Please know that we have far far worse in this country. I think of my adolescent daughter working for MacDonalds and being named employee of the month for the entire time she served. Why? Because she was the only employee who could make change.

Also, it sounds better than 900%. That’s an unusual number that is harder to warm up to. 1,000% sounds much better. I’m slightly suspicious that perhaps they knew the mistake but ignored it in favor of the better-sounding number. It’s possible, but unlikely. If that’s not so, then they need knew writers/advertisers/marketers

Would you trust your kid’s education to a company that commits random acts of capitalization?

I recently encountered the same situation when reviewing copy. The writer had used the word “mindfully” rather than “mentally.” The reason was that “mindfully” was more poetic.

Unfortunately, the letter was for a coaching service for self-improvement. If the prospects were truly being mindful of their mental actions, then there would be little need for the coaching service.

Promoting illiteracy because it reads well says a great deal about the writer. We might all benefit from re-reading David Olgivy: “I do not regard advertising as entertainment or an art form, but as a medium of information.” (Ogilvy on Advertising, 1985, Vintage Books)

Problem is, to do the test, the company would have to be aware that it made the mistake in the first place.

Of course, the company already tripped up without a split test, so it might be best to counsel the folks who now have to answer its phones to offer a special discount just for paying attention to any smarty pants who catches the mistake .

Even if it’s off by a 100%. The numbers seem fraudulent.

What about just leading with, “Learn the power to read 10x faster and change your life.”? (Or something more down to earth like that.)

If you’re talking to readers, or your a company called “IQ”, you’re mostly likely talking to an educated audience (or an audience that cares about getting smarter). Can’t you get their attention in a more cerebral manner? Or is it necessary to wow them with such astronomical figures?

MAYBE I’M BEING a little too nitpicky. By the way, how much information do you retain when you read 900 or 1000% faster?

100% faster = twice as fast, 200% faster = 3x as fast, etc.

100% the speed = the same speed, 200% the speed = twice the speed.

People read through something like that so fast they don’t take the time to really parse out what it means (I include myself in “people”). Funny that a company selling read-faster (and I assume “better”) programs would fall into that trap.