A number of people have asked me what I mean by the terms “Push” and “Pull” used in the explanations of the different types of arrows on page 7 of the PearlMaker Overview document (see previous post).

Waaaay back in the mid 1990s there was a concept called “push” versus “pull” communications. Nowadays they’re known by other, more fancy names (see “Barker’s Eggs”) like “Attraction Marketing”, “The Secret”, “Interruption Advertising”, “Permission Marketing” and similar. (Branding is everything in the 21st century.)

I still like “push” and “pull”. Their simplicity and clarity have always appealed to me.

It’s pretty easy to understand: if a message is pushed at you by a publisher or advertiser, that’s “Push”.

If you have the choice to request messages be sent to you with your consent, that’s “Pull”.

Not exactly abstruse, is it?

It’s like the three forms of selling (there are only three, by the way. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to sell you something.)

1. Advertising — which pulls the consumer toward your offer.
2. Visual Merchandising — which pushes your offer toward the (hopefully) rapidly approaching consumer.
3. Personal Selling Skills — which close any gap left by the first two.

Unfortunately, impatient sellers couldn’t wait for consumers to be pulled toward their offers, so they created ways to push their ads by invading the personal space of consumers at every opportunity. That glowing example of integrity and intelligence resulted, eventually in such even-handed legal niceties as the “Do Not Call” registry and “No Advertising Mail” laws.

So, in an effort not to have the PearlMaker Sponsoring System succumb to the “branding* correctness” that afflicts simple, clear communication these days — or to have it hijacked by those who practise it — I’ve decided to only refer to communications between the different parties and components of the System as either “push” or “pull”.

As my long-time friend Kim Klaver so succinctly puts it, “Look… why don’t I just tell you what we do, and you can call it whatever you like?” (I really like the way she cuts through the cr*p that constantly threatens to bury us in network marketing.)

The really nice thing about Web 2.0 interactivity and social behaviour is what I call the “Permission Gap”… that protective shield (like the moat around a castle) that says “yes, you can communicate with me, but only with my ongoing consent — which I can withdraw at any time!”

It’s really about the Law of Common Consent (the fundamental tenet of public relations) which says

“Any organization continues to exist only with the common consent of the society within which — and upon which — it operates.”

That’s a very formal statement meaning that if your organization — company, charity, school, trade union, industry group, religion, even government — screws up badly enough, for long enough, it will eventually earn the wrath of the society that has allowed it to exist. When that happens, it’s all over for you.

(Remember the old saying that “political parties/candidates don’t WIN office. They LOSE office”? That’s the Law of Common Consent in action. Seen the news reports on anti-whaling activists operating in Antarctica in the hope that Japan will be humiliated into ceasing whaling? That’s the same Law in action. “People Power” in the Philippines? The end of communism in Russia and its satellites? Same Law.)

It’s why companies and governments spent gazillions every year on public relations, especially crisis management when disasters happen (especially environmental or humanitarian disasters). The job of the PR professionals is to protect the right of that organization to continue to exist.

The true beauty of Web 2.0 is that it brings that Law of Common Consent within reach of the individual.

Each person has the right to say “Yes, I’ll consent to you communicating with me until you abuse that consent. Then you’re history for me.” Or “No, I don’t trust you… the drawbridge isn’t being lowered for you until you prove your trustworthiness.”

This does NOT suit the traditional “POWER Prospectors” of MLM, who lie, cheat and badger, and for whom every prospect is just a means to an end for them.

And it’s why the PearlMaker Sponsoring System, with its unique Fourth Generation Thinking principles, values, standards and practices, is perfectly positioned to deliver extraordinary results for its members.

The Age of the MLM Cavemen is dying. Those Neanderthals from the 1970s and 80s who stalk and emotionally bludgeon their prey into signing or buying, are going the way of the dinosaurs. They can’t join them quickly enough for me.

What are your thoughts on all this? Agree? Disagree? Or doesn’t it matter?

(*Like “political correctness”, “branding correctness” is just one more insidious form of emotional blackmail to keep you on the back foot by those who want to control you. Another “barker’s egg.”)

Author Profile  Consults to managements of direct selling companies, small business and home business owners. Writes regular columns and feature articles for various business media, online and offline. Author of several best-selling business books. Presents seminars and workshops, webinars and other training programs. Creator of Fourth Generation Thinking, Selling, Business Systems. Read more from this author

2 Responses to “Huh? “Push”? “Pull”? What the heck do THEY mean?”