Hey guys,

I was wondering what the best font face/size is for a subhead...

Thanks

A sans-serif font (e.g. Arial) works well for all headlines and subheads because it's what editorial does.

But for the actual copy: serif fonts, like Times New Roman and the like. You guessed it. Editorial again. But there's a reason they do it. It's easier on the eyes.

We don't do everything editorial does, just the things that sell.

Michel,
I love the way you answered this question...thanks for taking the time to create such an awesome example for us to view!

Agreed. That's an awesome article.

Good article Michel, but there are a few things you might consider changing. In your article you wrote:

"In fact, David Ogilvy, in "Ogilvy On Advertising," gave some wonderful advice on this subject. He said: "The eye is trained from an early age. Move away from what the eye is used to, and you stop readership." Consequently, Ogilvy suggests the following:

Headline of 20 words or so, with no period at the end;"

Actually there is no mention of 20 word headlines in the book. In Chapter 7 - Wanted: a renaissance in print advertising -- 'God is in the details' he writes:

"The principal sources of my information are the factor analyses which I commission from Gallup and Robinson, the Starch Readership Service, the results of direct response tests, and my own observation."

"Starch reports that headlines with more than TEN words get less readership than short headlines. On the other hand, a study of retail advertisements found that headlines of TEN words sell more merchandise than short headlines.

2 decades before "Ogilvy On Advertising" he wrote "Confessions of an Advertising Man" (which is really "Ogilvy On Advertising" but without the illustrations) where he states the following:

"Headlines contating six to twelve words pull more coupon returns than short headlines, and there is no significant difference between the readership of twelve-word headlines and the readership of three-word headlines."

It's interesting to note what is considered a short headline and what is considered a long headline. Less than 2 decades after "Ogilvy On Advertising" some (internet?) "guru" who read his book comes up with the idea that if long headlines (6-12 words) are better than short headlines (1-5 words) ergo MEGAheadlines of 30, 40, 50 or 60 words have to be three, four, five or six times better! This "guru" (or "gurus") forgot what the basic purpose of a headline is supposed to do.

You then wrote:

"Subheadline no more than 20 words or so;"

Ogilvy states in the same chapter as mentioned above:

"1. A subhead of TWO lines, between your headline and your body copy, heightens the reader's appetite for the feast to come."

I don't recall any mention of 20 words in anything Ogilvy has written other than when he mentioned the best headline he has ever written was eighteen words in length (and probably the longest headline he has ever written too).

Ogilvy liked words, sentences and paragraphs short and sweet:

"3. Limit your opening paragraph to a maximum of 11 words."

Lastly you wrote:

"Drop cap at the beginning of the copy;"

Yep, Ogilvy said it, but you might want to expand on it. The use of drop caps applies to sales copy that does NOT start with a salutation (magazine print ads as an example). Again, it's one of those things some (internet?) "guru" must have read, but didn't understand the context of where or how it is supposed to be used.

The only time I see a drop cap used in a (salutation) sales letter is on the internet and even then it's done incorrectly 90% of the time. Internet copywriters seem clueless to the meaning of a drop cap. 90% of the time it shoots UP (something that has no definition -- so I call it an "ascending cap") and doesn't drop DOWN. Here's an example:

http://i6.tinypic.com/1z6y5qt.jpg

Man o' man I need to limit my morning coffee intake to one cup.

JayKay,

Right. A lot of it is heresay and interpretation --but a lot of it is also tested.

I'm a fanatical tester. And some of these are the results of those tests. Not one. Not two. Not one type of product or two.

But many.

Drop caps with salutations have provided the best response. But my tests are not, and should not, be treated as gospel, either. Every market, every product, every offer and every piece of copy is different.

Dan Kennedy is the one who talks about mega-headlines. But the moral of what you're saying applies: it's not that long headlines are bad. It's that they are misused.

And Kennedy is referring to salesletters for direct mail. Big difference.

He's not referring to newspaper display ads. Nor does it apply to all websites.

I truly believe that "backend" websites (selling to a list that's presold), long headlines do work. Why? Because people expect it. And people want to read what it says because they are told -- and sold -- to do so.

Agora does this all the time with their lists. And they are fanatical testers, too. So I'm sure it's profitable.

However, brand-new, first-time visited websites, I believe that long headlines are bad. First, they scream "salesletter!" More importantly, 90% are done all wrong. They blabber. They are trying to tell as much as possible to cover all the bases, when they stifle readership. (I'll come back to this, as it is important.)

There's a difference between being pithy and being brief or curt. You can be pithy in a long headline. Being pithy means being straight to the point. Being relevant. And using long headlines ONLY if it's proven to be the optimal approach for the market. (Often, it is not, or untested.)

John Carlton said it best: pithisize.

Look at your headline and ask: "Can I say the exact same thing in less words?" (Only after you decided on the headline itself, which is in itself a strategic and thought-intense task.)

If you can say what you need to say in the least amount of words, then do it. But if you can only say it in 20 words or whatever, use 20 words.

But be pithy. Straight to the point.

Clayton said it best: be newsy rather than benefit-oriented.

The idea of the headline (well, its very job, in fact) is only to do one thing: to get people to read the first paragraph. That's it. That's all. End of story.

If accomplishing this requires 20 words or more, fine. But do you really know? And that's the rub: people don't test. Or they mimick other websites and copywriters.

The latter is the case, here. Whether it's Ogilvy or Kennedy, peope take "rules" at face value and apply them to other industries.

I don't buy the notion that offline copy is the same as online copy. Online copy is VERY different. Sure, the Internet is just another medium. Sure, most of the rules of copywriting apply to the Internet.

But you don't show salesletters on TV, do you?

You don't read out a salesletter, exactly as it's printed, on the air on radio, do you?

You don't write emails the same way you write salesletters, do you?

And that's my point.

There's also a difference between Madison-avenue, brand-building types of copywriting, versus direct marketing, response-driven types of copywriting.

You can be clean, with fancy graphics and clean type with small, pithy headlines and logos and clever copy that entertains. But as long as it does one thing: advance the sale. (If it's not meant to build brand equity.)

If small headlines increases readership, then great. But there's a difference between increasing readership and easing readership. I only want to increase readership if that, in turn, increases response. I don't want to entertain or educate with my copy.

And that's where I also have a HUGE problem with long, mega-headlines when they are done wrong.

Because many copywriters and marketers create long mega-headlines for two reasons:

1) They're lazy
2) They attempt to tell the entire story (they're trying to cover all the bases in the headline, hoping to capture as much of the audience as possible).

I know. I've been guilty of these.

In response to #2, remember the rule: the headline is meant to create readership that leads to a sale. Not the sale itself.

But #2 is often the fallback position because of #1.

Copywriters are lazy.

They say what they want to say without too much thinking into what other variations of the headlines can be used, namely how less wordy they can be to say the exact same thing they want to say. (And again, they shouldn't say everything anyway, because the aim is to create curiosity. Not stifle it.)

Finding out what to say that creates readership and curiosity that forces people to start reading the copy is a tough job. It requires a lot of work, a lot of creativity. And perhaps, a lot of headlines to finally discover the one that works.

And then, pithisizing, and trying to edit your headline ferociously to bring it down to the least amount of words possible, makes it even tougher.

Which is why many copywriters are lazy. They flake out at the headline.

Brian Keith Voiles once noted that you should write 20-100 headlines or even more before you choose the headline for your ad.

Coming up with the first 20 is easy, because you'll write down what comes to mind right away. The next batch is what requires a lot of work. But often, therein lies the best headlines.

And finally, TEST everything.

Claude Hopkins said it best:

Scientific Advertising by Claude Hopkins - Chapter 15: Test Campaigns

TEST, TEST, AND TEST!

Why?

Because you find out, like Ralph Charlton did, who writes for tftgroup.com that your 3rd test panel headline, which is 75 (SEVENTY FIVE) words long (followed up by a subhead at least as long), pulls better than your other headlines in an OFFLINE 17 page sales letter.

And besides, look at a lot of clayton's magalogs. The headline is sometimes one word, and he relies on BIG deck copy and pre heads, and subheads to bribe the prospect into reading, build credibility, etc and advance the sale.

I agree with Fortin's last quote from ogilvy about testing.

It's probably good to start with the "Rules" you are talking about JayKay, but then, start experimenting, play beat the control.... and you might -- while also breaking some hard and fast rules.

that's my two cents.

I think JayKay makes excellent points though, beyond correcting my misquotations

JayKay may be making assertions, but that's because we're in a sea of wrongfully used long headines. A lot of people write long, wordy headlines because:

1) They're lazy
2) They're trying to cover all the bases (too early).

I, like JayKay, feel that long headlines are not only overused (because they tend to be the fallback position many copywriters take when they can't come up, or are too lazy to come up, with a pithier, more attention-grabbing headline), and of course, misused.

Headlines are meant to do one thing and one thing only:

Get them to read.

Period.

JayKay may not say it in exactly that way, but his constant reminder is a good kick in the ass for those (including myself) to remember that there is a difference between good, well thought-out copy that does the job, versus cheap, lazy, long-winded (and not necessarily long) headlines/copy.

I was so moved by this thread that I posted an article about it on my blog:

The Michel Fortin Blog