the main laboratory, the place where this ruthless
efficiency was honed, was mail order advertising.
The author emphatically calls itthe severest test of an
advertising man. Why?
Because cost and result are immediately apparent.

(06:26):
You knew down to the fraction ofa penny what your cost per reply
was and your cost per dollar of sale.
Wow. Imagine that before all the
sophisticated analytics we have today, before complex CRM
systems, they were measuring ROIwith a kind of brutal honesty
that would make a modern digitalmarket, or maybe even blush a
little. Yeah, no kidding.
This wasn't just about knowing if an ad worked, it was about

(06:48):
knowing exactly how much it contributed to profit that
forced a level of utter exactness that completely
revolutionized the field. No room for ego there.
That is a brutal yet kind of beautiful form of efficiency.
I love the detail he gives here.Mail order advertisers would
relentlessly compare everything.Headlines, settings, sizes,

(07:09):
arguments, and pictures. Literally every single element.
Anchoring constantly. Constantly, just to reduce
costs, even 1%. Think about the kind of intense,
almost obsessive focus that requires.
He says it eliminated guesswork,and I love this word.
He uses conceit. So if you thought your ad was
just this stroke of genius, pureart, but the numbers didn't back

(07:31):
it up, well, you quickly learneda profound lesson in humility,
didn't you? You certainly did.
The market, the actual consumer,was the ultimate judge, jury and
executioner of your brilliant idea.
And that's precisely why these basic laws, established through
such rigorous, almost painful mail order experiments, apply
universally, even to product lines where direct returns are

(07:53):
impossible, like selling soap ina store.
You can still compare different advertising approaches by
looking at sales figures in controlled environments, maybe
testing different ads in different towns.
OK, so you can still isolate variables.
Exactly. It eliminated that artistic ego
and replaced it with demonstrable results.
The author, as a result, emphatically calls mail order

(08:14):
ads models of efficiency and effectiveness.
Like a blueprint for any advertising effort, really.
It's truly like a scientist refining an experiment in a lab,
isn't it? You don't just throw a bunch of
chemicals together and hope for the best.
No way. You meticulously change one
variable at a time. The temperature, the pressure,
the centration, and you record everything, Offkins was

(08:35):
essentially saying. Alley.
That exact same scientific rigorto your advertising.
Treat every ad as an experiment and every response or lack of
response as data. This is what truly
differentiates his approach fromjust, you know, making pretty
pictures. And if we think about the
historical context for a second,the author paints a pretty stark
picture of those early advertisers.

(08:56):
He likens them to sailors navigating a treacherous sea
without charts, lighthouses or recorded wrecks.
Wow, that's vivid. Isn't it?
They were guided by whims and fancies, vagrant changing
breezes almost entirely by intuition.
It was, as he puts it, a gamble,a speculation of the rashest
sort. It's like a Columbus starting

(09:17):
out to find an undiscovered land, but without any prior maps
or even rumors of what dangers lay ahead.
And the wrecks, as he puts it, were unrecorded.
Meaning people kept making the same mistakes.
Exactly. Countless ventures came to grief
on the same rocks and Shoals again and again.
It sounds absolutely terrifying for anyone sinking their hard
earned money into it. A true leap into the unknown,

(09:39):
but one that was just constantlyrepeated with disastrous
results. But he contrasts this chaotic
past with what he considers his present reality.
Which courses now are past? But the point stands.
He asserts that by his time, theonly uncertainties pertain to
people into products, not to methods.
He genuinely believed they knew how to sell things effectively.
So the how was solved, it was just the what and who that were

(10:01):
variable. Pretty much, yeah.
This newfound precision, this scientific approach, led to
increased volume in prestige andrespect for the advertising
industry itself. It really highlights the depth
of the shift he observed and more importantly, actively help
bring about from reckless gambling to a reasonably exact,

(10:22):
predictable science. That's a monumental change.
It really is, and it perfectly sets the stage for understanding
the rest of the book, because hethen dies into what those fixed
principles actually are, the practical stuff.
OK, so now that we've seen how this shift from, let's say wild
gamble to precise science happened through that relentless
testing, let's zoom spin on perhaps Hopkins most fundamental

(10:43):
commandment because his answer to the question what is
advertising really at its core might surprise some people.
In chapter 2 he hammers home oneabsolute non negotiable
principle, advertising. A salesmanship period.
Full stop. Every single advertising
question, he insists, should be answered by the salesman's
standards. This is such a foundational
point, it really just cuts through so much of the the fluff

(11:06):
that often surrounds advertisingtalk, he states unequivocally.
The only purpose of advertising is to make sales.
Not brand awareness, not generaleffect.
Nope, not primarily. It's not about generating
general effect, or to simply keep your name before the
people, or even mainly to aid your other salesman.
No, you must force it to justifyitself, just like any individual

(11:28):
flesh and blood salesman. This puts a crystal clear,
measurable, and frankly pretty unromantic objective on every
single ad. It's a very practical, brass
tacks kind of view. And he emphasizes the brutal
difference in scale. Right.
A single salesman makes a mistake, maybe they lose a deal
here or there. It costs you a bit.
But an advertiser's mistake, he says, that can cost 1000 times

(11:49):
that much. 1000 times. Because an ad addresses
thousands or even millions at once.
So an ad has to be a kind of super salesman because, as he
puts it, mediocre advertising effects all of your trade.
You simply can't have a bad day in print or online like a
salesman might in person, without suffering truly massive
consequences across your entire market.

(12:11):
It has to perform consistently. And this relentless focus on
sales performance leads him to reject what many people might
consider essential ingredients for advertising, things like
fine writing or trying to be overly entertaining.
Really fine writing is bad. He argues quite forcefully, that
literary qualifications or a unique, clever style are

(12:32):
actually a distinct disadvantagein advertising.
Why That seems counterintuitive.Because, he says, they take
attention from the subject and, crucially, they reveal hold the
hook. Like seeing the strings on the
puppet. Exactly.
Think about it. A magician doesn't show you how
the trick works, right? They make you believe in the
magic. An ad that calls attention to
its own cleverness, its own artistry, distracts from the

(12:53):
actual product and the reason someone should buy it.
That's such a brilliant analogy.The magician showing you the
trick. He compares a fine talker.
In sales. Someone may be too polished to
an orator and that might create fear of over influence or
suspicion in the buyer. Whereas true successful
salesman, he argues, are often plain and sincere.

(13:17):
They're not trying to impress you with flowery language or
dazzling rhetoric. They're trying to genuinely sell
you something to address your needs.
So the author simple yet incredibly powerful test for any
ad is would it help a salesman sell the goods?
Or even more directly, would it help me sell them if I met a
buyer in person? He asserts.
This simple question avoids countless mistakes.

(13:38):
Just ask yourself that. And he challenges that common
belief, which was apparently around even back then, that
people will read for a little that you have to be super brief.
The short attention span argument.
Exactly. He argues that's a fundamental
misunderstanding of reader psychology.
He says the only readers we get are people whom are subject
interests. Think about it like this.

(14:00):
Would you ever limit a top performing salesman to a strict
word count if he had a genuinelyinterested prospect right there
in front of him ready to buy? Of course not.
You let him talk as long as needed.
Right, so why would you artificially limit your ad?
If someone is actually interested, give them enough to
get action. If someone interested, they want
more information, not less. Don't you change them?

(14:21):
He also throws some serious shade on using really large type
and huge headlines. He compares them to loud voices,
which he deems useless and wasteful, even blatant.
Like shouting at people. Yeah, and those ads that try too
hard to be queer and unusual, helikens them to eccentric
salesman. They might get attention, but
they ultimately make bad impressions.

(14:42):
The whole point, he insists, is to gain confidence, establish
trust and ultimately make a sale, not just grab fleeting
attention for its own sake. It's always about substance over
flash for him. This relentless focus on the
sales outcome and kind of stripping away the art of
advertising brings us to a core tenet of his philosophy.
It's outlined in chapters 2 and three.

(15:04):
You must always keep a typical buyer in mind.
Not the masses. No, he advises.
Don't think of people in the mass that gives you a blurred
view. It's about singular, focused
empathy. Imagine one person, your ideal
customer, and write directly to them.
OK, that makes sense. And what's truly fascinating
here is how this focus leads to actions that might seem

(15:25):
counterintuitive at first glance, like offering something
for free. But he argues it's actually
deeply rooted in understanding human nature.
Exactly. He talks about how before even
writing an ad, some of the best advertising men back then would
go out in person and sell to people.
Wow, really like field research.Yeah, they weren't just
observing from an ivory tower. They were on the ground learning

(15:47):
reactions from different forms of argument and approach.
This rigorous pre ad research included interviewing hundreds
and using questionnaires to understand what truly resonated
with potential buyers. This is basically user research
before it was even a defined term.
That's incredible foresight. And this is where he brings in
that critical but perhaps slightly cynical observation in

(16:10):
Chapter 3. The inherently selfish consumer.
Yeah, yes, the selfishness point.
He says it's a common and costlymistake to ignore that the
people you address are selfish. They care nothing about your
interests or profit. Harsh maybe, but probably true,
right? They care about what they get
out of it, what problem you solve for them.
It's not necessarily a moral judgment, it's just a

(16:31):
fundamental truth of human psychology that he built his
entire system around. You have to appeal to that
self-interest. So the best ads, he argues,
often ask no one to buy. Strange, right?
Yeah, instead they offer wanted information, or they highlight
advantages to users, or maybe they offer a sample, or to buy
the first package, or to send something on approval.

(16:53):
The offer might seem altruistic on the surface, but it's
actually based on a deep knowledge of human nature and
how people are most effectively led to buy.
It's about triggering things like reciprocity and again, that
core self-interest. Make it easy and beneficial for
them. He provides some truly wonderful
illustrative real life examples of this service not sales

(17:14):
approach. There's the brush maker who had
get this 2000 Canvassers 2. Thousand Wow.
Yeah, and they didn't knock on doors and immediately try to
sell brushes. Instead, they'd say something
like I was sent here to give youa brush, I have samples here and
I want you to take your choice. Oh, that's clever, giving
something first. Exactly.
The housewife, naturally, is allsmiles and attention, and in the

(17:35):
act of picking one free brush, she sees others she might want
and maybe feels a subtle, very human compulsion to reciprocate
the gift, which often leads to asale.
It's like subtle psychological judo.
It's absolutely brilliant psychology, isn't it?
Like priming the pump? And then there's the coffee
concern that sold coffee from wagons.
The wagon example, yeah. The salesman would just drop off

(17:55):
a half pound package and say accept this package and try it.
I'll come back in a few days to ask how you liked it.
He wouldn't even ask for an order then.
No pressure. Zero pressure.
Later, he might come back and offer a kitchen utensil,
explaining that if she like the coffee, he would credit $0.05 on
each pound she bought until the utensil was paid for.
Always some service, always an unthreatening offer.

(18:17):
First, it builds trust through generosity, or at least
perceived generosity. And one more that really stood
out to me was the electric sewing machine motor.
This was a new thing back then. Instead of trying to convince
people to buy it outright, they offered to send a motor for a
week's free use. A whole week.
Yep, whole week and they'd send a man to show how to operate it.

(18:38):
The ad basically said let us help you for a week without cost
or obligation. That's hard to resist.
Exactly. He calls it a resistless offer.
Removing all perceived risk likethat led to an astonishing
result. About 9 in 10 trials led to
sales 9 out of 10. That's staggering.
You start to see this principle everywhere once you look for it,

(18:59):
even today, right? Makers of cigars, books,
typewriters, even washing machines, he says.
They'd send out products withoutany prepayment.
Try before you buy. Exactly.
Use them a week, then do as you wish.
And the author notes that practically all merchandise sold
by mail is sent subject to return.
These are, he says, common principles of salesmanship, that

(19:20):
even the most ignorant peddler applies them, Yet the salesman
in print, the advertiser, very often forgets them.
Forgets the basics. Yeah, he concludes with this
powerful observation. People can be coaxed, but not
driven. Whatever they do, they do to
please themselves. You have to work with that
impulse, not against it. It's a profound lesson in
empathy for the buyer, really. It's not about your product,

(19:40):
your features, or your company'sglorious history.
It's about their problem, their desire, their self-interest, and
their comfort level. It's truly about serving them,
or at least appearing to serve them first.
Exactly. It's about serving them,
understanding that inherent, maybe universal human
selfishness, and making the pathto action as frictionless and

(20:02):
appealing as possible. It really changes the entire
paradigm of what an advertisement should be trying
to do. So, OK, if you've mastered the
art of understanding that deeplyselfish buyer, what's next?
How do you actually craft the message itself?
Because Hopkins has some very strong opinions on what makes an
ad truly persuasive. And again, it's often
counterintuitive. Let's talk about the message

(20:24):
itself, because how you say something, and, critically, how
much you say, turns out to be incredibly important in
scientific advertising. Starting with Chapter 7, the
author makes a very strong, almost confrontational case for
the power of specificity. Specificity.
This is a big one. Huge, he says, and I love this
quote. Platitudes and generalities roll

(20:44):
off the human understanding likewater from a duck.
They leave no impression whatever.
Poetic but cutting. Right.
And those grand sweeping superlatives like best in the
world or finest quality, He calls him downright damaging.
People just don't believe them anymore, even back then.
He argues there's a fundamental psychological truth at play
here. He says a man who makes a

(21:05):
specific claim is either tellingthe truth or a lie.
And people, he asserts, tend to expect advertisers not to
outright lie, especially in the best mediums, you know, the
reputable publications. This exectation leads to an
acceptance of a definite statement, he says.
Actual figures are not generallydiscounted, they just build
trust in a way that vague claimssimply cannot.

(21:27):
This is so profoundly relatable,isn't it?
Even today, if I tell you a new light bulb gives more light, you
might nod politely, maybe even roll your eyes internally.
Yeah, more than what? Exactly.
But if I tell you it gives 3 andone third times the light of
your current bulb, suddenly you're thinking, wow, they must
have actually tested that. It implies rigor, scientific
backing, concrete results. That sounds credible.

(21:50):
Or if a car dealer just says prices reduced, that's vague,
easily dismissed as puffery. But prices reduced 25%?
That's a real tangible promise. That's the number you can
actually grasp and evaluate. He gives a fantastic example of
a mail order clothing seller. Initially this seller used vague
claims like lowest prices in America, but of course his

(22:10):
rivals immediately copied it. Yeah.
Easy to copy. And the claims became
meaningless noise. Then he dramatically changed his
statement to something incredibly specific.
Our net profit is 3%. Wow, that's bold transparency.
Isn't it? It was a definite statement and
implied efficiency, fairness, a razor thin margin making the
offer seem irresistible. And the book says his business

(22:32):
saw a sensational increase the very next year.
That's a master class in using transparency as a formidable
competitive advantage. Absolutely.
Another one he mentions is an automobile advertiser.
Apparently back then there was ageneral impression that car
companies were making excessive profits.
So this advertiser stated quite plainly, our profit is 9%.

(22:54):
Just laid it out there. And then, crucially, he backed
it up. He broke down the actual cost on
a $1500 car, including a whopping $735 in hidden costs.
Things like distribution overheads that most people
wouldn't even consider. That kind of specific detail,
that radical transparency. It builds immense credibility
and just dispels doubt. The examples just keep coming

(23:16):
and they really drive the point home.
A shaving soap that claims it softens the beard in one minute.
Specific, measurable, instantly appealing if that's your
problem, or that it maintains its creamy fullness for 10
minutes on the face. Another precise benefit driven
claim. Real world benefits.
Exactly. And then the killer detail.
It was the final result of testing and comparing 130

(23:36):
formula. This isn't just a claim about
the soap, it's a declaration of the scientific rigor behind it.
You trust it more. Or a safety razor prompting a 78
second shave. 78 seconds? That's oddly specific.
It is, and that's the point. These aren't just vague boasts,
they're verifiable, almost unbelievable facts that just
stick in your mind because they're so concrete.
You know, my absolute favorite example of specificity in the

(23:58):
book? The one that really cemented
this idea for me was the Pure Beer story.
The beer example. Classic.
It really is. Imagine back then every single
beer company plastered the word pure on their labels.
It became utterly meaningless, right?
Just background noise. So how do you possibly stand out
when pure is just a generic buzzword everyone uses?

(24:21):
What do they do? Well, 1 Brewer instead of just
saying cure went into excruciating but fascinating
detail about why it was pure. He pictured a plate glass room
where the beer was cooled in filtered air.
He detailed how the bottles werewashed four times by machinery,
how they drilled down 4000 feet for pure water. 4000 feet.
I know and how 1018 experiments had been made just to attain a

(24:44):
specific kind of use from a single mother cell.
He was the 1st to tell people the specifics and the author
says he made the greatest success that was ever made in
beer advertising. It's all about showing your
work, not just shouting. The conclusion. 1018 experiments
for a beer yeast. That's obsessive, but man, it
worked. Think about it.
Even today, maybe especially today, in an age saturated with

(25:05):
information, where every brand, every influencer, every
politician is vying for your attention, what truly breaks
through the noise? It's often that absolute,
undeniable specificity. Hopkins figured out early on
that human beings are kind of wired to trust facts, even if
it's just an odd number like 78 second shave.
It's the antidote to our modern day skepticism, the white noise

(25:28):
of generic claims. So whether you're selling a
product, proposing an idea, or maybe even trying to convince
your kid to do their homework, ditch the platitudes.
Get granular. That's the core take away right
there. Specific beats vague every
single time. And to your point about the
beer, do you find clients today still sometimes struggle with
this? Maybe wanting to be vague for

(25:48):
fear of oversharing or getting pinned down.
Oh, absolutely, all the time. There's this pervasive fear of
overwhelming the customer with details or sometimes, frankly, a
lack of deep knowledge about their own product or process to
be truly specific. But Hopkins, his work really
shows that if you have somethinggenuinely compelling to say and
you say it was specific, undeniable facts, people will
lean in. They want proof.

(26:09):
So, OK, once you've fixed someone with that specific
compelling headline or opening, what do you do then?
Chapter 8 gives us another, slightly surprising answer.
Tell your full story. Not brevity, then.
Not necessarily. The core idea is once attention
is gained, the advertisement should tell a story reasonably
complete. The author's motto on this is
profound and again, pretty counterintuitive to a lot of

(26:31):
modern advice. The more you tell, the more you
sell. This directly challenges that
modern obsession with brevity doesn't keep it short, keep it
snappy. Totally, he argues there is no
greater folly than presenting one claim at a time or writing
those serial ads where you reveal little bits over multiple
publications. He says they almost never
connect with the reader. People don't follow along.

(26:53):
When you have someone's attention, you need to seize
that moment. Provide everything they need.
Need to make a decision right then and there.
Don't make them work for it. Exactly why tell all?
He says, and this is so smart. One fact appeals to someone to
another. Omit anyone and a certain
percentage will lose the fact, which might convince you.
Don't know which specific point will tip the scales for any

(27:14):
given reader. So cover all the bases.
Cover the bases. He makes it clear that writers
are highly unlikely to read successive ads for the same
product. You basically have one shot, one
chance to make your full case. And here's another key insight
related to that. In every ad, he advises,
consider only new customers. Only new ones?

(27:36):
What about existing users? He argues present users have
already read and decided and probably won't read your ads
again anyway, so don't waste precious expensive space talking
to them. You are addressing an
unconverted prospect. Treat it as your one chance to
win them over completely. Give them everything they need.
He gives a really compelling real life example of this with
car buying. Apparently a man was looking for

(27:59):
a personal car. He cared little about price, but
wanted real value and quality. He considered a Rolls Royce, a
Pierce Arrow and a Locomobile, all top tier brands back then.
The best of the best. Right, but those famous high end
cars offered no information. Their ads, their advertisements
were very short. They apparently considered it
undignified to argue comparativemerits, believing their name

(28:19):
alone was enough cachet. Relying on reputation alone.
Exactly, but the Marmon car, On the contrary, told a complete
story. This discerning buyer read
columns and books about it, and guess what?
He bought a Mormon and the author notes he was never sorry.
Wow, the detailed story, one against the prestigious names.
It did. The author then asks what utter

(28:41):
folly it is to simply cry a nameand a few brief generalities for
something like a car, a lifetimeinvestment that involves an
important expenditure. He argues a man interested
enough to buy such a significantitem will read a volume about
it. If the volume is interesting.
It really makes you wonder, if someone is willing to spend
their valuable time reading columns and books about your
product, why on earth would you ever hold back information?

(29:03):
It's a powerful indictment of brevity just for brevity's sake,
isn't it? Even for seemingly simple
products like chewing gum, the author states the advertising
story should be reasonably complete.
He notes that breach ads are never keyed, meaning you can't
track their results effectively,whereas every trace ad tells a
complete story, though it takes columns to tell.

(29:24):
This is that data-driven approach.
Again, if the traceable data says more detail sells better
than more detail, it is. It connects directly back to
removing guesswork and relying on evidence.
This challenges so much of what we hear today about shrinking
attention spans and the absoluteneed for micro content, short
videos, quick hits. It makes me wonder, host, if

(29:44):
maybe we've sometimes thrown thebaby out with the bathwater in a
pursuit of brevity. Is there still a place for the
volume about it approach in the TikTok era?
Or is it just a lost art? That's a great question.
I think there absolutely is still a place for it.
While initial attention spans might be shorter, maybe you need
a stronger hook. But if you successfully hook
someone, their interest span canstill be incredibly deep.

(30:06):
Good distinction. Hook versus interest.
Yeah, what Hopkins is essentially saying is don't
confuse brevity for effectiveness.
Your job isn't just to be short.Your job is to be effective in
making the sale. If your product is complex, if
the purchase is significant, or if you have a genuinely
compelling, detailed story to tell, brevity can actually be a

(30:27):
huge disservice. People crave information when
they're making a serious decision or genuinely intrigued.
The volume about it approach is absolutely thriving today in
things like long form content marketing, detailed product
reviews on YouTube, in depth video tutorials, white papers.
Because once someone is truly interested, they often want to
go deep. Hopkins just applied that same

(30:49):
logic to print ads back then. Well put.
And this naturally brings us to Chapter 11, which is all about
the foundation of information. How do you get all that specific
detail to tell your full story? He says a successful ad writer
must gain full information on his subject.
And he uses that powerful line, one that resonates deeply with
anyone who's ever done serious research.
Genius is the art of taking pains.

(31:10):
Oh, I. Like that genius isn't magic,
it's hard work. Exactly.
Yeah, it's great analogy for an ad writers research process.
Actually, he implies, it's like an archaeological dig,
meticulously sifting through volumes of scientific matter dry
as dust. Dry as dust, yeah.
Searching for that one scientific article out of 1000
perused that gives the keynote for that campaign, or maybe just

(31:34):
the idea, which is Help make millions.
It's about incredible persistence, about digging and
digging for that single surprising golden nugget that
unlocks the entire campaign. It's not about just having
flashy ideas out of nowhere. It's about painstaking
discovery. He gives a couple of fascinating
examples of this, kind of like advertising detective work for a

(31:55):
coffee product without caffeine.The writer apparently undertook
an enormous amount of reading, medical and otherwise, for
weeks. Just reading.
Wow, dedication. Right.
And the key insight that utterlychanged the campaign strategy?
It was discovering the fact thatcaffeine stimulation comes two
hours after drinking, not immediately as most people
assume back then. Which meant that the immediate
bracing effects which people seek from coffee do not come

(32:18):
from the caffeine at all. This completely reframed how
caffeine less coffee could be advertised.
It wasn't something that lacked A stimulant people thought they
wanted immediately. It was something that offered
the benefits people actually experienced right away, but
without the later negative caffeine effects like jitters or
sleeplessness. That's mind blowing.
That one fact changed everything.

(32:39):
That's a game changer. Another example he gives is for
a toothpaste. The writer apparently read many
volumes of scientific matter dryas dust and found the idea which
has helped make millions buried in the middle of 1 obscure
article. He also mentions a pre
advertising canvas, actual interviews of 1000 homes before

(32:59):
launching a pork and beans campaign. 1000 homes.
For beans, and it revealed the crucial detail only 4% of
households back then used cannedbeans. 96% baked their own beans
at home from scratch. Wow.
OK. So the competition wasn't other
canned beans? Exactly.
The real problem, therefore, wasn't to sell a brand of canned
beans against other brands. It was to win the people away

(33:23):
from a home baked beans entirely.
That vital piece of information completely redirected the
campaign from almost certain failure because they were aiming
at the wrong target to great success.
Knowing your real competition, even if it's just the home
kitchen, is absolutely everything.
He also highlights the vital importance of using chemists or
other experts to prove or disprove claims.

(33:45):
For instance, a drinks food value was just sort of asserted
vaguely by the maker, but a proper laboratory test showed it
had 425 calories per pint. OK, a number specificity again.
Right. But then they translated that
into a much more impressive and relatable claim.
Equal to six eggs and calories of nutriment.
Suddenly, 425 calories becomes something tangible, something

(34:06):
powerful that generic assertionscould never match.
It gives the ad real teeth real credibility.
And building on that, he discusses the role of having a
dedicated sensor for accuracy, especially for any line
involving scientific details. This authority may be a chemist
or an expert in the field would pass on every advertisement to

(34:26):
prevent wrong inferences or potential boomerang claims.
You know, claims that sound goodinitially, but actually backfire
when scrutinized or misunderstood.
Like unintended consequences. Precisely.
And it's remarkable, he says, how often a maker proves wrong
on assertions he had made for years when they're finally put
to rigorous scientific scrutiny.This just underscores his point

(34:47):
that a seemingly simple ad can actually have reams of data,
volumes of information, months of research behind it.
As he notes rather dryly, this is no lazy man's field.
No kidding. It's really about respecting the
customer enough to do your homework thoroughly, rather than
just guessing what they want or what might resonate.
Absolutely. You can't just wing it when

(35:08):
potentially millions of dollars are on the line, or even just
your reputation. It's about diligent, sometimes
tedious foundational work that underpins every truly successful
campaign. OK, let's transition into part
four of our deep dive. This is where Hopkins gets truly
strategic, maybe even a bit militaristic, in his approach to
advertising. In Chapter 12, he actually

(35:29):
frames advertising as being muchlike war, minus the venom.
Wow, war. Yeah, or like a game of chess,
he says. It requires skill and knowledge,
training and experience and having the proper ammunition.
It's a battlefield, in his view,where you need to understand
your opponents, assess the terrain and deploy your forces
wisely, not just, you know, creatively.

(35:49):
That's a fascinating framing, and one of the crucial pieces of
ammunition he discusses, perhapssurprisingly, is the products
actual name. He says the right name is an
advertisement in itself and may tell a fairly complete story.
A name tells a story, yeah. He cites iconic examples like
Shredded Wheat. It tells you exactly what it is.
Cream of wheat, puffed rice, spearmint gum, Palmol of soap,

(36:10):
which obviously combines palm and olive oils and may breath a
clear benefit right there in thename.
Some names, he insists, have been worth millions of dollars
all by themselves. I can absolutely see that May
breath. You instantly know what it
promises, right? It's not just a pleasant sound,
it's a benefit baked right into the name.
But then he wants about the severe disadvantages of bad

(36:31):
names. Like what he mentions names like
toasted cornflakes or malted milk.
Why were they bad? Because they were too generic,
too descriptive of the category.This allowed other companies to
easily share a demand that the original innovator built.
Imagine spending a fortune building an entire industry
creating demand for toasted cornflakes, only for everyone

(36:53):
else to easily jump in and ride your coattails because your name
isn't exclusive. That's a marketing nightmare.
Ouch. Yeah, you don't own the category
name. That's where coin names come in,
he says. Names like Kodak or Cairo, these
are totally exclusive, and the advertiser who gives them
meaning never needs to share hisadvantage.
You own that term in the consumer's mind.
But he also cautions against using frivolous coin names that

(37:16):
might prohibit respect for a serious product.
You wouldn't name a new high tech medical device Gigglescan
3000, for example. The name has to fit the
product's persona. Good point, and interestingly,
he suggests that using a man's name like Ford Heinz Campbell's
is often the best auxiliary namefor products that have common

(37:36):
descriptive names. Think Heinz ketchup versus just
ketchup. It shows pride of creation,
maybe implies a personal guarantee behind the product.
He also delves into pricing strategy within this war game
context. A high price, he notes,
naturally can create resistance and severely limit one's field.
He asserts that the greatest profits are made on great volume

(37:57):
at small profit, citing giants like Campbell's soups, Ford
cars, and Palmolive soap as prime examples from his era.
If your price only appeals to, say, 10% of the potential
market, you're drastically multiplying your selling cost
per unit and shrinking your overall potential.
However, he does acknowledge crucial exceptions to the low
price rule for products with very small consumption per

(38:18):
customer. He uses the example of a corn
remedy. A large margin might be
essential because repeat purchases are infrequent.
You need to make your profit on that one sale.
Makes sense, and in some lines maybe.
Luxury goods are things where quality is hard to judge.
A higher price may even be an inducement because people
sometimes judge largely by price, seeing a higher priced

(38:39):
product as inherently above the ordinary.
It's not a one-size-fits-all answer.
It's always about knowing your market, your products perceived
value, and your specific customer psychology.
He then talks about really understanding competition.
This isn't just about comparing what your rivals offer in terms
of price or quality, it's also about assessing how strongly are

(39:00):
your rivals entrenched? Are they deeply embedded in
consumer habits? Like trying to displace a brand
people grew up with. Exactly.
He talks about certain fields being almost impregnable product
lines that have successfully created a new habit or custom
and completely dominate their category.
He mentions Vaseline or Jello asexamples from his time.
Invading such well defended fields, he says, requires either

(39:23):
some convincing advantage, a genuinely superior product, or
through very superior salesmanship.
In print. You can't just barge in waving
your hands. You need a clever strategic
flank attack or a genuinely novel approach.
It really is classic military strategy, isn't it?
You don't just charge head on inthe most heavily fortified
position, you probe for weaknesses, or you find a

(39:45):
completely different, unexpectedangle of attack.
He challenges the notion that a product might have no
distinctions, saying there's nearly always something
impressive which others have nottold.
Find the Untold story. Right.
The job of the advertiser, the scientific advertising man, is
to discover that seeming advantage, that unique selling

(40:06):
proposition that USP, that no one else has articulated yet,
even if the feature itself has been there all along.
First one to claim it often ownsit.
OK, shifting gears slightly, butstill related to strategy.
In chapter 17 she talks about individuality and personality in
advertising. The core idea here is that an
advertiser needs to stand out, but not by being eccentric or

(40:28):
abnormal, which you probably call queer, again in his
terminology, but by doing admirable things in a different
way. It's about achieving
distinctiveness that's born fromexcellence and unique
positioning, not just through cheap gimmickry.
Yes, he advises that advertisersshould try to give each brand or
company a distinctive style, a unique voice in manner and in
tone, one that is perfectly suited to their specific

(40:51):
audience. This could be a tone that feels
rugged and honest, maybe good fellow approach that seems
friendly and approachable, or perhaps establishing the
advertiser is a trusted authority in their field.
He cites that powerful example again, the motherly, dignified,
capable woman selling clothing on installments to poor girls
back in Chapter 6. She build immense trust and huge

(41:13):
success by appearing as a genuine friend, understanding
their specific needs and anxieties, and offering a
solution with real empathy in her tone.
That personality was key. That's such a smart approach,
intentionally introducing a specific personality into the
ads, he says. That signed ads, ads that seem
to come from a real person, givethem personal authority.
They show that a real man is talking, not just some soulless

(41:36):
corporation. By making a person famous and
trusted, you make their product famous and trusted.
And once you find that winning personality, that authentic
voice that resonates, he stresses, you must never change.
Our pone people build on that acquaintance rather than
introduce a stranger and guys every few months.
It's all about authenticity and consistency, because appeals, he

(41:57):
states, must seem to come from the heart and the same heart
always. It's really a testament to the
power of consistent brand identity even before that term
was widely used or understood. This brings us to a really
crucial and often debated point in advertising strategy that
still causes arguments in marketing departments today.
The idea of avoiding the negative, which he discusses in

(42:19):
Chapter 18, he states in absolutely no uncertain terms to
attack a rival, is never good advertising.
Never. That's strong.
Very strong, he says. It's not permitted in the best
mediums, the top publications wouldn't run attack ads and it's
never good policy. He sees it as fundamentally
selfish, unfair and just plain not sporty.

(42:40):
Bad form, essentially. He's very clear on this.
Instead of attacking, show a bright side, the happy and
attractive side, not the dark and uninviting side of things.
Paint the positive picture. Right, he gives specific
impactful examples. Don't show the wrinkles you
proposed to remove, but the faceas it will appear after using
your product. Focus on the solution, the
benefit. Or for a dentist, show pretty

(43:02):
teeth, not bad teeth. For clothes, picture well
dressed people, not the shabby. For a business course, picture
successful men, not failures. It's all about painting a
picture of an aspirational future, the desired outcome, not
dwelling on the current undesirable reality.
He says simply tell people what to do, not what to avoid, and
crucially, assume that people will do what you ask.

(43:25):
Project confidence and positivity.
His data, he claims, backs us upstrongly.
He asserts the positive ad out pulls the other 4 to 1. 4 to 1
is a huge difference. It really is.
But this raises an important question for today, doesn't it?
Even now, maybe especially in politics, but also in really
intense product battles. Think Coke versus Pepsi, Apple
versus Android. We see negative campaigns

(43:47):
everywhere. They must think they work.
What do you think this author, Claude C Hopkins, with his very
strong stance would say about them now?
He'd likely argue they are far less effective in building long
term goodwill and sustainable sales.
Wouldn't he Even if they grab short term attention?
I believe he absolutely would argue that his entire philosophy
is rooted in building trust, desire, and a positive

(44:08):
association with your brand, notin generating fear, animosity or
shame towards a competitor. Negative advertising, while
maybe sometimes attention grabbing and shocking in the
short term, can also alienate a significant portion of the
audience, and it often diverts the focus away from your own
products inherent merits and benefits.
Which aligns perfectly with his core principles like specificity

(44:29):
and telling your full story becomes about the fight, not
the. Product it takes the focus off
your value. Exactly.
His approach is all about convincing the customer based on
your strengths, not just confronting or tearing down the
competition. Agreed, it feels like a timeless
piece of advice that many modernmarketers and maybe even
political strategist could stilllearn a lot from.
Focus on your own strength, not just your competitors weakness.

(44:52):
Build up, don't just tear down, OK?
For our final part part 5, we'rediving into what I consider the
absolute bedrock, the real foundational science of Claude C
Hopkins's scientific advertising.
It's all about testing, strategic distribution, and
ultimately what he sees as the future of the entire advertising

(45:13):
industry. Let's start with Chapter 15, The
transformative power of test campaigns.
The core idea here is simple yetincredibly profound, and it
really underpins everything elsehe talks about.
Almost any question can be answered cheaply, quickly, and
finally by a test campaign. And he insists that's the only
reliable way to answer them, notby arguments around a table.
You have to go to the court of last resort, the buyers of your

(45:34):
product. Let them decide.
This is where he truly solidifies the science aspect of
the title and definitively separates it from being just a
gamble. He contrasts the old days filled
with advertising disaster, whereadvertisers simply ventured on
their own opinions and gut feelings with this modern
data-driven approach. Now we let the thousands decide

(45:54):
what the millions will do. Test small, learn fast.
Exactly. It's all about mitigating risk,
learning lessons cheaply and iterating, improving before you
commit vast resources, potentially millions, to a full
scale national campaign. It's like a pilot meticulously
mapping out every single inch ofa flight path and running
countless simulations before even thinking about taking off

(46:15):
with passengers, he says. We make a small venture in just
a few towns. We carefully watch cost and
result, and when we learn what 1000 customers cost, we know
almost exactly what a million will cost.
If your product costs you say, $5 to acquire a new customer in
a small controlled test market, you can predict with remarkably

(46:36):
high certainty what it will likely cost at a national scale.
This helps prove our undertakingabsolutely safe before you
spread out, ensuring your capital is deployed effectively
and not just wasted he. Even highlights a significant
potential financial advantage. Some products, he claims, can
literally be advertised without investment because the cost of
the advertising comes back before the bills are due.

(46:59):
The sales generated by the initial ads pay for those ads,
creating self funding growth loop.
That's the absolute dream scenario for any business, isn't
it? Get your money back before the
invoice even arrives. He gives a compelling example of
a large food advertiser who thought his product would be way
more popular if it was presentedin a different form.
He and all his advisors were certain about it, absolutely

(47:21):
convinced they knew best. Groupthink setting in.
Totally. But wiser advice prevailed, and
they tested it first in just a few towns, using a coupon offer
to track response. And the users, those ultimate
judges in the court of last resort, were almost unanimous in
their disapproval. Ouch.
Saved by the test. Absolutely a very costly mistake

(47:41):
potentially saved for the relatively small cost of a test,
which even in his time was significant money, but minuscule
compared to the potential lossesof a failed national rollout.
And then later the same product was suggested in yet another
form, and a similar test this time yielded 91% approval that
led to a unique product and hugeprofits.
So it's not just about avoiding failure, it's also about

(48:02):
actively finding those hidden opportunities, optimizing your
product or message, and refiningyour approach based on real
customer feedback. He also mentions one food
advertiser who apparently tried over 50 separate plans in just
five years, constantly finding improvements, eventually
reducing their cost of selling by 75%.

(48:23):
Think about that. Making their advertising 4 times
more effective through relentless testing and
iteration. This sounds so much like the
iterative process of a scientistin a lab, doesn't it?
Relentlessly experimenting to find the optimal formula or
method, isolating variables, recording results, and then
scaling up what demonstrably works.
Hopkins even explicitly likens advertisers to chemists who make

(48:46):
hundreds of tests to actually know which is best.
Before stating a mere supposition as proven fact, he
asks quite pointedly, how long before advertisers in general
will apply that exactness to advertising.
It really feels like a call to arms for scientific rigor in
every single marketing dollar spent.
And this scientific rigor also extends beyond just the ad copy
itself into how products are actually introduced to the

(49:08):
market, particularly regarding the use of samples and the
challenge of getting products physically into stores.
In Chapter 13, the author emphasizes the strategic use of
samples and effective distribution.
He starts with a powerful core belief the product itself should
be its own best salesman. Let the product do the talking.
Exactly. Given that belief, he concludes

(49:31):
that offering samples usually form the cheapest selling method
because once someone tries a good product, they're often
sold. He makes an incredibly
compelling case for using the word free in ads, doesn't he?
Saying multiplies readers and gets action like almost nothing
else can. A sample also gets name and
address for potential follow up,and crucially, it keys your
advertisements for comparison. This allows you to see exactly

(49:55):
which ad copy, which headline, which publication, which offer
generates the most qualified interest.
And he warns explicitly against being Pennywise # foolish by
trying to charge for samples even a mere dime.
He argues it greatly retards replies and critically prevents
you from using that magic actiondriving word free.

(50:16):
He claims charging just $0.10 for a sample could cost them
from $0.40 to $1.00 and lost potential replies and
conversions. An astronomical difference in
ROI for a negligible upfront saving.
Don't trip over dollars to pick up Dimes.
That's a huge difference. He also explores optimizing the
inquiries based on how they actually come in.
Mailing in coupons, he notes, often brings minimum returns.

(50:37):
People are lazy option. Four times as many will present
that coupon for a sample directly at the store if given
the option. Makes sense, Less effort.
Yeah, and the most convenient method he observed, though
perhaps not always the cheapest of a film, was requesting
samples by telephone, which apparently yielded 70% of
inquiries in one specific case he tracked.
But his core principle remains consistent.

(50:59):
Give samples to interested people only.
Give them only to people who exhibit that interest by some
effort, like clipping a coupon or making a call.
Give them only to people whom you have told your story through
the ad first. It's about qualifying your
leads. Even when dealing with freebies,
don't just waste samples on uninterested people.
Then there's the massive, often existential problem for any new

(51:22):
product getting distribution, which he covers in Chapter 14.
He states it very succinctly. National advertising is
unthinkable without distribution.
It's utterly pointless, indeed incredibly wasteful, to run
great ads if customers then can't find your product on the
shelves anywhere. Imagine seeing a brilliant ad
campaign for a fantastic new soda, getting excited, going to
the store and it's not there. Instant frustration.

(51:44):
Lost sale. Totally.
He discusses some brilliant strategic solutions to this
chicken and egg problem, for instance sometimes using direct
sales or mail orders initially to create demand, which then
forces dealers to supply the product because customers are
actively asking for it by name. Create pull through demand.
Exactly or another tactic referring those sample inquiries

(52:06):
generated by ads to specific named local dealers.
This also helps force those dealers to supply it as a direct
result of tangible customer demand walking through their
doors asking for it. But perhaps one of his most
powerful, almost like a Trojan horse method for achieving
distribution. Is the coupon good at any store
for a full size package? A free product coupon?

(52:28):
How does that help distribution?Well, by mailing proofs of the
ad featuring such a valuable coupon directly to dealers
beforehand, the problem of distribution becomes simple.
Why? Because dealers are smart enough
to know they won't let a customer waving what is
essentially a cash sale at full profit since the manufacturer
redeems the coupon walk out the door empty handed and go to a

(52:49):
competitor who does stock it, they'll make sure they have it.
That is genuinely brilliant. It completely bypasses the need
for a massive, expensive sales force to strong arm retailers
into stocking the product. He cites A Palmolive soap and
puffed grains as examples of huge brands that gained national
distribution largely this way, often without a single salesman
and lower cost. He then issues a crystal clear

(53:11):
warning that holds just as true today.
Don't start advertising without distribution.
Don't get distribution by methods too expensive.
It sounds almost obvious, but somany companies still get this
fundamental sequencing wrong. And this scientific, results
driven, strategic approach permeates even the seemingly
mundane task of letter writing, which he discusses in Chapter 19

(53:33):
as a critical phase of advertising, especially for
follow up or direct mail, He says bluntly, most circular
letters go straight to the wastebasket.
Tell me about it. Right, unless they have a
compelling headline which attracted your interest and they
clearly offer something that youwant.
It's exactly the same principle as writing a good print ad.
You must earn attention immediately and then offer
genuine value or solve a problemfor the reader.

(53:55):
He uses that powerful example again of the buyer who spends
$50 million per year. An incredibly busy, high volume
executive. Even this guy will discard most
letters without a second thought, but he'll meticulously
keep or act on those offering specific information he wants.
For instance, he might file awaya letter clearly titled Varnish
Information if that's a topic he's currently researching.

(54:18):
Make it easy for them to see therelevance.
And just like ads, he notes thatsavvy magazine publishers and
mail order advertisers test their letters rigorously,
comparing different versions. A general letter is never used
until it proves itself best among many actual returns.
No guessing, no assuming. Only proven results dictate what
gets mailed out broadly. Follow up letters, he says, are

(54:40):
tremendously important for nurturing those half made
converts. People who showed initial
interest may be requested a sampler info but haven't yet
committed to buying. And importantly, he found
through testing that experience shows the whole appeal lies in
the matter, not the stationary or the postage.
Fancy paper or an expensive stamp won't save a weak message
or a poor offer. Content is king.

(55:01):
Absolutely, and he stresses the need to push for immediate
action whenever possible in these letters, perhaps by
offering a limited time inducement or clearly stating
what delay may cost the prospect.
The example of the mail order advertiser who sent a simple
personal card along with the catalog offering a small free
gift with order specifically to compel immediate action before

(55:22):
competitors could swoop in, is afantastic illustration of
creating urgency. Finally, in Chapter 21, the last
chapter, Hopkins delivers his final verdict on what he calls
good business in advertising. He opens with this really
powerful analogy. He describes a rapid stream
where for centuries all but a fraction of the stream's
potentiality went to waste untilmodern scientific methods, the

(55:44):
invention of things like turbines and Dynamos, finally
harnessed its immense power to run a large manufacturing plant.
This dramatic transformation of wasted potential into immense,
reliable productivity is his ultimate vision for advertising.
He applies this analogy directlyto the advertising landscape he
observed, often with the palpable degree of frustration

(56:05):
at the sheer waste he still saw happening all around him.
He says. We see countless ads running
year after year, which we know to be unprofitable, He laments
seeing men spending $5 to do what $1.00 might do, men getting
back 30% of their costs when they might get 150%.
And the shocking part, he notes,is that these facts could be

(56:25):
easily proved if only these advertisers would bother to
apply scientific testing methodsinstead of just guessing or
relying on tradition. It's truly astounding, the scale
of waste he implies. He shares a story, almost
unbelievable, about an advertiser spending a staggering
$700,000 per year back then, a colossal sum, who bluntly
confessed to Hopkins that he didnot know whether his advertising

(56:48):
was worth anything or not. He had no idea.
Spending that much with no idea of the return?
Incredible. Right.
The author challenged him to prove it's likely
unprofitability by making a simple test offer within the ad,
maybe offering $5 for readers who read the ad through.
He predicted the resulting scarcity of replies would
utterly amaze the advertiser andreveal how ineffective his

(57:08):
massive spend actually was. Imagine that level of financial
blindness in a business spendingsuch vast sums on outreach.
It's truly incredible. He predicts quite forcefully,
the inevitable end of all the bunk and sophistry, those vague,
unproven, purely artistic claimsin advertising.
He declares the time is fast coming when men who spend money

(57:29):
are going to know what they get.Accountability is coming.
The reckon. Yes, he envisions advertising
becoming finer, cleaner when thegamble is removed.
And critically, he believes it will actually multiply.
It will become more prevalent, more respected, and ultimately
far more powerful as an economicengine once it is widely seen
not as a risky gamble, but as a safe and sure investment based
on proven principles. So after this really deep dive

(57:52):
into Claude C Hopkins's scientific advertising, thinking
about everything we've discussed, what does all of this
mean for your approach to influence?
And I mean, you're listening right now, whether it's in your
business, maybe your personal projects, or even just in your
everyday communication with friends and family.
Are you perhaps unknowingly still operating on whims and

(58:12):
fancies, making vague promises, hoping for the best?
Or Are you ready to maybe chart a more scientific course,
demanding proof, seeking specificity, testing your
assumptions? Hopkins principles really
challenge us, I think, to move beyond just intuition and
creative ego, to question every assumption we hold, to apply
rigorous testing where possible,absolute specificity in our

(58:35):
claims. And maybe most importantly, to
cultivate a genuine, perhaps even selfless seeming desire to
serve the customers needs, firstand foremost to understand
deeply who you're actually talking to and what they truly
desire, not just what you think they desire, or what sounds
clever to you or what your competitors are doing.
He's asking us, essentially, isn't he, to try and turn our
own gambles into sciences? Whether it's a major ad campaign

(58:57):
or just a new product idea, or even how you write a cover
letter for a job or craft an important e-mail, It's about
being deliberate, being deeply informed by research and data,
even small data, and being relentlessly focused on the
desired measurable outcome, not just getting lost in the
creative process itself. And that ultimately feels like

(59:18):
the timeless wisdom Hopkins offers us.
It's about building success not on fleeting luck or unproven
artistry, but on measurable, repeatable, and fundamentally
human psychological principles that, amazingly continue to
resonate and prove effective nearly a century later.
Thank you so much for joining uson this deep dive into Claude C
Hopkins's scientific advertising.

(59:39):
We truly hope it encourages you to maybe pick up the book,
explore these concepts further, and perhaps even apply some of
them in your own life, turning more of your own endeavors into
predictable, measurable successes.
Until next time.