What Doesn't Make Sense in Internet Marketing Training

I am a coach. I coach internet marketing, I coach mindset... and I love it.

What I don't love is getting all the people that end up with me that got their start with other coaches... coaches that lack the most fundamental elements of teaching, attitudes , thinking, foundation, and actions steps.

I mean... after all they call it internet BUSINESS... so one could expect that some business know-how rubs off on these coaches... but it doesn't seem that way to me. At least when I look at their results: clueless students.

The latest evidence for the current marketing training culture I had last night when one of my students kept on griping why I would not coddle and nurture his inane, stupid, clumsy, poorly thought out, unproven attempts at product creation. Why I don't tell him "this is good and you could change this, or you could change that..." type of politically correct but mistaken and damaging way of teaching and leading someone to success.

When I learned (and later taught) architecture, the typical scenario was:

  1. you had an idea. you put it on paper and you brought it in for your twice a week consultation.
  2. the teacher looked at it, placed a semi-transparent sketching paper on top of it, and drew his "response" to your idea. Most of the time there seemed to be no connection: just that HIS idea was triggered by your idea.
  3. you went home, you draw the idea, to scale, on paper an brought it back to your next consultation.
  4. the teacher looked at it, placed a semi-transparent sketching paper on top of it, and drew his "response" to your idea. Most of the time there seemed to be no connection: just that HIS idea was triggered by your idea.
  5. you went home, you draw the idea, to scale, on paper an brought it back to your next consultation.

You did this for the next 20-25 times. Then it was time to finalize the plan, so he stopped getting triggered.

You got a grade. You went through this process about 10 times during your 5-year training. On the other end you came out as an architect. You wondered if you were talented or you had good teachers. But you found out soon enough. Your grades reflected your talent and your willingness to take correction very accurately.

I had an A- from all my design subjects. I became an award winning architect. Some of my friends had B's or even C's and their later achievements showed a consistent level... go figure.

Had the teacher told me: this is really good, just try to change this or that, I would have stayed in my own little world of puny. Never would have gone the 20+ incarnation of the same project, 200-300 during my studies. I would have become an "I can design one type of building, if you want that, come along." type of architect. Boring, and not very satisfying, not very profitable.

The architecture school I was studying at and later taught at had a success rate of 90 percent. Internet marketing programs, coaching programs, apprentice programs, etc. have a less than 5% success rate.

Do you think the teaching methodology has something to do with it? ... and the fact that ALL teachers at architecture school had to be successful working architects or they would lose their job?

Do you thing the selection process has something to do with it? To get into architecture school you needed to be better than 95% of the applicants: there were 20 people vying for every spot. My best friend got in only the second time around. She is a good architect, still working. Not great, but good.

Today I teach internet marketing the same way. the student has the idea, works it up, maybe records it, writes it, slides, mindmap, the whole nine yard. Then we meet on the internet and I do the equivalent of the sketch paper: I suggest a new way of doing the whole project. He goes home and does the whole thing again. Some whine that I didn't coddle them. Some get discouraged. But all learn. All... unless they don't have the mental toughness to stick it out.