Guest Post by Michel Fortin
I’m seeing a lot of posts in public forums these days about people getting really sick and tired of seeing “crappy,” “hypey,” used-car, Ginsu-like, looooong copy.
Now, I agree (and object) to many of these posts. First, let’s get something clear off the bat: long, Ginsu-like copy does work. It has always worked. It will always work. And it’s here to stay.
But… And it’s a BIG but…
People object to them (or better said, to most of them) not because of what they say but HOW they say it. Take a look at the web. Noticed how it’s being used right now by many wannabe copywriters or naive marketers? Tons.
They are the culprits — not the process. (Actually, their lack of sales and writing skills is the culprit.)
There’s an interesting point to make in all this.
Some people are muddying the facts with secondary objections that are misleading — although some of these objections ARE appropriate (as some salesletters are indeed too long, boring and hypey).
But they are confused with the real issue, here.
(I don’t want to go into a debate about long versus short. For now, just remember there’s a difference between short copy and brief copy. Between long copy and long-winded copy. Between pithy copy that may still be long but it’s straight to the point, and short copy that’s curt, leaves the customer hanging and doesn’t tell enough to make the sale.)
Back to The Point…
In its defense, some have used the excuse that “conversion is key.” The sale is the ultimate result. Nothing else matters. And that the people objecting to “crappy” copy are not prospects and make the error that the copy is not meant for them (and therefore they have no right to object.)
Yes and no.
We call all say that “conversion is queen.” And we can all state that “one person making an objection is not the prospect.” (In some cases, I beg to differ. And I’ll tell you why in a moment.)
But I also believe that the obvious, “hypey,” used-car approach used in copy has nothing to do with the hype but everything to do with the fact that the owner (or writer) doesn’t know how to sell.
Period.
(Why do brazen, used-car salesmen have such a stigma, when some have shattered sales records selling and even reselling cars over and over to the same people? Like Joe Girard, for example, the Guiness Record holder for selling the most cars?)
You see, it’s not the approach. It’s the people. It’s the lack of sales and persuasion skills.
When people object to crappy copy, they’re not objecting to the fact they are using long, hypey, direct marketing. Even though it may seem that way. They are objecting to the poor salesmanship on the part of the writer or marketer. On their poor use of long, hypey copy — and not the pitch itself.
You see, using this approach improperly will lead people, including prospects, to SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT.
It’s Psychology, Pure And Simple.
For example, one poster made a reference to copy that says things like, “to be honest, Ms. Prospect…” Or, “I’m going to be flat-out honest with you, Mrs. Prospect, and tell you something [that’s going to blow your socks off],” blah, blah, blah.
As you know, I used to be a sales trainer before I dove into copywriting. And in sales training, they tell you never to say, “to be honest,” “to be frank” or “to be truthful with you.” Etc. Why? Because unconsciously, prospects will think, “Gee, was he dishonest until now?”
Like in sales training, they tell you that it’s best to say, “to be candid with you,” “to be open with you,” “to be forthright with you” or “to be more to the point with you” — rather than “honest,” “frank” and “truthful.”
They’ve been teaching this in Sales 101 for ages!
It’s just one small example of poor sales skills. Which translate into poor copy. Which translate into these kinds of objections.
Naturally.
Now, to The Other Points.
Personally, I do think much of the copy on the web these days outright suck. I’m not talking about the typical bland, unproductive, short, corporate-speaking copy that makes you yawn. I’m specifically referring to some people’s dismal attempt at long, hard-hitting, “grab-their-money” copy.
Often, it’s understandable. It’s an attempt by the owner or marketer to “copy” the Ginsu-like style of hard-hitting copy for their own offers. But they often have it all wrong.
They pack their copy with adjectives, superlatives and adverbs, and carnival-barking, “snakeoil-pitchy” verbiage that makes you cringe in horror with every passing sentence.
You know the kind, right?
“Get my super-fast, heart-pumping, stunningly lightning-fast, jack-hammer-powered, amazingly sweet, orgasmic, googley-eye-inducing, whiz-bang widget right NOOOOOOWWWW!!!”
Some people say it insults their intelligence.
It’s not the fact that it insults prospects’ intelligences. It’s the fact that, if we FEEL it does, it means the writer didn’t do his/her job, didn’t know the product well enough, and laced their copy with superlatives because they don’t know how to write or how to sell.
I interviewed Gary Halbert the other week, and he said it best. To paraphrase, he said: “Copy that tries to make a freakin’ explosion is going to turn people off and makes the pitch so unbelievable simply because the writer doesn’t know what the heck he/she is doing. Period.”
Then I had a call with John Carlton last week, who said something similar. He said it ALL comes down to passion, persuasion, influence, psychology and the power of storytelling — and the lack thereof, which ends up with superlative-laden, used-car vernacular that makes you want to puke.
Bottom Line, It Comes Down to This:
- You gotta know your product.
- You gotta know your audience.
- You gotta know how to sell.
The web has made it possible for the proliferation of wannabes, or marketers who don’t know their product enough (from their prospects’ perspective, that is) who attempt to write copy that mimics cheesy late-night informercials.
Let me repeat it: the Ginsu approach DOES work WHEN it is used properly. (And in many, many, many cases, it is not.)
John Carlton and I, in that 2nd interview, spent over 2 hours on the subject of passion and salesmanship in copywriting. He said that people who use this kind of adjective-laden copy is simply not skilled in selling, and haven’t truly woken their “inner salesperson” to sell really well.
Usually, there’s no hook, no eye-grabbing (not puke-inducing) copy, no real benefits, no reasons why, no story. And therefore, since the owner/writer didn’t do their job, they often resort to adjectives and adverbs simply because they have nothing else to work with.
I could go on and on and on, but I myself am starting to get a little sick and tired of poor copy — and particularly of poor copy giving good copy (and good copywriters) a bad name. I see this all the time, with my copy critiques for example, as well as some of the offers I come across on the web.
It’s NOT poor copy.
It’s Poor Selling.
By the way, why not listen to my phone calls with Gary Halbert and John Carlton? It’s free — there’s no obligation or pitch. (Well, to be candid with you 
, the reason I offer it for free is simply to help me build an announcement list. That’s all. And you can still cancel your subscription anytime, anyway.)
Now, someone also said that, while we can bitch and complain about crappy copy, it really boils down to understanding two different marketing approaches — i.e., a marketer’s choice of short-term and long-term goals. That is, the hard-sell, get-your-money-and-run direct marketing kind, and the relationship-driven, good-customer-service branding kind.
(And thus, there’s copy that appeals to both, respectively to the hard-hitting hype, versus the soft-selling editorial style.)
My Take? Not Really.
I agree with the spirit of what they said. Since direct marketing is so quick, direct and measurable, it IS an opportunity for people to jump in, hit ‘em hard, make a quick buck and run out of town. But…
… I just want to point out something, perhaps not to differ but to clarify. It is that, it’s not true in all the cases.
Many direct marketing companies who use hard-hitting copy have created strong relationships, solid brand equity, great customer service and poweful names for themselves, too.
But they achieved it as a byproduct, not as a goal.
They simply decided not to spend millions of dollars on ad agencies to build their brands, take huge risks, or work really hard (and wait a long time) using soft-sell techniques to create the much-needed word of mouth.
(Why? Because branding, publicity and relationship-building is risky business, because it’s not accountable, justifiable or measurable… or better said, “as” measurable… as direct marketing.)
And “short-term” direct marketers, as they were referred to, who use hard-hitting (seemingly “hypey”) copy are not just in it for the quick buck.
Granted some are.
And also granted, some long-term-focused companies have indeed taken the low-key approach and succeeded amazingly fast without using any hard-hitting copy — but they succeeded for many other reasons: an in-demand product, a new product with a great twist, niche marketing, buzz creation, viral and other forms of guerilla marketing, etc.
Take Google, For Instance.
They “did” it with almost no advertising or hard-selling. All PR, all word-of-mouth, all guerilla marketing.
But just recently after their record-breaking IPO hit Wall Street, the Chief Exec of Marketing Communications (said to be the brainchild behind Google’s marketing success) is resigning over differences with the company, who’s now looking into going “Madison-Avenue” style of million-dollar ad-agency advertising.
Now, something important needs to be said…
Building relationships should be the aim of every marketer. But I think there’s a distinction between creating relationships as a byproduct of good customer service versus relationship-only marketing that strives to create a brand name and image.
The latter is often expensive, time-consuming and risky. And of course, it may indeed work.
(And if and when it does, the success shifts into cruise control, and no longer requires a lot of work, time or money. But not always. Because often, they eventually have to fight off competition, keep the brand alive, penetrate new markets to keep revenues levelled, etc. Hence, the Google article earlier.)
As for direct marketers being strictly “short term,” I don’t think so.
Maybe it’s a short-term approach in terms of results or campaign efforts. And maybe it’s true in some cases. But not all direct marketers have the goal of STAYING short-term… of making a quick sale and bailing out.
How many direct marketers out there have used hard-selling copy and created great brands and name recognition, and even used their controls (their old, hard-hitting ads) for years and years?
Many.
Look at DAK, Ronco, Ginsu, TimeLife, as well as salesletters and ads that are old and STILL running to this day: oldies like the Charles Atlas ad, to fairly newbies like Jeff Paul’s advertorial-style salesletter. (Which is still running after, what, 6-8 years?)
—
Michel Fortin is a direct response copywriter, marketing strategy consultant, and instrumental in some of the most lucrative online businesses and wildly successful marketing campaigns to ever hit the web. For more articles like this one, please visit his blog and subscribe to his RSS feed.
Pingback: The Importance Of Good Copywriting | The Home Business Archive