elps people to act.

However, by adding value to commodities, it actually no longer is a commodity because it's no longer apples to apples. You have to prove that your added value is for real. If it's apples to apples, you're in a "me too" competitive position and are subject to the risk of losing market share if competitors add value!

The advantage with a "new market development" is, assuming that you use the three-part formula and make i

There are two distinctly different markets. Oddly enough, both markets need the exact same marketing process to work. As elsewhere described, the first market is the selling of commodities, either as products or services; commodities meaning a known value, i.e. a commonly accepted result. For example, a $.69 can of green beans and a $4.95 car wash represent expected results. The second market is, obviously, products and/or services with either an unknown result and/or an unknown price. (Result + price = value)

Interestingly, both markets compel the same 3 components to produce acceptable results. They are

1) make the big promise,
2) document your claims, and
3) make the irresistible and/or risk-free offer.

In the marketing of commodities, you need to add value in order to cause the desired response, "I'd be nuts not to buy from these guys." In order to get that response, it isn't enough to say "You'll save money" or "You've tried the rest, now try the best." You have one shot to convince them that they'll really save money (which is 1 - the big promise). So, you'll have to prove that it's for real; i.e. who says so besides you and your brother-in-law? Again, inspiring the action is helped by the irresistible offer, hopefully "risk-free." Without dwelling too long on the mechanics of those three critical components as elsewhere covered, the point is, for the "non-commodity" market, you have to do the exact same process, for the exact same reasons. You need to tell them how your product/service will either enhance their lives or reduce a risk/problem (The Big Promise); you need to document your claims (prove it) because it is not yet an accepted (known) product or value. Again, 3- the irresistible offer helps people to act.

However, by adding value to commodities, it actually no longer is a commodity because it's no longer apples to apples. You have to prove that your added value is for real. If it's apples to apples, you're in a "me too" competitive position and are subject to the risk of losing market share if competitors add value!

The advantage with a "new market development" is, assuming that you use the three-part formula and make i

nown result and/or an unknown price. (Result + price = value)

Interestingly, both markets compel the same 3 components to produce acceptable results. They are

1) make the big promise,
2) document your claims, and
3) make the irresistible and/or risk-free offer.

In the marketing of commodities, you need to add value in order to cause the desired response, "I'd be nuts not to buy from these guys." In order to get that response, it isn't enough to say "You'll save money" or "You've tried the rest, now try the best." You have one shot to convince them that they'll really save money (which is 1 - the big promise). So, you'll have to prove that it's for real; i.e. who says so besides you and your brother-in-law? Again, inspiring the action is helped by the irresistible offer, hopefully "risk-free." Without dwelling too long on the mechanics of those three critical components as elsewhere covered, the point is, for the "non-commodity" market, you have to do the exact same process, for the exact same reasons. You need to tell them how your product/service will either enhance their lives or reduce a risk/problem (The Big Promise); you need to document your claims (prove it) because it is not yet an accepted (known) product or value. Again, 3- the irresistible offer helps people to act.

However, by adding value to commodities, it actually no longer is a commodity because it's no longer apples to apples. You have to prove that your added value is for real. If it's apples to apples, you're in a "me too" competitive position and are subject to the risk of losing market share if competitors add value!

The advantage with a "new market development" is, assuming that you use the three-part formula and make i

not to buy from these guys." In order to get that response, it isn't enough to say "You'll save money" or "You've tried the rest, now try the best." You have one shot to convince them that they'll really save money (which is 1 - the big promise). So, you'll have to prove that it's for real; i.e. who says so besides you and your brother-in-law? Again, inspiring the action is helped by the irresistible offer, hopefully "risk-free." Without dwelling too long on the mechanics of those three critical components as elsewhere covered, the point is, for the "non-commodity" market, you have to do the exact same process, for the exact same reasons. You need to tell them how your product/service will either enhance their lives or reduce a risk/problem (The Big Promise); you need to document your claims (prove it) because it is not yet an accepted (known) product or value. Again, 3- the irresistible offer helps people to act.

However, by adding value to commodities, it actually no longer is a commodity because it's no longer apples to apples. You have to prove that your added value is for real. If it's apples to apples, you're in a "me too" competitive position and are subject to the risk of losing market share if competitors add value!

The advantage with a "new market development" is, assuming that you use the three-part formula and make i

long on the mechanics of those three critical components as elsewhere covered, the point is, for the "non-commodity" market, you have to do the exact same process, for the exact same reasons. You need to tell them how your product/service will either enhance their lives or reduce a risk/problem (The Big Promise); you need to document your claims (prove it) because it is not yet an accepted (known) product or value. Again, 3- the irresistible offer helps people to act.

However, by adding value to commodities, it actually no longer is a commodity because it's no longer apples to apples. You have to prove that your added value is for real. If it's apples to apples, you're in a "me too" competitive position and are subject to the risk of losing market share if competitors add value!

The advantage with a "new market development" is, assuming that you use the three-part formula and make i

elps people to act.

However, by adding value to commodities, it actually no longer is a commodity because it's no longer apples to apples. You have to prove that your added value is for real. If it's apples to apples, you're in a "me too" competitive position and are subject to the risk of losing market share if competitors add value!

The advantage with a "new market development" is, assuming that you use the three-part formula and make it work, it's not so price sensitive because of less competition and less demand to start with. There are thus two marketing approaches:

1) Give them what they already want, with added value, and

2) Make them want what you have, when you want them to buy. This approach becomes a great fill-in market, even if you're also selling commodities. You're out of control over commodities, but, it pays the rent and gets them to come in. Non-commodities then can be structured to be sold in slow season to fill in, or, can be piled on top of commodities as extra income and added value to get commodity customers to come to you in the first place.

Goal #1 is "Break even."

Goal #2 is "Fill in the Gaps."

Goal #3 is "Fine tune Profits."

With either "commodities" or "new market development", if you use "added perceived values", you can "get your price", and, that's Profit Controlled Marketing.