I guess we posted at the same time.

The effect is designed to vanish the tab not a coin.

You cannot vanish an elephant the same way you vanish a mouse !

I have no idea about any of that. Only that coins are not mostly as ubiquitous as they were a mere 10 years ago.

Not to forget that Johannes sold Breakthrough years ago which used a coin back then. Great purchase as well.
But using a tap now feels much more organic. In the end everyone can choose their favorite version.

Hello everyone!

As a seller it is in my interest that my communication is clear and it does not create any false expectations, because this would only create unnecessary hassle and trouble for me. So it has been my intention and conscious effort to be as clear as possible to avoid any miscommunication and misunderstandings about the product.

I am open to everyone's feedback on how I could improve my communication to make sure people don't have unrealistic expectations.

SO IF ANYONE FEELS I HAVE NOT ADDRESSED A CERTAIN EXPECTATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO POINT IT OUT AND I WILL CORRECT IT!

Here's what has been my logic and thinking on the topic:

1. It is a common practice that a trailer demonstrates the illusion from a spectator's perspective - meaning how a spectator PERCEIVES what is happening, because in the end this is what performers are after and want to achieve - THE PERCEIVED EXPERIENCE, the illusion they are able to create to their audience. In this case - a spectator BELIEVES they were able to perform the trick themselves. And as buyers we expect a practical method that delivers on the promise of the perceived experience.

2. Even when a full performance in real life delivers on the promise - it creates the described experience for a spectator, then depending on the nature of the method, it can be expected that some parts are not shown in a trailer for the reason that the VIDEO FORMAT allows to backtrack certain methods in ways, which would not be possible in a live performance:

- endless repeated viewings,
- watching the performance in slow-mo,
- pause the performance,
- zoom in to specific parts,
- you can't misdirect the camera,
- in a recorded format "an off-beat move" does not translate the same.

This means illusions, which methods rely on misdirection or moves that are done in an off-beat manner - meaning for a spectator these moves would not register as something part of the performance, the only way to demonstrate the spectator's perceived experience is NOT to show these moves as part of the performance - as this is the spectator's experience.

EXAMPLE:

Coin teleportation to a spectator's shoulder. In a trailer you could see a performer vanish a coin and then ask the spectator: "Did I ever touch you, did I ever come near you?" The spectator says: "No" to which the performer responds: "Check your shoulder." And now the coin has seemingly suddenly appeared on her shoulder without the magician ever going near her.

So in a trick like this, where an off-beat move is part of the method, it is expected that the trailer cuts out, either in editing or in framing of the scene, that part where the magician is doing the move in the performance - in this example - when he IS actually touching the spectator.

This kind of video demonstration, even though consequently and unavoidably shows the trick to be more impossible and cleaner than in a live performance, is understandable, because we don't expect a trailer to expose parts of the method, especially when in a real performance situation the part of the method that is cut out still delivers the promised PERCEIVED experience to the spectator that was demonstrated in the trailer - the coin teleports onto her shoulder SEEMINGLY without the magician ever touching her or going near her.

So as long as:

1. spectator's perceived experience matches to what has been demonstrated (a spectator believes the coin appeared on her shoulder without the magician touching her),

2. the missing part has not been misrepresented (no claims that a magician is ACTUALLY not touching the spectator),

3. the method is practical - it works (spectators genuinely miss the touch that is done in an off-beat manner under the disguise of "come closer, before we start")

...the demonstration of the illusion has been accurate under the restrictions that come with certain methods where you can't show everything if it would expose or allow backtracking of the method. This is the only way it works with certain illusions/methods and there should be no surprise in it. This is a common understanding in our field where we buy methods to perceived experiences of spectators - that often a performer needs to do something either before, in the middle or after the main part of the effect to make the illusion work and these parts are not shown in the trailer.

For example the trailer does not show the performer do the setup for Exoband (penetration effect with a rubber band) and therefore yes, the effect looks cleaner, but we naturally expect there to be a setup and we don't expect the trailer to show the setup on a video even though you could do it in front of a spectator in a live performance. Same with Card-to-Mouth - the nature of the method makes it necessary in a video demonstration to cut out part of the performance through framing, which again consequently and unavoidably shows the trick to be more impossible and cleaner than in a live performance, but it is expected and we don't expect the trailer to show the full story - what the magician ACTUALLY is doing in the middle of the performance, because we understand the trailer is meant to demonstrate the perceived experience of the spectator not what the magical is actually doing.

Now let's see how it all applies to The Breakthrough System.

THE PROMISED PERCEIVED EXPERIENCE

The trailer demonstrates the spectator's perceived experience, where a spectator is seemingly able to perform the trick on their own without the magician's involvement. Because the nature of the method falls under the category where a full video would allow to backtrack the method and part of the method are moves, which a spectator does not register as part of the performance, then just like with similar types of methods, it is natural and expected that these moves, even though they work in a live performance, are not shown in a trailer/VIDEO FORMAT in order to protect the method. This, consequently and unavoidably, shows the trick more impossible and cleaner than in a live performance and because there's a clear cut in the middle of the performance then for reasons of transparency and setting clear expectations, it should be addressed.

CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE MISSING PART

When a person watching the trailer has an expectation or a question about the demonstration - is it TRULY self-working in the hands of a spectator as the video makes it seem - can a spectator ACTUALLY do it all - is it TRULY that clean, then the trailer gives a clear answer - no:

- Clearly communicating that even though the performance clip does not show the magician's involvement, a spectator CAN'T do it all, so it CAN'T be that clean.

The the ad copy further addresses the expectation and again gives the same clear answer:

- Ad copy clarifies the promise of the product - a spectator can't fully do it all, but the method is as close to it as possible.

Other marketing materials on the site continue to give the same clear answer to this expectation/question - is this truly that clean - can the spectator ACTUALLY do everything in their own hands - no:

- Again, clearly stating magician's involvement when a spectator is performing, setting a realistic expectation.

Furthermore, if someone has asked about the cleanness/the cut in the performance I have given a direct, concrete answer, leaving no room for false expectations or misunderstandings:

- This answer given publicly for everyone to see unquestionably demonstrates my intent to be very clear when it comes to setting realistic expectations - how clean it looks in a live performance and can a spectator actually do everything themselves.

In addition, if you take into consideration the information communicated about the product/methods/versions:

1. it is a normal, ungimmicked can,
2. it can be performed without the gimmick (as gimmick is only optional and not necessary for the 4-phase routine demonstrated in the trailer)

...this clearly establishes the method as sleight of hand - meaning when a spectator is "performing the trick" it is logically given that a magician needs to handle the can during the performance at some point and the cuts in the performances give a clear hint when it is to be expected.

So if you take into consideration what has been communicated - if you know that the version where a spectator is "performing" works with completely normal objects with no gimmicks then expecting the demonstration in the trailer, where a magician is not touching the can to reflect factual experience instead of perceived experience of the spectator, would be knowingly to expect normal objects to defy the laws of physics, therefore making this expectation unrealistic.

Just like in a "coin teleportation to spectator's shoulder" it shouldn't really need a clarification that it ONLY SEEMS to the spectator that the performer does not touch her, because if you know that the method is based on sleight of hand then logical reasoning would already give you a realistic expectation that a performer needs to touch the spectator at some point - just like logical reasoning gives a realistic expectation that a performer needs to touch the can at some point when it comes to TBS.

But if a person misses this logical reasoning and expects a method where a magician ACTUALLY is not touching the spectator, because "the trailer made it seem like it" then of course they will be disappointed when they see the method - "WHAT? He simply puts the coin on her shoulder. This is not magical at all. This is not what I expected, the trailer made it seem more clean than it is! I feel deceived." And this unrealistic expectation would make the person totally miss that in reality he got a super strong and truly magical illusion with the best possible method for this effect that actually works in real life. And while others learn it and experience the joy of creating absolutely mind-blowing experiences and memories for other people, they disregard the product and the method and leave with the feeling of disappointment.

This is why it's so important to manage one's emotions and focus on "does the method actually work" - does the method deliver the promised strong experience for the spectator, rather than "is this what I expected?" Because if we make magic and methods about "me", then we are missing out. That's why I have emphasized already several times what experienced performers know and what Wayne Houchin so beautifully expressed as well:



ACTUAL METHODS DELIVERED

The promise of the product was to offer methods as close as possible to a spectator being able to perform the trick themselves. All the moves that are part of the method, which are done before, in the middle or after the main part of the effect are all done in an off-beat manner - meaning a spectator's PERCEIVED experience is that these are NOT part of the performance, therefore delivering the promise of the product/methods - a spectator BELIEVES that they did everything to make the tab penetrate the bottom of the can in their own hands.

The proof that the provided methods deliver EXACTLY the experience demonstrated in the trailer is in spectators' actual descriptions of their experience, where they describe their experience as the performance in the trailer demonstrates:

1. They held the can and the tab
2. They placed the tab on the bottom
3. They covered the bottom with their hand
4. They shook the can and the tab was inside
5. They were able to examine everything

This is their PERCEIVED experience, the story, the memory a spectator walks away with from the performance.

Now, a person might not LIKE the method how this experience is achieved, (just like a person not like the method of "simply placing a coin on a spectators' shoulder"), but this does not mean the product does not deliver what has been promised and communicated - practical, real-life methods to create the strong experience for the spectator where they are seemingly able to perform the trick themselves.

So there's a distinction between "I didn't expect this method" and "marketing materials promised a different method".

So as I see it - one of it must be true:

1. A few people have not paid attention about what has been communicated about the product and that created a certain expectation in them, which they feel was not met.
2. Marketing materials do not address certain expectations and therefore create a false expectation of what is possible.

I'm open to both possibilities and willing to make adjustments accordingly. So if you are one of these people who is not happy about my communication,

PLEASE CLEARLY STATE WHAT WAS YOUR EXPECTATION, WHICH WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE MARKETING MATERIALS!

Johannes

I've been very busy after the launch, so sorry if I haven't been able to respond to everyone here.

I want everyone to know that I'm taking all the feedback in you guys have been sharing from the start and I'm making notes about it all - the marketing, the website, release strategy and now feedback about my teaching as well. I constantly try to learn and improve myself in all ways so thank you for sharing your honest feelings about everything especially the things you see where I have room for improvement.

One feedback I got for the trailer is that it's too edited and doesn't really give a clear overview of the routine/phases. I took that feedback in and so I took time to shoot a second trailer where I show full performances without distractions. I think it came out much better and is much more useful to actually help people figure out is this for them or not:



Thank you also for all the raving reviews and positive comments!

Johannes

Has anyone asked for their money back like the guarantee says & did they get it ?

Not to play devils advocate here, but the guarantee says it’s guaranteed to be the best version of the trick with the most variants on the market. Not that you’ll like it.

Madison

Did you request a refund?

Unfortunately I don't know how one guarantees something is "the best" as everyone is going to have different criteria and experiences. It's extremely subjective.

Read the website, he lists the criteria. And I'm sure he's confident enough in his product that the minimal potential amount of people who would request a refund, he would likely just refund them.

I am more interested in hearing from those who are performing this, sharing their thoughts about it and their audience reactions. These testimonies appear to be rare.

Hey, I've performed this "impromptu" around 10-15 times since I watched the tutorial. I mostly perform for youth, so plenty of 'let me see that again' and guesses on how it was done. Having multiple methods from actually impromptu to gimmicked means that I can 'do it again' in increasingly more scrutinized ways.

The effect is very strong, and no one has correctly guessed the method.

I've been performing this like a madman at work and at every social gathering and I'm just gonna say that frankly... this produces some of the purest reactions of shock and wonder that I have ever seen on a spectator's face. With so many methods, you can curate a routine that will build to that perfect moment when they do the trick themselves. And then again. I have truly never seen jaws drop like this. This effect can be quite bold and requires a decent degree of audience management, but the payoff is unparalleled.

My chosen routine qualifies as impromptu, and is therefore permanently in my repertoire. Absolutely worth the money because even though I might say "oh I could have thought of that"... I didn't. Thank you, Johannes.

If you consider the sum total of the extremely positive reviews of this effect, and the many top magicians who wrote them,
we are looking at something that is fairly objective. Whether you like the trick or not is not the question. It is the greatest version of this effect ever, if you consider the above. I think that even as experienced magicians, we often forget that some of the most stunning effects, like this one, also have a learning curve. Besides just learning it, for the effect to "become part of you" requires A LOT of performances and persistence.

Here's one feedback from a customer:

"Today, for the first time, I performed your methods in a crowded environment.

1. I started with the *** version and everyone was very surprised by what happened.
2. Next I used the *** version and performed it in their hands and their reactions were more intense this time.
3. Then I performed it for the third time and people couldn’t believe what they were seeing.

This performance was done in a T-shirt at Starbucks in daylight with people all around and no one was able to figure out how it was done.
Your methods are bulletproof and they really work. Thank you, it’s now one of my favorite illusion." - Eduardo O.

From Kieran F:

"Just wanted to say this is brilliant and I find the teaching extremely clear which is a rarity for me due to learning difficulties. I performed the gimmicked version for my taekwondo instructor who over the years has seen a lot of magic and it was the best reaction I have gotten from them in 18 years."

Stuart J:

"So after lots of practice, I did it on my son's friend last night who loves magic and asked me to show him something.

I did the version of the can in his hand. You finish so clean and nothing is detected. It worked like a dream and he was gobsmacked. He laughed for about 5 minutes. The advice here is to practice until you can literally fool yourself in the mirror. I practise the move when I'm eating, watching TV and even before bed. It's a genius trick my friend and I know it's only going to get better with more practice. 10/10"

This sounds like it requires a lot of practice. That is not necessarily a bad thing but I'd be interested to know how hard it is.