Want A Sticky Site? Forget Content!

An inter­est­ing debate is rag­ing among copy­writ­ers and con­tent devel­op­ers about the dif­fer­ences, if any, between writ­ing copy for the web ver­sus writ­ing content.

Pro­lific copy­writer Nick Usborne con­ducted a sur­vey with his newslet­ter read­ers to dis­cover how many among them are copy­writ­ers, and how many are con­tent writers.

The result was split three ways: one-​​third copy­writ­ers, one-​​third con­tent writ­ers, and the final third both.

Actual titles aside, I think the results may be mis­lead­ing. Rea­son is, I believe all online copy is con­tent but not all con­tent is copy. Try­ing to dis­tin­guish the two is a problem.

Most web design­ers, web­mas­ters, and con­tent writ­ers develop text for web­sites in a way to edu­cate vis­i­tors. They hold 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 the con­tent in the first place.

While some web­sites may com­pel our atten­tion, oth­ers fail to pro­pel our actions.

Their own­ers are usu­ally the ones who often end up scream­ing, “Why is my site not pro­duc­ing any sales?” “Why am I get­ting a lot of traf­fic but such a poor response?” Or, “Why is my bounce ratio so high and peo­ple are leav­ing so quickly?”

Well, if con­tent is king, copy is the castle.

Some peo­ple say the Inter­net is just another medium. It is not. The Inter­net is not a tra­di­tional medium — at least not in the uni­di­rec­tional, broad­cast sense.

It is bidi­rec­tional. 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.

With the Inter­net, peo­ple have a pow­er­ful weapon they don’t have with other types of media. A weapon that can actu­ally kill entire busi­nesses. And they usu­ally never think twice about using it when the need con­fronts them: and that’s their mouse.

So, the idea is this: for­get about writ­ing con­tent, at least in the tra­di­tional sense. Think copy. Sure, focus on edu­cat­ing your vis­i­tors. But also think of words and expres­sions that com­pel the reader to do some­thing, even if it’s just to con­tinue reading.

Accord­ing to Answers​.com, the word “con­tent” is defined as “the sub­ject mat­ter of a writ­ten work, such as a book or mag­a­zine.” (There’s no men­tion of the Inter­net, here. But I’d def­i­nitely include “web­site” as an exam­ple of a writ­ten work.)

But “copy,” on the other hand, is defined as “words to be printed or spo­ken in an adver­tise­ment.” “Adver­tise­ment” is defined as “a notice or announce­ment designed to attract pub­lic patron­age.” So copy is con­tent that’s call­ing for some kind of action.

It’s sell­ing some­thing, in other words.

But doesn’t con­tent do the same? Doesn’t it sell an idea? Or, whether directly or indi­rectly, the idea that the reader should stay and read more?

Nev­er­the­less, this is why I sub­mit that, with its mul­ti­tude of links, scripts, forms, and mul­ti­me­dia, the Inter­net trans­forms the pas­sive reader into an active, respon­sive par­tic­i­pant. (Or make that “response-​​able.”) That’s why we often label them as “users.”

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. A web­site, how­ever, is not. It demands some form of inter­ac­tion or response.

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 some form of action. And there­fore, it’s still copy.

If your web­site is only meant to inform peo­ple like some kind of book, then it’s con­tent. (And just like clos­ing a book once it’s read, the only action left is to exit the web­site or close the browser. And as we all know, that’s rarely if ever the case.)

But if it con­tains more con­tent or links to more con­tent, or if con­tains inter­ac­tive ele­ments, 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 or force them to leave. 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 the Author

Last 5 Posts By Michel Fortin

• How to Capture and Captivate Attention
• The Real Problem With The Flaw of Attraction
• Two Shining Stars in an Age of Darkness
• Changes, Relaunches, and Extreme Makeovers
• Superior Value Equals Superior Sales

Other Related Posts

• How I Broke Into Copywriting
• 2nd Gary Halbert Call Part 3 of 4
• What Copy Cosmetics Communicate
• The Seven Deadly Sins of Website Copy
• Risk-Reversal's Role Reversal