A home seller recently asked me: “What’s a better indicator of when our house will receive an offer: average length of time on the market in our neighborhood, or number of showings?”

Here’s how I answered:

Average length of time on market in your neighborhood doesn’t mean much; it all depends on how the houses are priced. Let’s say your neighborhood has very similar homes–same approximate age, size, lot size, condition, etc. And let’s say that the market price for such a home is $500,000. Well, if all the homes are priced around $575,000 and have an average of 200 days on market, then the houses are overpriced–as we know from our example. But if you put yours on the market at $500,000, it probably would sell reasonably quickly.

Another example. Same community. Three houses were on the market. One was priced at $500,000 and sold in 20 days. One was priced at $525,000, and sold in 100 days. One was priced at $550,000 and has been on the market for 180 days. So you could look at the averages: Average sales price of $525,000, average days on market 100 days. But that really doesn’t tell you anything. What you need to know is that houses sell quickly at $500,000. They take quite a while at $525,000. And they may never sell at $550,000.

So, days on market really is just a function of price and marketing.

Number of showings is a lot more relevant. You can assume that most of the people viewing your property are looking for homes that meet the general description of your home (number of beds and baths, etc.) in your general price range. To use the example above, the people who are going to be looking at those homes probably want to spend between $500,000 and $525,000 on your sort of house. So, a lot of showings means that your home is attractively priced for what it is and where it is. Few showings means that your home is overpriced.

So, if there’s nothing wrong with your home (some terrible odor, or backing up next to a freeway that isn’t apparent in the listing), the more showings you have, the more likely it is to sell sooner. It’s all a numbers game. I know some agents who have various rules of thumb, such as: An offer should come in for every 10 (or 15) showings. Obviously, the number varies. But you get the idea. If that’s not happening, then there may be some problem with the house that people don’t find out about until they’re there.

So, number of showings is a very good indicator. Average length of time in your neighborhood is a very poor indicator.

google4d49fe55b6cc93d9.html

There are all sorts of rules for marketing, whether by direct mail or e-mail. There should be a guarantee. (“Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.”) There should be urgency. (“This offer expires in 48 hours.”) And so on.

Sometimes the marketing can include a suggestion of exclusivity. (“This offer isn’t for everyone–just those who want the best.” Or “We’re only making this offer to a select few.”)

One thing I haven’t seen–and I’m an avid reader of marketing advice from Glazer-Kennedy and a slew of others–is: Don’t deliberately insult the recipient. Nor have I seen: Don’t cast the product you’re marketing in a bad light.

Maybe we can learn something from the folks at eTapestry.com. That company’s latest e-mail promo compares its potential customers to dung beetles. But, hey, that’s not the end of it. It compares its own product to skunk cabbage.

Mutualism.  It’s what they call it when two things benefit each other.  And just like the dung beetle and skunk cabbage help each other out, so too do eTapestry’s fundraising software and your cause. 

eTapestry compares itself and its customers to dung beetles and skunk cabbage

I imagine it was an attempt at humor. Maybe.

(Now, I’ll admit that this marketing promotion didn’t have anything to do with real estate–the main topic of this blog. Still, those in real estate do a lot of marketing–direct mail, internet, paid advertising, and so on–so the takeway message is the same, even if you’re focused on real estate.)

Browsing around the Internet, I ended up at Wikipedia, which had a list of other forms of mutualism and symbiotic relationships. Among them:

• Humans and intestinal bacteria
• Leafhopper and meat ant
• Acacia Ants (Pseudomyrmex ferruginea) with the Swollen Thorn Acacia Tree (Acacia cornigera)
• Euprymna squid (family Sepiolidae) and bioluminescent bacteria (Vibrio fischeri)
• Anglerfish and bioluminescent bacteria
• Moray eels and cleaner shrimp or cleaner fish at cleaning stations
• Goby fish and shrimp
• Sea anemones and clownfish, crabs or shrimps
• Deep-sea pompeii worms and thermophilic bacteria
• Ruminants such as cows and their intestinal bacteria and protists
• Oxpeckers and rhinoceroses
• Aphids and Buchnera bacteria
• Ambrosia Beetles and fungi
• Sharks and remora
• fig trees and Amazon fruit bats
• mole salamanders and Oophila alga
• Sea anemone and clownfish
• Hawaiian Bobtail Squid and Vibrio fischeri

Few of those are particularly attractive images. Given a choice, I guess I’d be the shark to eTapestry’s remora. Or I’d be a rhinoceros to eTapestry’s oxpecker. Or a cow to eTapestry’s intestinal bacteria. But I don’t know whether I’d prefer being a leafhopper or a meat ant. Or a worm to bacteria.

Nor can I imagine this is the image eTapestry was trying to convey. Dung beetles? Skunk cabbage?

If you’ve been following this blog, you know the drill by now. I take a real estate guru’s promotional e-mails, then dissect them. Then I rate them on my trusty Crap-O-Meter. A “10″ means it’s a hot, fragrant, steaming pile of . . . well, you get the idea. A number around “5″ means there’s substance behind the hype. And lower than “5″ means there’s real value. Most of my ratings are up there close to “10.” It’s more fun to rip apart the questionable claims. But, once in a while, there’s real value.

And that’s the case here.

But first, a disclaimer: I know Jason Hanson. Further, I’ve purchased some products from him. And further, when I was getting started, he took some time out of his schedule to meet with me, share strategies, and just was a “good guy.” So, I’m biased.

However, the question is: When you get an e-mail from Jason Hanson, is it crap? Or is there substance there? Is he just trying to sell you an expensive program? Or is he also sharing useful information? Sure, he’s trying to sell you some of his books, or his coaching program. Absolutely. But is there any value you can get from what he’s providing? Again, absolutely.

Here’s a screen shot of my “In Box” with e-mails from Jason.

E-mails from Jason Hanson

I’ve pasted a couple of his e-mails below. (They seem to average about once a week.) But the first thing I like is that the subject line doesn’t overpromise and underdeliver. Sure, the subject lines are “teasers,” but–surprisingly for such marketing efforts–the teasers actually deliver what they promise. Here’s a sampling:

Don,

Below is an typical email I often receive from people who are trying to wholesale properties to me and other investors. So, this week I thought I’d show you how to quickly evaluate a deal.

I want you to look at the numbers below, and decide that if you were paying cash would this be a good deal for you? (Once you’re done look for my answer below, but don’t cheat……evaluate the deal first!)

Price Asking $120K, send best offer
ARV $200,000
Repairs $30000
3 bedroom, 1 Full Bath, 1 Level Rambler
3103 lumar drive, fort Washington md 20744
Description: Carpeting, paint, upgrade bathroom and kitchen.
Property in good condition. Will hold conventional or fha
financing. In rentable condition. Currently occupied.
Comp data: Comp data not solid enough in area to reach confident true value. Property sales take at times 1 year. Don’t have current data on hand, email me if you need MRIS data from the last six months and I will send it to you.
Current Situation: I am currently lining up my financing for rehab in the event no wholesale offers are received, I will proceed with rehab. Seller needs to sell quickly. This property will be up for wholesale for possibly through next week.

Okay. Did you really evaluate this? Do you think it’s a deal?

Alright, I’m trusting that you already did your own evaluations, so here we go: First, I’m going to check the ARV (after repair value) and make sure his comps are correct. Let’s pretend they’re correct and the property is worth $200,000.

Now, do you remember the wholesale formula? First you take the ARV of $200,000 and multiply it by .65 (because if I’m paying cash I’m buying at 65 cents on the dollar). $200,000 x .65=$130,000.
However, don’t forget the repairs. So, take your $130,000 and subtract the $30,000 for repairs and you get $100,000.

And there you have it: Assuming the repair estimates were correct and the comps were right and I liked this house, the most I would pay is $100,000. Therefore, I would definitely not pay 120k for this place, but would first offer 85k and leave room for negotiation.

And that’s all she wrote. Time to take Lazy Toby for a walk in the woods. Talk to you next week.

Dedicated To Helping You Live Life On Your Own Terms,

Jason Hanson
www.PrimoCoach.com
800-865-1702

P.O. Box 450, Oakton, VA 22124, USA

To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:
http://www.aweber.com….

That’s fairly basic, but it delivers 100% on what it promises.

Here’s another (hope Jason doesn’t mind sharing some of his tips!):

Don,

Last week I told you that I was trying out a new handwritten sign and that I would videotape it and show it to you (the sign I just put up at my newest lease option deal). Well, I forgot to bring my video camera but I did have my digital camera. So, I took a picture of the sign and I have attached it to this email.

Also, below you will see part 1 and 2 of videos that I recorded from a call last week. These videos show how I overcome one of the most common objections with lease option deals…..this particular seller was worried that I would put people in his house that would destroy it or that would party and bother the whole neighborhood….you will see how I quickly assured him this would not happen.

I don’t shoot these videos for the fun of it. I don’t shoot them so that you can see my ugly face. I shoot them because I want to help you close more deals and make more money. And if you don’t have proper “salesmanship” on the phone, it’s going to be a lot longer until you’re a six figure a year investor.

The links are below. Study them, take notes, send me emails when you close deals and make MOOLAH!

http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=9OSPO&m=1gLXaPkODnO4s9&b=Nul3hg6.QW_Y5sBFLLcbdA  PART 1

http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=9OSPO&m=1gLXaPkODnO4s9&b=fSYWqeGpiR.fvaZOmefRWw  PART 2

Dedicated To Helping You Live Life On Your Own Terms,

Jason Hanson
www.PrimoCoach.com
800-865-1702

P.O. Box 450, Oakton, VA 22124, USA

To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:
http://www.aweber.com….

Some of his e-mails are a bit more promotional than those, but virtually all have legitimate, useful information. Plus, they’re entertaining. They don’t sound as if they were written by a slick promoter with that breathless, urgent tone that you often encounter.

Again the disclaimer: I know Jason, so this can’t be an unbiased review. Still–trust me–I’ve known other “gurus” (and in Jason’s defense I doubt he’d even call himself a “guru”) who just sell the hype, and I’d be glad to take them on. One other point: Jason isn’t paying me a penny for this review. In fact, over the past few years, I’ve paid him for materials and coaching (mostly for my son).  With that out of the way . . .

So, for real, legitimate content without the false urgency and promise of immediate riches you encounter elsewhere, I give Jason Hanson a 1.1 (an excellent score) on my Crap-O-Meter.

Our trusty Crap-O-Meter has been flirting with a perfect “10″ score for awhile. That is, a marketing pitch that’s not just misleading, not just over-the-top, but blatantly inaccurate. Well, friends, we’ve hit the jackpot. Today’s a solid “10.”

The pitch is by Preston (or Pre$ton as he sometimes signs his e-mails) Ely for an exercise and fitness program by Dave Durell. (Yes, this is a real estate blog, and the pitch has nothing to do with real estate. But what we rate here is the marketing, not the underlying product. And Preston promotes a lot of real estate products. Don’t get us wrong: Health and fitness are admirable goals and Durell’s product may very well be worth every penny. It’s the pitch we have problems with. Yes, here we’re “shooting the messenger,” not arguing with the message.)

OK. Here’s the pitch:

Preston Ely's Pitch for David Durell's Exercise Program

Preston begins by explaining that he was rushed to the hospital after complications following back surgery. We’ll accept that at face value. That’s serious, and our best wishes truly go out to Preston.

But he uses that to set the stage for what he writes next:

This could have all been avoided had I been smarter with my exercise routine when I was younger. As it was, I made a ton of mistakes which basically cost me my health.

It didn’t have to be that way.

My friend Dave Durell (ex-physical therapist for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers) just released a special report titled “The 7 Deadly Workout Mistakes & How To Avoid Them.” I highly suggest you read this right now and spare yourself this pain. Do it for yourself. Do it for your kids. You’ll thank me.

Note that Ely seems to be linking his workout routine to his present poor health. Now, while it’s certainly possible that a poor workout routine can negatively affect one’s health, 99 times out of 100 it’s the lack of a workout routine that leads to poor health.

Further, Ely is pushing a report titled “The 7 Deadly Workout Mistakes & How To Avoid Them.” Uh, oh. Deadly workout mistakes? Like ignoring the signs of a stroke or heart attack? Like dehydration? Like not using spotters when lifting weights? Deadly?

We’ll get to those in a moment. But you get the picture. This is serious.

Problem is, ol’ Preston has a bunch of his facts wrong. He claims that Durell is “ex-physical therapist for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.” Umm. No. Durell isn’t a physical therapist at all. Never has been. In fact, he doesn’t even claim to be. On the sales page, he states, correctly, that he’s a physical therapist assistant. The educational requirement is a 2 year associate degree, generally from a community college. In Durell’s case, he earned his associate’s degree in 1995 from Housatonic Community College. He then passed an exam to become a physical therapist assistant. And that’s fine. Problem is, to become a physical therapist today requires a clinical doctorate. Back in 1995, it generally required a master’s degree, not an associate’s degree.

Beyond that, Ely claims that Durell was a physical therapist for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. A double “nope” here. Not only was he not a physical therapist. His role with Tampa Bay was not connected to physical therapy. Durell’s sales page explains that he was a “strength and conditioning assistant” with Tampa Bay. Again, that’s perfectly fine and perfectly respectable. But he sure as heck wasn’t acting as a physical therapist (or even physical therapist assistant) with Tampa Bay.

Here’s the top part of Durell’s sales page:

Dave Durell's sales page for his exercise program

Now, as for Ely’s linkage of his poor health to his former exercise routine–and his promotion of a report dealing with “The 7 Deadly Workout Mistakes,” there’s a–ahem–slight problem. True, that’s the title of Durell’s “Special Report.” But the report has nothing to do with “deadly” workout mistakes. It’s just seven pieces of advice–good advice, but pretty basic–on how to maximize an exercise program.

Here are the “deadly mistakes”:

• Working out for too long
• Not working out hard enough
• Not working out progressively
• Not recording your workouts
• Working out too frequently
• Not having a positive attitude
• Not making a commitment

Even the few items that might conceivably be “deadly,” such as “working out for too long” or “working out too frequently,” don’t contain any major fear-inducing points. So, there’s room to fault Durell for the name of his report, but let’s chalk that up to a bit of marketing hype. And as you’ll see, the program that Durell is selling is designed to help you “Get The Lean, Healthy, Sexy Body You Want In Only Minutes A Day…
… Discover The Proven, Easy-To-Follow System That Will Get You Into Awesome Shape, Despite Your Jam-Packed Schedule!”

On the other hand, Ely’s pitch–tieing in “deadly mistakes” with emergency surgery and leaking spinal fluid–coupled with a misrepresentation of credentials is enough to earn this pitch a 10 on our Crap-O-Meter.

New home buyers seeking to use the 10% tax credit can use that money up front to help pay for closing costs or to “buy down” their mortgage rate, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

That’s significant: While the 10% tax credit is great (buy an $80,000 property; get an $8,000 tax credit), buyers used to have to wait until they filed their tax returns to actually benefit from the credit. Now there’s a way to instantly monetize the credit.

And although the tax credit can’t be used for the minimum 3.5% downpayment required by FHA, it can be used to supplement it. And numerous states offer buyers programs to help cover that 3.5%.

[For information on the tax credit itself, see my earlier post at http://realestatesolutions3d.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/first-time-homebuyer-tax-credit-fact-sheet/ ]

Here’s a summary from the National Association of Realtors:

Under the guidance, FHA-approved lenders can develop bridge loans that home buyers can use to help cover their closing costs, buy down their interest rate, or put down more than the minimum 3.5 percent.

The loans can’t be used to cover the minimum 3.5 percent, senior HUD officials told reporters on a conference call Friday morning.

Thus, buyers applying for FHA-backed financing with an FHA-approved lender that offers a bridge-loan program can get a bridge loan to bring down the upfront costs of buying a home significantly but would still have to come up with the minimum 3.5 percent downpayment.

There remain many sources of assistance for buyers needing help with the 3.5 percent downpayment, including many state and local government instrumentalities and nonprofit lenders.

In addition, some state housing finance agencies have developed their own tax credit bridge loan programs, so buyers in states whose HFAs offer such programs can monetize the tax credit upfront to cover all or part of their downpayment. These programs are separate from what HUD announced today.

The first-time homebuyer tax credit was enacted last year–and improved upon earlier this year–to help encourage households to enter the housing market while interest rates are low and affordability is high. The credit is worth up to $8,000 and is available to households that haven’t owned a home in at least three years. The credit does not have to be repaid, and is fully reimbursable, so households can get their credit returned to them in the form of a payment.

This post is a bit different. It’s not about some outlandish e-mail I’ve received hawking the latest “get rich quick while you’re in your pajamas” scheme. Rather, it’s a blog posting from a Bryan Ellis, a real estate investment program promoter. I’ll admit I was surprised by some of what he said.

Here it is in its entirety:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why I Won’t Participate In Product Launches With The “Gurus”

Posted by Bryan Ellis on Wednesday, February 4th 2009

Have you noticed that there is a “Guru’s Club” consisting of several real estate “gurus” who all promote each other’s products and services? Not only that – they all send the exact same emails to you at nearly the exact same time.

The net result is that you get duplicate copies of the same CRAP from multiple gurus. They make very little – if any – attempt to actually assist you in any way (as the example below will show). To the objective observer, it appears that they simply are gunning for your wallet, with no other motivation in mind.

I think a backlash to this type of marketing is likely in 2009 or 2010.

Before I continue, let me make something clear: I don’t have a problem with people selling products to their readers. I do it too – it’s the way that we bring in income to cover the high expense of providing this website and lots of free resources.

But I do have a problem with the complete disrespect that happens to these guru’s subscribers when the guru doesn’t even bother to try to send out anything of value, and instead sends out almost nothing but product pitches.

Remember this: If most of what you receive from your “guru” is pitches for the latest product launch, they are showing profound disrespect for you and view you as nothing more than a wallet with an email address.

I’ll now give you some examples of what I mean. I don’t mean any disrespect to these folks, and I’m sure they all have good information to provide. But these stats are prima facie evidence of their regard for you as a source of revenue and little else.

A Real Example:

One particular “guru” has sent me 10 emails during the past week or so. I’m not going to tell you who this is, but you see the subject lines used below, so you can probably find out by searching your own email.

Anyway, here is the date, subject line and topic of each of the most recent 10 emails sent by this guru:

Date: February 4
Subject Line: did you win?
Topic: Promotion of Gerald Romine’s product launch

Date: February 3
Subject Line: Millard Fuller (1935-2009) another good man leaves us
Topic: Paying respects to Millard Fuller
Note: This is the only email of the past 10 that isn’t purely promotional in nature.

Date: February 3
Subject Line: sell houses before you buy them? come on!
Topic: Webinar promotion

Date: January 31
Subject Line: Than Merrill is a dork
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

Date: January 31
Subject Line: URGENT:how Than makes over 2 mill a year on the internet
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

Date: January 30
Subject Line: gotta get this to you fast
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

Date: January 30
Subject Line: Good Morning! Happy Friday!
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

Date: January 29
Subject Line: WholesalingU kicks off today at 12nn
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

Date: January 28
Subject Line: life’s too short to get rich slow
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

Date: January 27
Subject Line: a boatload of buyers drooling at the mouth
Topic: Than Merrill’s Product Launch

So the net result is that literally 90% of the last 10 emails I’ve received from this guy have been purely promotional in nature. And this isn’t the only example. There is a group of about 10-15 of these folks who do almost nothing but promote each other’s product launches, yet make little or no attempt to give anything else of value. This is, as I said a moment ago, very similar to treating you as a wallet with an email address. It’s disrespectful and very short-term thinking.

I am not completely free of guilt from this either. In December, I participated in Jeff Kaller’s launch of his short sale program. I did it because Jeff has some great info that I think is worthwhile. But if I had it to do over again, I wouldn’t. There’s nothing wrong with Jeff or his products or services. In fact, I think they’re great and worthwhile, and I have every intention of continuing to promote him in the future (outside of product launches) because I believe in what he’s doing. But I’ve realized in the intervening period that sending you the exact same promotional material as everybody else is not good for you and it’s not good for me.

And like I said above, I’m not disparaging anyone from selling products. I do it to, and I’m even doing it this week. But come on, guys: Have a little respect for your readers.

You are welcomed to sound off about this below. Thank you for reading RealEstate.BryanEllis.com!

http://realestate.bryanellis.com/1167/why-i-wont-participate-in-product-launches-with-the-gurus/#ixzz0HWMEJJqI&D

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Incidentally, the responses and comments to Bryan Ellis’ blog are also interesting and revealing.

On our trusty old Crap-O-Meter, this one scores a very respectable 1.5 out of 10.

More than half a million families who own homes will file for bankruptcy this year because of illness and medical bills, according to a new study by the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). The study will be published in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine. PNHP, a membership organization of over 16,000 physicians, supports a single-payer national health insurance program. 

Himmelstein D, Thorne D, Warren E, Woolhandler, S. National bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: results of a national study. American Journal of Medicine. [August: prepublication] Available online at http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study or through the American Journal of Medicine, aimmedia@elsevier.com (212) 633-3944. 

The PNHP study was a broader look at medical bankruptcy: Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study. (But because we’re a real estate blog, we’re especially considering the real estate implications of the study.)

The study looked at bankruptcy data from 2007. It found that:

• Illness and medical bills were a cause of at least 62.1% of all personal bankruptcies that year.
• Based on the current bankruptcy rate (expected to reach 1.4 million in 2009), the study’s authors project that medical bankruptcies will total 866,000.
• The proportion of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6% between 2001 and 2007.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by medical problems had health insurance. More than three-quarters (77.9%) were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage. Most of the medically bankrupt were middle class before their financial problems. Two-thirds (66.4%) had owned a home.

Out-of-pocket medical costs averaged $17,943 for all medically bankrupt families ($26,971 for uninsured patients, $17,749 for those with private insurance at the outset, $14,633 for those with Medicaid, $12,021 for those with Medicare, and $6,545 for those with VA/military coverage).

Among common diagnoses, nonstroke neurologic illnesses such as multiple sclerosis were associated with the highest out-of-pocket expenditures (mean $34,167), followed by diabetes ($26,971), injuries ($25,096), stroke ($23,380), mental illness ($23,178), and heart disease ($21,955).

Bottom line (according to an accompanying Q&A paper): “It appears that health insurance offers only modest protection against medical bankruptcy.” And from the study itself: “Being uninsured at filing did not predict a medical cause of bankruptcy.”

Among the items that did predict the filing of medical bankruptcy: a gap in coverage, older age, marriage, being female, larger household, and lower income quartile.

The study concludes: “The US health care financing system is broken, and not only for the poor and uninsured. Middle-class families frequently collapse under the strain of a health care system that treats physical wounds, but often inflicts financial ones.”

While the study didn’t get into the real estate implications, other than to observe that 66.4% had owned a home, it would appear that a steady stream of foreclosures will continue–in fact, increase–regardless of what Congress or the Administration does if those actions only address lending practices or other specific real estate issues. What appears to be needed, from my reading of the implications of the report, is a multimodal approach that addresses the underlying causes of bankruptcies. And that includes . . . well, I was going to say a restructuring of the health care system, but maybe something more radical is needed. After all, to borrow a phrase from the last Presidential election, stopping at a so-called restructuring might be akin to putting lipstick on a pig.

I received an e-mail today from Bryan West promoting a product for Damian Lanfranchi. And I have to wonder: Was the e-mail written so poorly, with such bad spelling and grammar, intentionally? If so, is the goal to make the sender seem more “human” and easy to relate to? Or is it just to speak to recipients at what the writer believes is their level of reading and writing ability? (A clever Dan Kennedy-type ploy?)

On the other hand, is this just the way Lanfranche (who I’d guess wrote the pitch) speaks and writes?

Who knows? Maybe more to the point: Who cares?

Here are just a few excerpts from the pitch e-mail:

• “This MAJOR news affects you) This DIRECTLY AFFECTS YOU”: [OK, OK. I get the point!]
• “I made 40,000$ on the easiest deal…I am in just for the 427$…” [What's with the dollar sign placement?]
• “Plus Damian and Starbuck Dog are Hallarious.” [I guess that's a lot funnier than hilarious.]
• “I can not over look it, you won’t either So that’s why I am sharing them with you” ["can not" for "cannot," "over look" for "overlook." No periods at the end of the sentences. And is ol' Hollis sharing Starbuck's knowledge with us, too?]

As for the actual pitch from Damian (and his trusty companion, Starbuck the Dog), he claims to be the creator of “the only automated, multimedia, deal-generating system on Planet Earth.” I guess modesty may not be Damian’s strong suit. The only automated, multimedia, deal-generating system on Planet Earth? Wow!

Again, we’re not rating the actual product here, just the pitch. The product may be great. (Though you have to wonder whether it can live up to that claim.) What we’re rating is the pitch e-mail and the pitch squeeze page.

Based on the illiteracy of the e-mail and the claim on the video, this earns an 8 out of 10 on our trusty Crap-O-Meter. (We liked the dog. A canine-free pitch would have earned a strong 9.)

Bryan West Pitch E-Mail for Damian Lanfranchi

Video of Damian and Starbuck

“We Read This Crap So You Don’t Have To” features claims–primarily by e-mail–from real estate promoters. Note: We’re not evaluating the actual programs, though we may have some comments on the programs as described in the e-mails and sales pages. Rather, we’re examining the claims and pitches of these promoters and real estate gurus.

In the future, we’ll present some that are honest, straightforward, and actually full of good information. (Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!) But since it seems that about 90% of everything is crap–exceeding that old 80/20 rule–most of what you’ll read here deals with questionable claims and over-hyped pitches. And so it is with this posting.

I received an e-mail (a portion appears below) from another real estate promoter, Larry Goins. I’ve provided the emphasis in red.

“Your whole short sales business works by itself…on automatic! That’s right, just crank it up, then stand back, and let it rip! Find out how right here.“

And for good measure:

So ol’ Nathan is giving away a free DVD containing his short sale secrets? What a wonderful guy! Gotta love him.  

Except, of course, there’s no information on the sales page. Just the requisite overwritten hype, along with some amazingly low-quality videos. Plus the opportunity to buy his program for $1,497 . . . or $1,694 for two payments, the second just 15 days after the first. Except, of course, it really costs more, as you find out when you get to the order page. It’s $1,497  (or $1,694) plus a month of coaching for $1, followed by continued coaching at $197 a month. That’s a 1-year investment of either $3,861 or $4,058. That’s sure a far cry from “fr-ee.” (Hmmm. Maybe the definition of “fr-ee” in the real estate promotor’s dictionary is: “Four gRand-Each and Every.” 

Again, the program may or may not be worth it. You can be the judge of that. What I’m addressing is the crap . . . the hype . . . the claims versus the facts of the promotion.

This rates a 9 out of 10 on the Crap-O-Meter.

Larry Goins email pitching Nathan Jurewicz's short sale package. Note his claim at the bottom that the information offered on a "fr-ee DVD."

Top of Nathan Jurewicz's pitch page for his short sale program

Bottom of Jurewicz's Pitch Page. Note the price, but no mention of additional monthly payments for coaching.

Purchase page for Nathan Jurewicz's short sale package. Note the additional $197 per month for coaching.

While browsing online for something else, I came across “Little Boxes,” a song popularized by Pete Seeger in the 1960s (and repopularized by Linkin Park as the theme song for “Weeds”).

I don’t think I need to provide any commentary. The song speaks for itself.

Here are the lyrics. And here’s how it sounds as sung by its author, Malvina Reynolds.