Gary Vaynerchuk Marketers vs. Russell Brunson Marketers: Which is Better?
Two very popular and very successful marketers have very different perspectives on how to approach customers and build the relationship before doing business, so I wanted to see your perspectives.
Gary Vaynerchuk is a media icon for sure. He's built his business, Vaynerchuk Media, to be very successful without venture capital, and maintains a relevant presence on multiple platforms. His philosophy is that you should be everywhere your target audience is, and when you run into them, you should "jab, jab, jab, and right hook", or in other words, deliver value, deliver value, deliver value, then make an offer.
In contrast, you have Russell Brunson who's also a media icon. He built a business that went from $0 to $596 million in 3 years on a bootstrap budget! His accomplishment to build his business, Clickfunnels, is pretty amazing whether you like his software or not. In contrast to Gary Vaynerchuk, Russell Brunson feels that you should approach marketing more like a wrestler.
He says the wrestling approach beats out the boxing approach of the "jab, jab, jab, right hook" because you'd observe your audience, identify their weakness or problem, and "taken em down" with an offer. In his approach, he strongly encourages diriving traffic to a landing page, get the email address, and present a tripwire or low cost offer, and take them up the value ladder from there.
Now, it seems that Russell's strategy is very effective especially in terms of quick growth. I mean, he's been able to go from $0 to $596 million in 3 years--that's pretty amazing! The Gary Vaynerchuk approach is the relationship focused approach where you're continuing to give value, give value, and give value, and the offers are more spread out because you're attempting to balance it out a little more.
Is his strategy a good universal principle though? What are your thoughts? Which philosophy will create the highest lifetime customer value in your opinion and why? Can the Gary Vaynerchuk approach yield quick results? Do you need to be more like the boxer who keeps jabbing to weaken the competition, then goes for the right hook, or like the wrestler that watches for the vulnerabilities before making the approach?
I really don't have a thorough opinion on this as of yet, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. Also, if you have a chance, I'd also like to hear what you have to say on this one as well:
https://my.wealthyaffiliate.com/tdomena/blog/grant-cardone-v...
Recent Comments
145
The two are great internet marketers in their own respective ways. I really enjoy the mix of both, on one end you have Gary Vee who is all about the “Brand”. Most people are out for a quick buck and there’s nothing wrong with that, that’s why google ads is there for more offer intent while FB is so much harder because it’s brand intent. Providing tons of value upfront is what he believes and I am of the same mindset.
While on the other end you have Russell who is about the funnels system where you don’t need a “salesmen”, value ladder, OTOs, Down sells, funnels to get the front end and backend sales, and in ways like Gary, he does highlight the importance of providing value, it’s just not as noticeable. The difference is that with Russell the value really comes in the form of email. Rather than promo, it’s about hooks, stories, offers. A great email sequence consists of value upfront.
-Michael
Great points! I definitely can't summarize all Russell Brunson brings to the table as software. He offers much more than Clickfunnels.
I think both are trying to shine light on brand intent. Brunson is doing alot to build a raving community with his two comma club, the car buying thing, the one funnel away challenge, and so on. I haven't studied Gary Vee well enough to understand his funnel or his value ladder, or if he has one. I think I have gleaned a great sum from both, but there's definitely "bones to spit out" in both of their philosophies.
Where do you think WA fits in all of this? More on the side of brand or offer intent? I think the training is more on the side of offer intent, but the approach is more on the side of brand. What about you?
For WA purposes neither.
Our training shows us the path. Everything else is a distraction.
I am not looking to make mega millions so what they've done isn't relevant to me and WA.
Well I better get back to work! :-)
Mel
Making mega millions doesn't have to be what you're looking for. You could also be looking to impact lots of people, and the mega millions would just become a byproduct.
I think it's important to learn marketing and what works, and Kyle doesn't recommend exclusivity (from what I've seen). I don't think studying either is a distraction. Mentorship and studying successful people is an integral part of being successful yourself.
This isn't like "shiny object syndrome" where you have the gamblers mentality looking for a quick win. I think it's okay to aspire to mastery in marketing and to learn how to reach the max people with your message as possible, and to do that, you have to learn from those who have been effective.
Of course, studying has to come with filtering--that's everywhere. It's a part of the learning process to really thoroughly study the industry (especially if you want to change it).
Hi. What a great debate! :)
I think that both strategies are quite effective. Gary Vee's strategy helps build great customer retention, building trust, knowing you can trust their opinion/value.
Russell's strategy is effective if you're delivering good value and customer care. You are building your customer base quickly and retaining.
To be honest, I have no opinion that one is better than the other, as I said earlier they are both very effective.
I agree about the up front effectiveness. I don't know about long term. That's what I'm curious about.
Very true. I suppose it would depend on the quality of the product/service and delivery to whether or not Russell retains his customers
I agree. I think that's where most of the people here believe he falls short. He has a great inbound funnel and he's very persuasive, but a few people here have called him a scammer. I think it's because they may not be happy with what's being delivered.
He sells the funnel software as the solution to sales problems when in fact it's the funnel philosophy and implementation that could do the trick. Do you think that's why people call him a scammer? I've heard that quite a bit.
I don't think their strategies are that different Tiffany...
Russel delivers as much value as Gary, the main difference is that he believes that by paying for something you value it more.
In my opinion Russell's approach creates a deeper relationship with the customer. He creates what he calls a 'cult' of raving fans.
In conclusion, I think Gary reaches more people (has a bigger audience) but Russell has a more dedicated 'tribe'.
I don't know. I think that would be a tough one to really prove. Gary V definitely has a huge body of raving fans on every platform I've seen him use.
They definitely have similarities, but I think there's stark differences as well.
I agree. But Russell's fans promote his products because they believe in them so strongly, that's what I mean with "deeper relationship" and that's what led to the record-breaking growth of clickfunnels.
So, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here...don't mix this with my real opinion because I'm indifferent on this one, but I want to hear your thoughts. Do you think any of the followers are promoting the products because of the affiliate program? You know many people would say that's why he has so many raving fans. He's got lots of incentives that are pretty cool.
Yes, his affiliate program is really good (I recently wrote an article on it), one of the best if not the best, that's what led to the company's growth, but those are interconnected.
Those raving fans were the first people he turned into affiliates and who boosted CF, but his dedication to them, to turn them into brand advocates led to the creation of such a good affiliate program and subsequent trainings.
The belief in the product is the best way to promote it.
I studied his methods and story, read his books and attended some training, and the value I got from them is incomparable.
With this being said, I use CF, recommend it and teach it. I understand the argument that its price is high and agree. It is high, but it's also the best, and the best should be priced higher than the rest. That's taught by a lot of high-level marketers.
[All of this is only the expression of my opinion as requested]
By the way, Gary V has spoken in some of Russell's events, they must agree on something. I would say they have a lot of things in common as marketers.
I agree. I think they glean from one another. I've heard Russell Brunson credit Gary Vee quite a bit. He says he's the best in the world at mastering every platform and he watches him for that. You're right.
I agree with Russell on that. Gary is a master of PR and a great entrepreneur. "Jab, jab, right hook" is on my 'to read list'.
They're both pretty legendary in their own rights whether you like their products, ethics, and approaches or not.
I can't stand Bronson, did follow him briefly years ago until I realized he was not my cup of tea at all. Gary V is better but frankly I am not a fan of his either. I prefer to a more low key approach, and that is probably why I will not get stinking rich.
Hahaha. When you say low key, do you mean both are too aggressive or is it the language or what's turning you away?
Actually it's been several years since I checked them both out and I think I much prefer to be respectful of other people!
I appreciate that concern for others. I don't think that would limit your earning potential.
I think when you're confident that you offer a solution that will change a life in a positive way, it's a tactful and assertive way of saying so that makes money a byproduct--it's a delicate balance though.
I am a big fan of Gary Vee and I also love building relationships in business so I lean more towards his strategies.
Great post!!!
Brunson is a classic scam artist. Vaynerchuck's approach is much better.
Brunson is out for the quick buck. Gary develops a relationship with his customers. Ultimately, for the long term, Vaynerchuck's process will deliver long term results. Brunson just takes the quick cash and moves on to the next sucker.
Hahahaha. Thanks for sharing your opinion. It seems so far that most people favor the Vaynerchuk approach. Do you think the Vaynerchuk approach can ever be "fast" or "predictable" like the Brunson approach seems to aim for?
Gary’s approach is the winner as it is for a long run.
Thanks for sharing!
Wish you great success!
Bob
So, what do you think happens to the Russell Brunson wrestler style marketers? Do you know any examples?
Based just on your description of each approach and no other knowledge except I've heard of ClickFunnels, I like relationship building more than aggressive sales pitch.
That said, while ClickFunnels looks interesting and a good marketing strategy it you're in the MMO niche or offer training, I don't know how my niche or soon to be niche will be able to use it.
Maybe I'm not imagative enough. Yet.
Thanks for sharing your take on this. I don't really know what Gary sells aside from his services and books, so I think that matters too. I'll have to go thru his funnels and see how it works. I hear the philosophies, and I personally like the monetary results of the Russell Brunson approach. I'm not sure if it can play out well for long periods. Let's see what others say.
I think JerryHuang here on WA made a post about trying ClickFunnels. It's not on WA now, I looked so maybe it wasn't him and I'm remembering wrong.
Glad I was right! But I don't see the post now. I was looking to link it for you if you hadn't seen it. But no go.:)
I actually reached out to him, after reading this thread, and asked him about it.
He did remove it. Here's his response to me:
" Hey Scott! Yea I removed that post as some people thought I was promoting stuff here.
Anyway, I absolutely love the challenge. I've gone through the entire thing for the Challenge that started on 29April for 30 days.
The next one is coming up on 16th June.
If you want to check it out, you can go through my link here:
If you have any specific questions or need any help, feel free to ask me.
Jerry"
I replied to him letting him know of this thread but I don't know if he'll comment on it or not.
Ah, cool, thanks for letting us know!
For what its worth, it wasn't promotional just informative but people are touchy. Lol
I didn't take his post as promotional either. He was sharing what he's doing to grow his business, and how he's challenging himself. There are alot of touchy people here.
True...until this post I wasn't aware of any of it LOL. That said I now have a lot more keywords for future posts on one of my sites :)
See more comments
I recently did a review on Shaqir Hussyin of Wealth Academy. He is a multi-millionaire in his late 20s. He became a so-called guru because of funnel software similar to Brunson and his funnels were leading to MOBE which was just shut down by the FTC for being a scam.
My point is though Shaqir is not a scam, he made his millions using a system that turned out to be a scam. When determining who to follow it is VERY important to research and find out exactly how they made their millions and not accept them just because they are wealthy.
That being said I would not follow Russell Brunson. His approach is a bit scammy and he markets a product that can be had for far less money elsewhere online and even through WordPress. Some would say he is a scam, I tend to think he is like Shaqir Hussyin, a misleading master marketer.
Gary Vaynerchuk on the other hand believes in building relationships and you cannot "legitimately" build a successful business without people trusting you. Trust comes from relationship building not trying to make the quick "take em down" buck.
A Google ranking factor is a website's authority and this also comes from trust through relationship building. So if I had to choose between the two, it would definitely be Gary Vaynerchuk over Russell Brunson all the time. Success comes from helping people not offering them something they don't really need.
I agree that it's important to "eat the meat and spit out the bones" regardless of how much money people have. There's many people with a lot of money that didn't earn it ethically, and that's like cheating.
Russell Brunson's approach is aggressive for sure. He's also in a circle with several other very successful and aggressive marketers, and they have big fan bases because their aggression works (at least for now), so it's quite confusing when you're trying to decide on your marketing approach. It makes you wonder, "How much aggression versus giving do you need to have?" or "What's the perfect recipe?".
Some of the marketing/sales experts borderline harassment. They'll chase you all over the internet thru retargeting and tracking! Haha.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. It's interesting to hear from you what they think about which approach will have the greatest long-term returns. It's definitely best to steer clear from questionable practices because in the long run, it could turn out like Hussyin and MOBE. John Chow falls into that category too, right?
What do you think about this quote, "Sell them what they want and give them what they need"?
This is why I like affiliate marketing, because we do not sell, we recommend products through helpful information. Then we leave it up to the person to make an informed decision.
Selling isn't bad. It should work like that too.
Soften it up a little. It's okay to have a strong opinion, but how you deliver it can change the vibe of a healthy conversation. I understand your points. You've mentioned some great things about Russell, but soften your delivery a tad. Calling someone "poorly informed" is an insult, and it may not accurately reflect his level of study. It's okay for him to have a different opinion. I appreciate the value you bring to each conversation I've had with you, but please don't insult people.
I don't believe I insulted anyone, but to call Russell scammy clearly shows the level of knowledge you have of his work. That, in my opinion, is insulting.
Nevertheless, if that's how you feel, and since it's your post, I apologize and will delete my comment.
I didn't say I felt one way or another. I never said he was scammy, so please don't tie my opinion in with my defense of how people should be communicated to. I didn't ask you to delete anything either. I was just saying that quantifying someone's knowledge based on their opinion is insulting, and I was asking you to soften your words.
You misunderstand me, Tiffany. I believe my writing wasn't clear enough.
Please read "I don't believe I insulted anyone (...) if that's how you feel, and since it's your post, I apologize and will delete my comment."
It's my choice to delete the comment out of respect for you and your post since you perceived it as offensive because that wasn't my intention.
For the contrary, I intended to defend a comment which I perceived as insulting to a marketer I respect.
I understand. I agree with your defense. I don't think he's a scam. I think Boomerg was referring to specific tactics that he didn't thoroughly explain. What I was mentioning to you is about your delivery. I think it's the delivery.
You could say it a little softer--that's all I'm saying. Don't take it as not appreciating your input. I totally do, and I appreciate your difference in opinion. Individuality helps us grow, so I'm all for you speaking up when you feel a different way than me or anyone else. I'm just saying to do it with grace and tact.