How Can We Help Dave And His Company With Their Marketing And Pr Issues?
Dave has been getting a lot of publicity lately:
A lot of it isn't good.
Some reviews really emphasize the more radical claims and cite lack of research and profit-seeking. It's a shame because while I also think the overall tone of the website and company marketing could be a lot less snake-oily, the products and the information can be really beneficial if they would be presented in the right way.
Take a look at the website for Apple, or Nest/Dropcam, or more relatedly, Thorne-Research or wellness-FX or even Mark's Daily Apple. They are clean and simple, provide directly useful information, don't make outlandish used car salesman/snake-oily type claims and just present the product in a clean and thoughtful way that is respectful of people's intelligence. Bad examples are Mercola or Ben Greenfield, and .. BP and Upgraded Self.
1. Cite the research front and center. And quote from the research directly -- not just a vague citation that when you look closely you see that it doesn't really support the claim. Take the quote at length if necessary. Many people will want to be geeky about it and will devour that research. Many others won't be interested in the details, but will take comfort that at least there is some evidence and research basis for the claims. Don't just have a research tab as the last tab on the product pages. And then it only shows links with no quotes or analysis. That is not v useful.
2. Stop using cheesy snake-oily phrases like "Brain Octane" and "boost iq" "supercharge" "turbo-charge""upgrades your head." Nonsense like that is just insulting and I've left the site many times when I've had my fill of that nonsense. (Ben Greenfield's site is even worse on this.)
3. Put up or shut up on the coffee mycotoxin issue. I think we were promised research about the mycotoxins in coffee beans, or better, in hot brewed coffee, but I haven't seen anything and there isnt' anything in the research tab of the coffee product page. If the research to support the claims doesn't exist then the claims should probably be dropped because it just isn't plausible as an anecdotal claim when there are so many other sources saying the mycotoxins in other coffee beans is low to non-existent and doesn't affect most people. Or at least tone down the claims to make it more plausible such as "Coffee brewed with BP coffee beans has a mycotoxin level of X, while coffee brewed with Starbucks or Peets or whatever coffee has a mycotoxin level ranging from y-z. Some people are more sensitive to even low levels of mycotoxins and may benefit from drinking lower mycotoxin products." How hard would that be?
Any other suggestions to help Dave and BP Co?