A coach argues that showing off your wealth and competence works better than seeming relatable. Audiences want to see someone living a superior lifestyle, earning money in three hours a day, and actually demonstrating what they teach, not just talking about it.
I recently came up with another heuristic. I think that being relatable doesn't sell as much as being the man. I think people like aspirational people more than relatable people. I feel that people like the Andrew Tate more than the Sam Sulek types. If you could like max out on both stats, I think the aspirational one would perform way better than being relatable. There's a lot of obsession, I think, in the coaching consulting space of being relatable, being one of the people, and I think it's a waste of time. I think it's way better to be the man, like mapping out the life you want to live or you actually live and showing people why with sheer competence that is a better life. And it's not really flexing. It's not flexing if it's true, right? So you just show how you live and then that becomes the marketing because the marketing is just, you don't say it, you show it. And showing will always work better than just telling. And I've been implementing that, showing people how I make the money I make and I work 3 hours a day and it's been working really well.
