Random Drug Experiments Lead To Better Copy

If you’ve spent much time at all here, you’ll know Michel’s a fanatical tester. But he’s not alone in his passion for quantifiable results.

For instance our friend Alex Mandossian preaches to anyone with ears to hear that, “Nothing is true or false, but testing makes it so.”

(Hope I got that right, Alex.)

That’s so important. Because while copy always has been and always will be indispensable in selling — especially on the web — any copywriter who thinks words alone are enough is doing his clients a huge disservice.

At Success Doctor we’re passionate about copy, but we also recognize words have limitations. When you tune your copywriter’s radar into markets that value testing, you’ll quickly discover — it’s the most competitive markets that place the greatest premium on testing over “gut” feeling.

Of course, the pharmaceutical market is one of the most competitive there is.

That’s right, “Big Pharma.”

Love ‘em or hate ‘em you can bet with the kind of money they spend on R&D and the billions of consumer dollars they’re chasing, Big Pharma takes no prisoners when it comes to testing.

So when I saw an article touting the results of an experiment that showed how a simple format change led to dramatic changes in judgments about prescription medications, I sat up and took notice.

(Ok, I was geeked, but that’s what working with Michel does to you. Like I said, he’s a fanatic about testing and it’s bound to rub off after awhile, you know?)

The randomized, controlled trial reported in MM&M Online measured differences in choice and perception of benefits and side effects when consumers were presented with the same information about two different medications used to treat the same condition. (The study featured real drugs, but disguised the names to avoid bias.)

Both ads contained the same sales copy and graphics with just one difference.

One format was the familiar excruciatingly small print with two crowded columns of 8-​​pt. type containing all the “information” drug companies typically stuff onto a single page to keep the FDA at bay.

The other was a simple table or “fact box” of less than 400 words that clearly laid out “fundamental information consumers need to make informed decisions: data on how well the drug works” including potential benefits and harms.

So what happened?

In each test, consumers presented with fact boxes were able to make better, more accurate assessments of the potential risks, benefits and effectiveness of the competing drugs than consumers who were shown ads with the more standard “squint-​​type” ads.

Clearly a case of less is more. By cutting the amount of “informational” copy down to 1/​4 of the standard ad, buyers were able to make better sense of the information.

The takeaway for direct response becomes clear when we remember this important point…

A confused mind never buys.

Remember that the next time you’re presenting information — especially if you’re selling something technical, like software, or health supplements.

Because when all’s said and done, your prospect doesn’t usually care about the geek stuff, they just want to know what your product or service will do for them.

If you want your prospects to choose a particular action, you must do everything you can to give them a clear perception of what that means.

That means using copy in the form of stories, testimonials, headlines, post scripts and subheads to persuade. But it also means presenting information clearly in an appropriate format, or part of what Michel calls “copy designing.”

The next time you look at a salesletter or offline ad, take a moment and ask why it’s formatted the way it is. Does the overall design lead to confusion or clarity?

Then apply what you’ve seen to your next project and watch how your results improve.