Mike, I couldnt agree more but ... you know the saying, " perception is greater than reality", right?

Nick may not mean how he is being perceived! Maybe I am seeing it wrong. Lets be honest some audiences really DO NOT need or can take long copy. It would be a worthless effort. I am pretty sure also a lot of long online copy these days doesnt get read. A lot of the stuff we see is meaningless, repititious dribble.

But there are products that have to have long copy. There are targets that want long copy. It really is all about knowing the target and the product. I really find it a pointless discussion though when so many haughty, superior sounding "opinions"are thrown in.

Anyway, lets cut to the chase, long copy is a mega demand area of copywriting for me. At this point I have, hang on let me count .... nine long copy jobs on my desk.

All apart from one are online. Here is my second comment related but not really related (if that makes sense ).

The way I am pushing for myself is what I call storyboard copywriting. Online the results I have been getting are fantastic. It is exactly what is it. Pictures that tie in to the copy that create the whole story. With lng copy ... it works. People are getting tired of long endless copy in courier or some similiar type, pictures help, big time.

One final note. I had a meeting with the guy. His site converts like there is no tomorrow. it is super-long copy. I am no big fan of the copy. Told him so but it converts. Copywriter is a guy in UK. Check this place out.
www.timlowe25k.com he literally mkaes money until the cows come home. Perfect example of long copy for the right audience.

The point Nick makes is not so much the problem with AudioGenerator.com or the language used but the need to recognize the approach and how that approach fits with with a specific market segment. That approach works well for one market but may not work so well with another. Again, Tony Blake's post in another of my forums says it pretty well -- see http://forum.successdoctor.com/viewtopic.php?t=57

Coincidentally, just this morning an interesting article came in Monday Memo Ezine by copywriter Roy Williams, entitled Different Strokes for Different Folks at http://www.wizardacademy.com/index.c...Memo&MemoID=93

Are we debating the same issues?

I think there are several issues involved here --

1. Long copy vs. short copy (irrespective of product being sold)

If long copy is well segmented and has sub headings and other effects used by Mike and all, it might fit the skimmer. But so many web sites have long copy just because long copy sells. If the same thing can be said in short copy, why not?

2. Normal copy vs. hype and flowery language like "explode your sales", "run to mommy crying" etc.

Do you really think people get impressed and moved by terms like this and take out their wallet because they too want to "explode their sales".

Do they really get the same results or get disappointed and either curse you or ask for refund?

There are 2 issues, here. And it's mostly my fault since my post originally referred to Nick's recent comment in his excellent ezine, "Excess Voice," in which he said most long copy salesletters are so in order to compensate for a worthless product.

I was simply tying that with "hypey" salesletters as well.

Again, my response was directed at both issues -- since most long copy salesletters do employ salesy language. And that the problem has nothing to do with the approach but the lack of message-to-market match (or the failure by some people to recognize that).

You are bang on target, Mike. The biggest problem is matching sales letter to market.

And how should one do this? By using a qualifying pre-heading?

What if I need to address two different segments - but can't redirect the two to 2 different pages like I can in an ad?

No, Michel. At least that wasn't Nick's original point.

"Different copy for different audiences" is an obvious premise. It's not an intelligent or particularly insightful observation, certainly not new, and about as disturbing and arresting as vanilla ice cream.

His original point had to do with raising the quality of writing on the Web.

As I see it, the bulk of Nick's readers are desparate to claim themselves to be writers who can sell -- tastefully.

They don't want to cut their market by admitting they can't sell, yet don't want to be identified with those who can and do sell with hyperbole.

So, they ride the fine line with smoke and mirrors. "Sure, I write sales copy".

This is the same arguement that circulated against rap music 30 years ago. "It's not music".

"That's not writing" is about as relevant now as the arguement against rap music was then. It isn't a relevant arguement.

I have nothing against Nick or his cadre of writers. It's a pleasure for me to read a good piece of copy. Some of their writing "sings". It just doesn't sell.


Peter Stone

Again, I refer to Tony Blake's post in the other forum. Find out who's your market. If you have more than one, I also submit that you should have 2 salesletters directed at 2 different markets -- it's market segementation, pure and simple. Even if it's the same product. For example, AudioGenerator.com, which Nick spoke of, is for one market (consumers and small businesses), and InstantAudio.com, the same product but more B2B or corporate in flavor, is directed at another.

As an aside, if you read my free book, The 10 Commandments of Power Positioning, then I'm sure you've read my chapter entitled "Thou Shall Divide and Conquer."

I understand. My intention was simply to pull something of value from Nick's post, regarding targeting your copy (or what Dan Kennedy calls 'message-to-market' match), even though I don't agree with him on his particular point about long (or "salesy") copy compensating for poor products.

And I think you're right on the point that there is a difference between writing that's tasteful and writing that sells. I must admit that I love your comments, Peter, because you offer some very interesting and intelligent insights. I would add to them the following...

Quality of writing aside, I disagree with Nick that most (if not all) long sales copy (or even sales copy that's emotionally charged) smacks of being scams. There is a difference between telling the truth and being emotional.

People buy on emotion. Even when selling to other businesses, people are still the ones okaying the deal, whipping out their credit cards or signing the checks. And people always buy for personal, selfish reasons.

But copy using convoluted, complex, highfalutin language doesn't sell product. I'm talking about third person, impersonal, "tasteful," ego-stroking corporate-speak. (In here, I'm referring to the seller's ego, not the buyer's.)

Nick says that the bigwigs at Yahoo/Google/Amazon would die laughing at reading such copy. But the fact remains that companies and websites and committees and C-Level titles are NOT the ones that fork out the money, issue the purchase orders or sign the checks.

People do.

Raising the "quality of writing on the web" doesn't mean one has to steer away from being personal, conversational and emotional with their copy.

Of course, the converse is also true. I'm not talking about being so lackadaisical with your grammar and your spelling to the point that English majors want to burn you at the stake for heresy.

(Although, your copy might infuriate some purist grammarians. Unless you target grammarians specifically, these people are not, and never will be, your clients. Clients are the ones that matter.)

But I am talking about copy that relates to your audience at an intimate level -- not an educational or socio-economic level, but a level people can easily understand, appreciate and identify themselves with.

An emotional level.

Michel Fortin wrote:Amen and amen.

Thank you for your comments, Michel and for providing some place for this orphan to let off some steam.

I do think sales and marketing frighten some people - either word, in general, seem to hit a hot button.

I do think the occupation has a predacious quality about it, but no more so than anywhere else. The visceral side of our business is just more on the surface.

Tell me that corporate middle-managers aren't predacious and I'll ask you to have another look.

I looked up Mr. Hoy's site and the first book on the page was titled something like: "Play Piano in a Flash - Even if You've Never Had a Lesson". --Irony.

Anyway, it's fun arguing the toss and we seem to be holding our own which makes it all the sweeter.


Peter Stone

LOL

Predacious? Yes, you're absolutely right. While in our profession selling is more conspicuous, theirs is often cloaked -- or avoided. Why do you think "selling," up until recently, was never taught in colleges and universities? It was only "marketing." (And even then, it was strictly institutional, brand-oriented marketing. Direct marketing, selling and even "guerilla" marketing are very new concepts in academia.)

As Mel Gibson said in the movie "Man Without a Face," "You don't want the truth ... You only want the appearance of the truth."

Heck, middle (and upper) managers are not only predacious, most of them are outright esurient. We all are to a degree. Don't tell me that salespeople don't sell to board- or C-level executives. Of course, they do. And don't tell me they aren't emotional in their pitches. Because they are.

Copywriting is "salesmanship in print."

And that hasn't changed since 1905, when former Canadian policeman John E. Kennedy changed the face of advertising forever with those three words. (Heck, it's been around since the beginning of time. As Zig Ziglar once noted, selling is the oldest profession in the world. Not that "other" job.)

Phenomenal posts, Peter.