Blame The Copywriter, Not The Copy

Warning! This article is open, candid, and unabashed. And it uses stronger language than the norm. — Michel Fortin

Lately, I’m seeing a lot of posts in public forums and blogs these days about people getting really sick and tired of seeing “crappy,” “hypey,” used-car, Ginsu-like, looooong copy.

Some of them come from guru-bashing naysayers, which I always take with a grain of salt. But many of them are intelligent and commonsensical. I object to much of the former, but the latter are interesting because I believe that, while negative feedback does have its place, it’s often misplaced.

Here’s why.

They blame long copy when all too often it’s not the copy’s fault. Or more importantly, its not because of the length. 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.

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 reader 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 can all say that “conversion is queen,” and that “someone who objects is usually not targeted for the offer.” (In some cases, that may be true. But in many cases, I beg to differ. I’ll tell you why in a moment.)

But I also believe that, most of the time, the obvious, “hypey,” used-car approach used in copy has really nothing to do with the hype itself but everything to do with the fact that the owner (or the copywriter) 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 Guinness Record holder for selling the most cars?

You see, it’s not the approach. It’s the people.

Specifically, it’s the lack of sales and persuasion skills.

Hype, when used properly and blended with interesting, riveting copy, as well as powerful stories (I call this “storyselling”) and targeted to the right people, is often disregarded or ignored. In fact, when used properly, most readers will look at hype as “passion,” “caring,” “empathy,” “personality,” “conversational,” etc.

Not “hype.”

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, use this approach properly, and people will downplay the hype. But use it improperly, and you will lead people, including prospects, to see right through it and conclude that it is indeed just a bunch of hype. And therefore, a load of crap.

(And by extension, they’ll also believe that the product and the business behind it are just as crappy. Naturally.)

It’s Psychology, Pure And Simple.

For example, one poster from a popular Internet marketing forum made a reference to copy that said things like, “to be honest, Ms. Prospect…” “frankly, I’m puzzled,” or, “I’m going to be flat-out truthful with you, Mrs. Prospect, and tell you something [that’s going to blow your socks off],” blah, blah, blah.

And they equated this tactic to be the sign of poor copy — and a poor product, too.

As you know, I used to be a sales trainer before I dove into copywriting. In sales training, they tell you never to say, “to be honest,” “to be frank” or “to be truthful with you.” Why? Because, unconsciously, prospects will think that, if you need to say it, then you must be dishonest.

They 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!

But that’s semantics. In my opinion, I believe you certainly can say “honest” and so on, as long as you are not perceived as trying to “pull a fast one.”

If you are and appear genuine, empathetic, and passionate, then it becomes part of a normal, natural conversation — not a blatant, hypey sales pitch, where anything you say makes you look incredulous or suspect.

Anyway, it’s just one very small example of poor sales skills. Which translates into poor copy. Which inevitably leads to these kinds of objections.

Now, to The Other Points.

Personally, I do think much of the copy on the web these days downright 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 marketer or copywriter to “copy” the Ginsu-like style of hard-hitting copy for their own offers.

Whether they’re swiping or mimicking them, if they don’t understand the principles of good salesmanship, they often do it all wrong. In the end, it’s those kinds of salesletters that make all long, hard-hitting sales copy look bad.

For example, 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 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 once interviewed my friend Gary Halbert, one of the best copywriters in the world before he passed away. 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, 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…

• Know your product.
• Know your audience.
• Know how to sell (i.e., how to connect the first two).

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 second interview I mentioned earlier, spent over two 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 empathy, no eye-grabbing copy, no real benefits, no reasons why, and above all, no story. And therefore, since the 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.

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 approach to fit short-term or long-term goals.

That is, they can choose between the get-your-money, go-for-the-jugular direct marketing kind, and the relationship-driven, good-customer-service, warm-fuzzy, 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? It doesn’t have to be a choice, 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, and make a quick buck (and for some, 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 and aggressive sales approaches have also created strong relationships, solid brand equity, great customer service, and powerful name recognition for themselves, too.

But they achieved it as a byproduct, not as a distinct 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 guerrilla marketing, etc.

Take Google, For Instance.

They “did” it with almost no advertising or hard-selling. All PR, all word-of-mouth, all guerrilla 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.

You can read the article here.

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. (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 leveled, 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, “Making $4,000 a day at your kitchen table in your underwear.” (Which is still running after, what, 8-10 years?)

Last 5 Posts by Michel Fortin

• Social Media Isn’t Dead, But It Can Be Deadly
• How to Extract Doubt From Your Sales Copy
• It’s Not About Facebook, It’s About Integrity
• Did Larry Winget Go Overboard?
• The Oft-Confused Features And Benefits

About the Author