Over the years, many printing processes have emerged and were made available for public use. Among these newer technology includes two of the best processes which are digital printing and press printing….

Thanks. I don’t think I’ve read this other one, so I’ll read it and digest it! Thanks again for posting it.

My apologies. I don’t know how it is that I’ve never seen that.

Here’s the one I was referring to, reproduced in another Gary H. letter…
thegaryhalbertletter.com/newsletters/zgkl_best_copywriter.ht…

The letter I was referring to is this one, which Halbert says he wrote…
thegaryhalbertletter.com/newsletters/2006/rolls_royce_letter…

Maybe we’re talking about two different “Rolls Royce” letters?

…It was David Ogilvy, I think, that you’re thinking of. 607 words in a one page space ad that ran in only two newspapers and two magazines. Ogilvy spent three weeks researching Rolls Royces before he came up with the draft.

The headline, as I’m sure we all remember, was, “At 60 miles an hour the loudest noise in this new Rolls-Royce comes from the electric clock.”

Though, it’s tough to decide in which category this falls. Because, after all, 607 words might seem like nothing compared to long direct-mail sales letters… but it’s practically a magnum opus when it comes to copy used to sell a luxury automobile, especially in today’s terms.

How long is a piece of string?

A good answer is what Abraham Lincoln was rumoured to have said when asked how long a man’s legs should be.

“A man’s legs should be long enough to reach the ground.”

Remember Gary Halbert’s Rolls Royce letter? How many pages was that? I think it was under a page - it sold shed loads of Rolls Royces.

I think people’s appreciation of or aversion to video is the same as long copy. It really depends on the market, the copy, and the connection between both. Above all, the copy needs to be interesting to the reader. (And this applies to video, too. Because it’s ALL copy.)

Some people may be averse to video because the video wasn’t good in the first place. So they paint all video with the same brushstroke… just like they do with long copy, since a lot of long copy can be downright boring. (But it doesn’t mean it doesn’t work or it’s wrong in every case.)

As Kennedy often says, “It’s all about message-to-market match.”

I know of some travel products, too, where a “video postcard” that comes with a sales letter would work brilliantly. In fact, any luxury-related pitch could benefit. And yeah, if a picture is worth 1000 words… I could see a video being worth 2000 or 3000, if used right.

Of course, just like when you use a photo or a chart, you would still never want to have a video embedded in a sales page without a caption running underneath.

I make the case because, really, I think the only important point here is that the decision to use video or not… audio or not… long copy or not… is not something you make arbitrarily. It’s subjective. The approach has to fit the product and the audience.

And in every case, never do you want to bore the audience with more “approach” than you need to make the connection and the sale (this is something Michel and David have already said, just to acknowledge).

The point I was trying to make was that you would be silly to use video as your only method of marketing a product. You may think that sounds silly but there are people I have seen who do just that. If you want to use video for any reason on the web ,whether it’s promoting a product or just delivering free content, you should ALWAYS have the option for people to instead just read the content. Everyone is different and should be catered to accordingly.

If anything is changing, it’s simply presentation. Match the appropriate presentation to your target audience (and as Michel has said, that may mean multiple formats), and they’ll eagerly gobble down everything you give them.

Great post David.

I totally agree with you in regards to the use of videos. I am running a fast cable connection so load time is generally not a problem for me. However I cannot be fussed opening most videos I receive from IM’s these days - sitting there waiting for the bits that interest me to eventually come around.

I must say I much rather click a link and have a sales page jump up. That way I can immediately scroll the entire page and read just the bits I am interested in. After all, isn’t that why we created the sales page? As a way to present ALL relevant information for a product, in a format that people can quickly and easily scan and locate just the key points that are of particular interest to them.

I generally know if I’m interested in a product within about 30 secs-1 minute of landing on the sales page. Video slows down this whole process. You can no longer quickly scan and find the information that is of interest to you. This frustrates the hell outta me and most times will leave me no other choice but to close the video and move on.

Am I the only one who feels like this???

Yes, I understand the web is here and makes multi-media easier but I want to SEE copy to part with my dough!

When I get emails saying to go look at this video or that…I just trash them as “Time” is our most precious asset. As a speed-reader…I prefer copy! I’d actually like to see a survey on this…because the hype over video is way over-rated to me!

One other point I’d like to make… if you provide a LOT of copy and then forget to add a phone number for someone to reach you *yes personally* then you also LOSE sales. If you don’t have a no-brainer product and it is likely to have questions, then the lack of a phone number will hurt your sales. It amazes me that so many marketers online don’t put a phone # or an email to ask questions…that loses their credibility with me.

BTW, on the video equipment you just bought…did you look at the JVC Everio…wow is that a nice camera and without diskettes…so you just download to your computer and are all set!

Love your work David and Michael!

Lenny

earlytorise.com/2007/06/22/how-the-difference-between-liverw…

earlytorise.com/2007/06/23/7-ways-to-build-a-solid-foundatio…

Michel, what’s your feedback?

Raj.

But so often, you never really know before you do…

Here’s something to consider. I’m ABOUT the most impatient person you’d ever want to meet, and you probably don’t want to meet me when I’m at the end of my patience.

But I have the patience of Job when I’m on a quest to get information… relevant information… pithy information… information to keep me from making a decision I will regret or a decision that will frustrate me.

Although I tend to be at the extreme end of the distribution curve, most people are like me.

That’s where multiple buy buttons or compartmentalizing a sales letter on the Web (think of taking a magalog process of presenting information and putting it into an appealing, natural-seeming online format) comes into play.

To get back to my original example:

Once I had settled on the camera, I didn’t need more than the model number and the price for the extra battery. I wan’t interested in the unique memory feature that kept you from overcharging it. I just wanted the battery. I was sold on it. So forcing me to read long copy to buy it would have been counter-productive.

BUT… if I had been more like my Dad, who had a workshop in our family basement and used to invent electronics equipment, and had years and years of old magazines stacked up, I probably would have liked to have all those details right at hand before I bought the battery… even though that information might have had little or no impact on my ultimate decision to buy.

So… what’s a solution to sell a battery to me, and to my late Dad (if they have a commerical Internet in his final resting place), without creating two different Web sites?

I think a lot of it is more conceptual rather than technical. If you can give me the basic info I need and a buy button in one screen — “above the fold” and then have tabs or links or pop-up boxes to go into greater detail on arcane subects some (but not all) cusotmers would be interested in… you’ve taken care of both kinds of customers without, hopefully, alienating either to the point where you’ve prevented a sale.

The key, I think, is to transactionally answer the question: “How can I write the copy and design the site/printing architecture in such a way so that the most impatient, impulsive buyer is satisfied and will buy… and the most granular, detail-oriented, specificity-seeking prospect will be satisfied enough to become a buyer as well?”

David

These are my favorite kinds of discussions on hot issues… where we can all agree but get fired up at the same time

You wrote:

“Like I said many times in the past (and David can vouch for me on this), there’s a BIG difference between long copy and long-winded copy. We’ve seen the latter hit critical mass lately, and fortunately, more and more copy is becoming pithier, stronger, more precise, and more economical.”

This is a key and savvy point.

And I hope I made it clear in my own (maybe long-winded!) post above, I’d vouch for you on this too. In fact, not more than two weeks ago — hope you don’t mind — I stood in front of a roomful of 200 or so will-be web marketers and cited you directly on exactly this insight (full credit with a URL mentioned ;).

Of course, I know you and David are both fans of classic ads. You can see the same exact trend toward pithiness there too, if you look back over a long enough span.

Ads in Victorian times were Victorian in style. Ads in the ’20s and ’30s matched the language of those times. And I’ll bet we could all pick an ad written in the 1950s out of a lineup, too. Words used got smaller. Sentences got shorter. Ideas got tighter.

And not just in advertising, but everywhere.

In fiction and film. In newspapers and magazines. In everyday conversation. Today, we’re in the age of the sound bite. So we’re seeing, more and more, sound-bite thinking inside of advertising.

On Deb’s point, I’m probably unique, but I’ve found some really short ads a boring pain-in-the-posterior as well. And it’s always come down to this same point… not so much the length of the ad, but the relevance to what you’re selling.

(Here’s an apples and oranges comparison: How is it that so many infomercials are long sales letters that seem to work… yet, when the Budweiser folks spend millions on a 30-second Superbowl spot that shows a gassy Clydesdale pulling a sleigh, it’s clearly a colossal waste of money?)

Anyway, good discussion.