Bad form I say

[Andrew]

There is a big difference to conditioning people to gain a sale and simply promoting a business in your signature on PT.

The signature space appears to be designed to promote your business and people expect it to be there.

The use of something like religion to engender trust in order to sell you something is immoral in my opinion. It isn't necessarily expected by the recipient and is really done to sucker you in.

When I owned the Property Investor magazine I had a very clear policy of no promoting business in editorials. If a contributor wanted to promote their business they took out an advert.

Some may say that this was a ploy to sell more advertising space, but I also had a policy of no paid advertorials because I don't think they are up-front.

The point I'm trying to make is that promoting yourself isn't bad, but the methods you use can be.

[halfempty]

So you would say then that your against anyone mentioning religion or good deeds as a marketing angle?

Or doing it yourself then condemning others for doing it?

[Keys]

The signature space appears to be designed to promote your business and people expect it to be there.

I disagree. (and) No, I don't.

[Perry]

So, Some More Satire?

(Apologies to the artist for mangling the original textual artistry)


.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Nice work, Perry.
Yeah, my skin crawls when I hear/read about the 'Trust me, God talks to me ..' parade in the context of 'Have I got a deal for you!'

Just what God tells these characters is a conversation we've had over in another thread.

I still think the clue to today's spoof is in the first line...

I was today reading an article by fellow guru Kieran Trass called “The Truth Is Out... Don’t Throw Your Pearls To Swine!”
And I was shocked to think that others in our industry would treat him so!

Smells fishy to me...

Of course, there are property seminars and property seminars ... and gurus and "guru's" [sic]... (sigh)...

Peter Aranyi
Blog: www.thePaepae.com

[New Zealand Property Guru]

I enjoy satire as much as the next PT member but I agree with Donna:

Whoever this guy/gal is … posting an anonymous endorsement and (do I read it right?) anonymously claiming to be part of the 'NZ Property Gurus' outfit … while trumpeting transparency? It’s got to be a prank, or a spoof, surely?

"We?" Is that purporting to be a statement from an official anonymous spokesman? Not exactly reassuring.

Overall, just not clever enough. FAIL.

Peter Aranyi

Thanks Peter,

As a reader of your site I also appreciate good humor and creative writing.

"We" are not trying to be at all clever but simply asking the question.

If a speaker is truly outraged or was lied to and made to attend a speaking arrangement under false pretenses why would he do it again at the second event?

The great advantage of Property talk is that it's a true "Platform for Dialogue" were people can discuss differences without undue moderation.

[eri]

The signature space appears to be designed to promote your business and people expect it to be there.

i thought it was for some pithy comment that summed up your views

but then this forum is quite unlike other forums i participate in

money money money

always money

it's a rich man's world

a house

a home

all the things you can buy

if you have a little money

lovely money

...................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=insVgcOVVDQ

[cube]

The use of something like religion to engender trust in order to sell you something is immoral in my opinion. It isn't necessarily expected by the recipient and is really done to sucker you in.

I don't quite agree.

What I would expect from a seminar presenter is credibility.

Part of this is how much they have 'walked the talk' - if it is a property education seminar, I would like to see examples of what they have done and, importantly, why what they have done provides them with a point of difference over numerous other contenders for my hard-earned $$$.

However, another part of credibility is their background. Mr or Ms Presenter may have done numerous property deals of the past few years, with a particular twist, but if it turns out (and this is where PT becomes a valuable tool) that they have also engaged in previous scams, cons and failures, then they start to loose that credibility. (Incidentally, how open they are about such history, and how they respond to it when it is raised, is also critically important.)

If part of their background is that they are a practicing Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Communist, Atheist or whatever, and that part of their life is important part of who they are, then I think it is useful information.

Where the line is crossed is when they follow a statement about their faith with ' and therefore .....' - using the fact that they follow a religion to imply that they can be trusted. I'm sure we have all met all manner of trustworthy people who are non-religious and untrustworthy people who profess to be following a faith.

Also dangerous is someone who 'has learned from the principles of <religion>' - no indication that they follow them, or that they are important; it is just another sales technique that happened to be picked up along the way.

Richard Dawkins asks the question 'Who would you trust more; a Christian or an Atheist?' - the problem being that, it seems, a Christian is far more likely to profess their faith than an Atheist.

[Xav]

I still can't decide whether this is some kind of joke or a poor (in my opinion) attempt at being clever. If this were a less serious forum I would simply post the usual meme.

Assuming for the moment it is not a joke, the Christchurch and Auckland events were only two days apart. I won't presume to speak for Keiran, but a couple of reasonable explanations come to mind immediately:

1. He was contractually bound to attend the second seminar; or

2. Having already provided his database to the organisers he thought it would better to attend the second seminar and give his clients who attended some content he considered beneficial rather than not going at all.

Actually I’m sure now that I think about it that I also spoke at the event that Kieran is probably referring to, after the NZPG events, so if it is them that it very sad.

Keiran referred to events (plural) and being "blatantly misled into presenting at the seminar under false pretences" on one occasion. So:

1. Even if he was referring to the event you claim he was, that would not necessarily exclude him from also referring to your events; and

2. Contrary to your implication, the way it is worded is consistent with him attending the Christchurch seminar under false pretences and then attending the Auckland seminar for other reasons (see above).

Note I am not saying this is what Keiran is referring to (I don't know), just pointing out that it is lucky you don't claim to be a New Zealand Reading Comprehension Guru.

It also has to be said that if you genuinely believe Keiran wasn't referring to you it would be a lot easier and more effective to approach him directly and have him print a clarification.

[Xav]

Cube,

I agree that the credibility of a speaker is key. However, I agree with halfempty that "I don't think that Religion and wealth creation are very ready bedfellows".

I am more or less on the fence with this. But if someone is running a property investment seminar and mention is made of anything that would tend to engender trust in the speaker which is not directly related to property investment then surely the "therefore ....." referred to in your post is implied? Why else would they mention it?

[Andrew]

Hi Cube

I think we do agree on this, but perhaps I didn't make my point well.

From what I can tell from your post, we both agree that using religion to imply trust for the purpose of selling a property is wrong. As you say, they have crossed a line.

Xav; Unfortunately I don't think Property Guru's post is a joke. I think it is one of that companies owners unsuccessfully trying some damage control.

[drelly]

...using religion to imply trust for the purpose of selling a property is wrong.

I'm not religious so it doesn't mean anything to me but perhaps to people from the same beliefs it means something. eg; Bretheren(sp?) are known to do business within their community where ever possible.

Can someone explain what the first post is all about? It seems you need knowledge of what he's on about to get the full meaning.

[Xav]

Xav; Unfortunately I don't think Property Guru's post is a joke. I think it is one of that companies owners unsuccessfully trying some damage control.

It's the fact that it is such a bad attempt at damage control that makes me wonder...

[Andrew]

I'm not religious either, but I don't think that matters. Right or wrong, many people would view someone who is overtly religious as being of good character and trustworthy.

The original Post by Property Guru appears to be in response to Kieran Trass saying something like he was duped into presenting at a seminar under false pretenses.

The religious aspect came about because Kieran said in a Rob Stock article in the SST that he was concerned about some seminar presenters and their motives, mentioning religion to sell property.

[drelly]

I found the article referred to in the first post