In response to the behavioral changes at the Motley Fool, a reader remarks:
Agree totally. These two tigers have definitely changed their stripes. Pumpers indeed.
I’m not sure they’re technically pumpers, but I dislike the changes and implicit use of irrationality in their marketing.
Poking through my email tonight, something I do on Sundays to catch up on what I’ve deferred over the last week/month/year, I ran across the next item in this little saga of disappointment, as they think I attended their big presentation:
If you attended tonight’s live event, you already heard Tom Gardner’s big news.
For the first time ever, Tom Gardner and The Motley Fool have built a microcap-focused portfolio designed to give investors like you instant exposure to some of the market’s smallest, most explosive, and least-followed stocks.
Apparently underlines and bolding have replaced exclamation points as red flags of warning. So there’s more blah blah blah, and then the hook to trigger your irrationality:
As a thank-you to those of you who RSVP’d to attend tonight’s presentation, Tom is insisting we offer YOU our very best price for this breakthrough service — a full $1,000 LESS than others will be asked to pay for the same package.
But there’s a catch: The $1,000 discount is ONLY available for a few hours. You MUST place your order before midnight TONIGHT.
I wonder how many folks actually asked themselves Why? Why such a ridiculous constraint? It limits the calm, rational consideration that an adult should take for investments of this sort; by imposing a short time limit, it attempts to trigger the urge to impulse buy that, quite honestly, the Gardner brothers sought to inhibit in those who took their advice 20+ years ago.
In fact, it’s in direct contradiction to the entire philosophy of teaching an adult investment strategy. Marketing has metamorphosed from the transmission of information concerning products which a consumer might be interested in buying, to the manipulation of consumers into buying goods and services in which they have no real interest, or which may even work against their welfare.
INTERJECTION: Yes, I know everyone just nodded and said, We know that. But I still felt it had to be said. Back to our regularly scheduled rant …
And that mutation from presentation of information to manipulation in search of surplus profit really grinds against the honesty implicit in their advice when they started the Motley Fool.
Since I’m sitting here feeling crabby about the contamination of this ethical oasis[1], I’ve also got to say that I was appalled when I spotted one of their latest recommendations in their Stock Advisor service. It was for a for-profit educational institute, name forgotten (and probably best not repeated). Long time readers will realize that the clash between goals and methods make the success of such companies unlikely. Newer readers might want to consult this page, and go from there. For another writer’s view, Syd Sweitzer points out more concrete problems with the concept here and here on Common Sense Under the Big Sky.
Confession: I did NOT read the recommendation. I shook my head sadly and went on with my business. Honestly, Stock Advisor has changed over the years, becoming less and less attractive. I may discontinue it next spring, when it comes up for renewal.
1They used to advertise that some financial magazine had labeled them an “ethical oasis” in the industry of investment advice. Maybe they still do.
