Guest Post By Michel Fortin
Michel Fortin
An interesting debate is raging among copy writers, web designers and content developers about the differences, if any, between writing copy for the web versus writing content.
According to prolific copywriter Nick Usborne of Excess Voice, a recent survey conducted among the readers of his newsletter of the same name offers some interesting results. They seem to be split almost three ways: one-third consists of copywriters, another content writers and the final third both.
But it’s wrong.
This is an important debate, I believe, since all online copy is content but not all content is copy. And that’s a real problem.
Most web designers, webmasters and content writers develop text for websites in a way to educate visitors. They also write it with the notion that “content is king,” “content increases search engine rankings,” “content makes a website sticky” and so on. That’s all fine and good.
But I believe content fails when it strives only at informing the reader, and thus lacks important elements that take her “by the hand” and compels her to do something — anything, including the simple act of reading.
In other words, while some websites may compel our attention, others fail to propel our actions, too. And their owners often end up screaming, “Why is my website not producing any sales,” “why am I getting a lot of traffic but such a poor response” or “why are people leaving so quickly?” Well, if content is king, copy is the castle.
The Internet is not a traditional medium — at least not in the broadcast sense. It is intimate, dynamic and interactive. People are more involved when reading the content of a website than reading a conventional print publication, watching a show on TV or listening to a program on the radio.
And with the Internet, people have a powerful weapon that they don’t have with other types of media, and they usually never think twice about using it when the need confronts them: their mouse.
So, the idea is this: forget about writing content, at least in the traditional sense. Think copy. Think words and expressions that compel the reader to do something, even if it’s just to continue reading.
According to online dictionary Answers.com, “copy” is defined as “the words to be printed or spoken in an advertisement.” (And “advertisement” is defined as “a notice or announcement designed to attract public patronage.” It’s calling for some kind of action. It’s selling something, in other words.)
But the word “content,” on the other hand, is defined as “the subject matter of a written work, such as a book or magazine.” And keep in mind that there’s no mention of the Internet, here.
Nevertheless, this is why I submit that, with its multitude of links, scripts and hypertexts, the Internet transforms the passive reader into an active, responsive participant. (Or make that “response-able.”) And she must therefore be treated as such — as a participant, not a reader.
Look at it this way: a book is limited by its front and back covers. When the book is done, it’s done. The web, however, is not.
If your content does not strive at getting the reader to do something, whether it’s to buy, subscribe, join, download, call, email, fill out a form, click or whatever, then you need to seriously rethink your content and the words you use.
Here’s my explanation of the difference between content and copy. Content informs. Copy invites. Even if content invites a reader to keep reading, it’s still selling an idea. It’s still calling for action. And it’s still copy.
If your web page is only meant to inform people like some kind of book, then it’s content. (And like closing a book once it’s read, the only action left is to exit the website or close the browser.) But if it contains links or more content, then it’s copy. And you need to write content with that mindset.
Ultimately, incorporate within your content a direct response formula that compels your readers to do something. Don’t leave them hanging. Take them by the hand. Integrate a call for some kind of action, in other words. Ask your reader to “buy now,” “join today,” “get this,” “download that, or …
… Better yet, simply “click here.”
About Michel Fortin
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.
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.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Thank you for that article Michel.
Funny enough, I had decided only in the last day or so, that from now on I was going to write in the hope that I would involve the reader more but also write to enjoy myself whilst writing, as well!
AnneMarie Callans last blog post..$100 A Day Working Online – Example
Great Article Michael
I like the breakdow in differences between copy and content. Especially the to the point realization you stated. “All copy is content, but not all content is copy”
With that view it makes writing a whole new venture.
Gary McElwain
Gary McElwains last blog post..Achieving Life-Changing Success Through Mentoring For Free
Great Post Michael… Your making me think about how I write this comment now….
write it just as content or to get someone to visit my website… Nice!
I agree with you, copy has a “call to action” get a sale, fill out a form, subscribe, download or whatever!
I’ll make sure to have more copy in my content!
Thanks again Michael!
David King,
Http://yougottaseethisblog.com
Getting others to act is a huge task. In my own writing, I often resort to short imperative sentences to challenge the reader. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to track your results. Even the click throughs do not really tell the whole story.
I it like moving a big rock down the road. It takes so much effort to move it just a little If you can keep it going, it is so much easier. Let up and you have to start all over again.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Keep it up.
The content -v- copy debate is impossible to discuss because the definitions of the main terms are too imprecise. You just have to look at:
tabloid TV
right wing news
left wing documentaries
to see that what’s presented as “information” has changing parameters. Similarly, what’s content is copy to someone else and vice versa. Only the broadest definitions hold and in the end, become almost meaningless.
Instead, define what you stand for clearly and your readers will work out for themselves whether you’re presenting is copy or content.
Andrew Goulding
Andrew Gouldings last blog post..Xango Glimpse Skincare: Interview With Elena Larsen
Good Lord, I used to rely on Roget’s Theaurus for interesting word variations.
Then a big shock as reader interest began to fade. But John Carlton came to the rescue with his ‘bucket brigade’ phrases. I devour that daily for V8 powered phrases that haul folks to the end of my text.
I’m always asking for folks to click this, check out that. It’s all action and DO.
Jonathan
Jonathans last blog post..JonathanGunson: @guykawasaki Love your "Seize the Day" example. Reminded me to stay alert for ways to surf the PR wave. RT http://tinyurl.com/637j73
@Andrew:
I agree. But my point was not to make a distinction or to discuss their individual definitions in any empirical way. It was simply to look at your content as a way to engage the reader and drive their actions… even if it’s simply to keep reading.
And most importantly, to not be afraid to ask. Tell people what you want them to do, even if it is intuitive. Because people want to be led. If it’s intuitive, you are still forcing them to think… and thinking leads to procrastination. And then you’ve lost a reader… a potential subscriber… a loyal fan… and even a prospective client.
Michel Fortins last blog post..Computer Geek Discovers Speed Copy Secrets?
@Michael:
No problem with the first paragraph of your reply…but I can’t make sense of the second paragraph.
Surely if an idea is “intuitive” it comes from the reader and not from the writer? Do you perhaps mean “appear intuitive”? It may sound pedantic but there really is a huge difference between the two.
Andrew Goulding
Andrew Gouldings last blog post..Xango Glimpse Skincare: Interview With Elena Larsen
I’ve always been a decent writer, but trying write content for my blogs that people actually take interest in is a challenge. I’m finding that just being honest, using language that I normally would, not censoring myself is appealing to online readers. Work in progress I guess.