“与普遍看法背道而驰的观点常常更为可信，这是广告最爱的悖论之一”
这篇文案的创作人员Tom Thomas说道。
像这样的广告，对于我这种门外汉来看，信息点还真是多。
比如评价一本杂志最好的标准是“每千人成本——多少广告费带来多少人”
所以这则广告偏不以这样的标准，而是以“每百万富翁的最低成本”来算。
所以学到了，有时候不能以质胜，那就以量胜好了，反之亦然。
提出不一样的观点、标准和看法，就会让人眼前一亮了。
Lowest cost per millionaire.
Barron’s
最低百万富翁成本
巴伦周刊
Ads like this usually congratulate themselves on their alluring cost-per-thousand figures.
And ours are more alluring than most:Barron’s has a lower overall CPM than Business Week, Forbes or Fortune. Period.
像这样的庆贺广告在每千人成本上有巨大的诱惑力。
与我们比，绝大多数的同行更加有吸引力：巴伦周刊比同期的商业周刊，福布斯或者财富周刊拥有更低的成本数据。
But we point you now to a more revealing set of numbers-the sort that show up not on media plans but on personal statements of net worth.
但我们现在向你指出另一组给人启发的数据排序，他无关媒介计划而是更看重对个人净产值的陈述。
Almost one third(31%)of Barron’s readers come from households with a net worth of $1 million or more. Which is substantially more than the competition. That works out to a little more than two and a half cents a millionaire. Which is substantially less than the competition.
大概有31%的巴伦周刊读者来自于一个拥有100万美元以上的净资产家庭。这实则是比我们竞争对手多得多。这个工程道出了每个百万富翁成本将是两毛五分多一点，这又使得比竞争对手要少得多。
So if you’re looking to reach an upscale audience, no one will take you to the top of that scale as effectively as Barron’s.
And no one charges as little for the trip.
所以如果你把视线转向一个更高档的阅读群，没有人能像巴伦杂志一样有效地将你带到天平的顶端。
而且也没人为失误支付一点儿费用。
BARRON’S
How the smart money gets that way.
巴伦周刊
多么聪明的挣钱方法
Tom Thomas的创意之道3：
既然事实比宣称更可信，就把宣称说成事实。