I think one of the greatest things about these success oriented forums, is that it attracts some outrageously good humor!

I find myself laughing out loud often here. If nothing else, some fine medicine for the spirits!

It is good to laugh, and I thank you all for that - not to mention the fine discussions...

Phil, I agree with you regarding the authentic approach. Sheri had mentioned the same sort of thing in another thread - write as if your potential client is sitting in front of you (you and I already talked about this in another thread)... remember my Brandy technique...

Now some salesmen can pull a real poker face, and try to slime a sale out of ya, and their arena is within 50 centimeters from your face! Just go to Napoli - they are amongst the best in the world. But I am digressing...

For me, it helps to visualize a person in front of me, as if talking to them, as this helps me to be aware of my own center, thus be as authentic as possible.

I know I have tried to force a style on myself in the past that wasn't natural to who I am, and I believe that this does not help.

So, even though I often produce arguments that contradict what you might be saying, I am also carefully listening, as this is a subject that is indeed slippery, with as many opinions as there are people. There are the Super Millions of Dollars Pros that could sell a mud fence in the Florida Everglades, and the born non-sellers that couldn't give away a Pokemon to a toyless child.

I think it is very wise (if we ever hope to be able to sell) to carefully listen to the Super Pros - we wouldn't be here on this rather exclusive 222 member forum, if we weren't seriously interested in improving our sales capacities.

In the short time that I have been here, I feel like some lights have gone off, and I am keen to test some of my new creations shortly.

I think you are completely right about our need to find our own unique voice - perhaps it will sell, perhaps not.

I think it is kind of like being a good cook. I cooked professionally for 3 years, and people loved my cooking. I found that my preferences of what tasted good would then be reflected by all those that ate my dishes - in other words, if I liked it myself, then it would be a hit.

I am striving to arrive to that point in my own copy, because then everything becomes so much easier... no more second guessing, or worrying - I just know it's good.

Time and experience will tell...

Tim

Hi, I just wanted to let people know: I'm not against direct response marketing per se. I've done my own share of it for others.
And I admire many of the writers on this board, who do it well. I was complaining about those who don't do it well, or are blatently obvious, or who read one book on copywriting, then go out and overuse certain techniques without understanding the underlying concepts.
Using imagery and persuasion aren't bad in themselves, if appropriate to the product and if done well.
For instance there is one writer whose copy I love: Carmen Maranon. She comes across as genuine and real, in spite of the fact that she does use "marketing techniques" in her writing.
Maria Veloso is another I admire. She does use these techniques, but they are used with a competent touch.
I guess I've seen too many sites lately written by those with less than a competent hand (no one visiting these forums, by the way!) and so was venting a bit about those sites.
Best wishes,
Sheri

Hi Mike,

Yes, I publically admitted the um, irony, of my situation
just 15 minutes before you rightly called me on it. Phew,
that was a close one! Should you wish to withdraw your
invitation that I post here, I'll quietly withdraw, no
problem. Really, no problem. Maybe it's time to wrap this
one up, eh?

So Mike, what were you feeling when you read my overly
generous, and arguably hypocritical, attempts at persuasion
and wrote your post quoted above? Are you endeared to me
now? Ready to buy whatever I'm selling? Have I warmed
you up for a long term business relationship?

Might I have made a better impression on you if I had said
lots less, skipped all the opinion, and stuck to useful facts?
Would that have been a more effective way to sell you on me?

Could I have sold you better by not trying to sell you?

My amateur impression is that copywriting is confined within
a corral defined by the tactics of persuasion.

What really interests me here is not so much persuading as
_provoking_ all us horses with a loud noise so we'll hop the
paradigm fence together, just to explore what, if anything,
might be on the other side. I don't know what's on the
other side any better than anyone else.

I do know that I'm getting pretty bored caged up within the
corral. Same stuff over and over, on site after site after
site. Ever get that feeling you really don't care whether
your Net connection is working or not?

OK Mike's right, I've made my case. If anybody wants to
hop the fence, go for it, I'll be right behind you!

Phil

Phil,

Just a refresher...

The original issue was not that long or hypey copy were scams. It was the fact that they appeared to be scams. If that kind of style turns off some people, or if that kind of style turns off some writers, so be it. (National Enquirer won't stop publishing simply because some peope thinks it's crass or obnoxious.)

Absolutely. True on both counts. It's win-win. And that's the key I think some people fail to understand. If I manipulate you to do my bidding AND it's NOT in your best interest (and/or negatively impacts you, or your clients), then that, to me, is manipulation.

Manipulation is indeed a form of persuasion (or more specifically, manipulation uses persuasion). But persuasion is not manipulation in itself. People still manipulate other people without "persuading" them. And I also submit that many 'soft-sell' copy can be just as manipulative.

And sometimes be even worse.

Do I think some of my stuff is crass, obnoxious, pushy, aggressive, manipulative, etc? Absolutely. Do I feel comfortable using this style? Absolutely. But will I ever willingly write copy, using this style or not, for a known scam artist, a true manipulator, a person who defrauds her/his clients? Nope. Not my style. (Ask me how many spammers I've turned down in recent months for copy work. Plenty, trust me.)

That, at least to me, is the difference.

I would paraphrase your quote as, "is bad copywriting finding ever more clever ways to manuever a prospect in to doing something they don't want -- and will never want -- to do?" Absolutely. That's manipulation.

Here's my angle. The first responsibility of a sales copywriter for hire is to deliver sales to the client and not to be the voice of instruction.

To advance a social agenda under the circumstances of fulfilling a contract is inappropriate because it is self-indulgent at the client's expense.

Society votes with their dollars. You may remember something I said in another post about not asking your market for information about who they are and what they want because they will B.S. themselves first and then you. Notice what they do instead of what they say.

Observe, if you will that, generally speaking, the more literary your writing the less you are compensated.

'Twas ever thus.


Peter Stone

Thanks for your reply Mike,

Right, I gotcha. Regrettably, we're all (me included!)
having some difficulty keeping morality out of the thread,
even though it's really not relevant. Using or avoiding
hypey copy isn't a moral problem or a "social issue" it's a
question of whether I want charged, negative, irrelevant
issues like this swimming around in my prospects head while
I'm trying to discuss my product.

If a web copywriter claims to know what is in a total
strangers best interest, an obvious impossibility, aren't
they introducing a credibility issue in their copy? Again,
not a moral issue, a credibility issue. Once I say
something you know isn't true don't I start swimming
upstream at that point?

And because you sometimes speak in that voice you find
yourself feeling the need to explain to us that you yourself
do not partner with scammers. I believe you but the
possibility would likely have never entered my mind if crass
copy etc wasn't busy telling me how comfortable the writer
is with manipulating me the reader.

All of this said, again I find myself back at authentic
writing. No matter who we are, some will like it, some
won't. No matter who we are, there will be advantages and
disadvantages. I suppose the answer is that each of us has
to find a voice we can throw our full energies in to,
whatever voice that may be.

Great thread guys, thanks again!

Phil

Everyone is manipulative. (Please don't give me the "so if everyone does it, that doesn't make it right," routine).

Your (general) parents are manipulative. Your boss is manipulative. Your friends are manipulative. Your neighbors are manipulative. You are manipulative.

I do find it objectionable to see guests in someone's forum throwing unfounded guilting and shaming plaintives at the wall. (Now, gee whiz, why would Michel quickly disassociate himself from spammers after days of this crap?)

I am amused when amateurs start telling top writers how things should be done. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Michel Fortin, Alan Forest Smith and a few others are the top writers of sales copy on the Web.

The discussion was at times interesting and that scores marginal points against the difficulty I had accessing anything of value.

The conditions under which this discussion occured, the insults, are reprehensible. You found a bit more of your voice and everyone else paid a belabored price.

On a related note:

Nick Usborne is a good writer, but not a sales copy writer. With regard to sales copy, his statements have been inaccurate the likes of which border on disinformation. He was hypocritical.

He made a strategic error in slamming and slagging those of us who write sales copy. He would have been better off sticking with his original message about improving the quality of writing on the Web. The negative slant was ingenuous as it takes him out of a beneficent position.

I don't necessarily agree with improving the quality of writing on the Web because of the politics involved and the exclusive nature of the exercise. As much as I would enjoy reading great writing, the idea doesn't take into consideration those who don't write well. This Internet is everyone's community. We are a part of it. That perspective, in and of itself will improve the Internet. We are part of something bigger.

That said, Nick has a good, if not obvious point. He needs to crystalize his message to really carry it home. At this stage, his message has the impact of me saying literacy is a problem in our (US) public school system. (Aggregators will help us choose the portion of the Web we want to enjoy).

There isn't a 'one style against another style' arguement that is valid. I can't help, but notice the irony of "quality" writers, writing thousands upon thousands of words over the past couple of weeks, presenting (B.S.) their emotions as factual claims. "People don't take the time to read those long letters", "...Don't go below the first fold", and my favorite "PEOPLE DON'T BUY FROM THAT JUNK". Baloney. Now who's selling "snake oil?"

It's not what they said that ticks me off. It's the arrogance with which they express their stupidity (lacking mental alertness).

I actually contained myself when I addressed the gentleman yelling "snake oil". He's a book seller and when I clicked over to his home page, the first book featured there was: "Play Piano in a Flash... without lessons". Somehow I think of the measure of time referred to as a "Flash" to be a wee bit shorter than, oh, I dunno, a second. Snake oil? Snake oil? (Mark your calenders, because on that occasion I showed social grace, damn it). So much for integrity (his).

It's possible that I'm mistaken, but I don't recall any facts being presented this entire time. The "quality" writers were willing to make potentially damaging statements without any basis in fact? Is that good writing or what? Integrity? Social improvement? Intelligent? No, it's gossip.

I told Michel we ought to all lighten up by thinking of this whole deal as one big (gossipy) Tupperware party.

Burp your containers, now.


Peter Stone

Peter,

Yes! We're getting somewhere now. The emotions you have
expressed in regards to my posts are entirely understandable
(really) and completely relevant to our discussion of how
some folks experience some direct response copy.

So, I find myself in the same predictament as many a direct
response copy writer. I've successfully engaged some of my
"prospects", and by a lack of skill needlessly alienated
others.

Not a moral issue, a lost opportunity.

What went wrong?

Well, for starters, perhaps the overuse of bold declarative
proclamations in my posts created a credibility gap with
Peter as he realized I can't possibly "know" a lot of the
things I was stating so confidently in my pitch.

Peter is an intelligent fellow, he has working BS detectors,
and I've triggered them with my pose of certainty.

To make matters worse...

I've got this little ego trip going where I like to think of
myself as the oh so clever "thought provoker" who will
sneakily provoke your emotions with bold statements until I
manipulate you in to joining threads that interest me.

Too clever by half for Peter.

Peter's been emotionally manipulated enough in his life
already, and he's not buying this service from me, thank you
very much.

Time to ask for the order??

What now?

Well, I could snort that whatever the problem here is it's
Peter's problem and I could proudly watch him walk out the
door to prove my independance or something.

OR:

Maybe I could improve my writing somehow so that I am loyal
to myself and my core mission, yet expand my audience to
include those who are currently running from my presentation.

Maybe I could improve my connection with Peter if I
sincerely felt, and frankly expressed, that I don't really
know, can't really know, what he should feel, think, write,
do, buy etc?

Maybe everything I'm selling here is an OK product, but has
nothing whatsoever to do with who Peter is.

Given that this possiblity is a reality we all are aware
of, maybe I should be the one to first mention it?

Maybe instead of trying to cleverly invent some kind of
sophisticated, formulistic sales funnel that I suck Peter
in to it would be more effective postmanship to leave the
management of Peter's emotions to him, and focus my energies
on improving the content of my messages?

Maybe more info, less pitch? Is that what he's
saying in his post?

Maybe we can all learn something from Peter's honest
reaction to my over reaching statements and emotional
manipulation games.

What I've learned is that if I want access to Peter's credit
card I need another way to get there.

Phil

You said...

NEVER try to be clever with clients or prospects. Once they see through it ... your history.

People NEVER buy products, they buy the answer to a problem, solutions sell.

Peter,

I must take issue with your post as it comes across as somewhat disparaging.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not consider myself to be a guest here. Membership of this forum was sold to me as part of a package including Michel's monthly critique ezine. As I have paid for it, I feel entitled to post my opinions here, whether they irritate or not, whether they are founded or not.

According to? What facts do you have to support this assertion?

The greatest teachers are the ones who understand that they learn far more than their students ever do. No one is beyond learning something new, and everyone can take whatever is said for checking, letting go of that which doesn't resonate, and learning from that which does. The biggest mistake as a "guru" is to know that you are a guru and stop learning. If what us "amateurs" say is crap, then the seasoned professional need not be phased, and if what we say sparks some new thought process, then graciously thank us for increasing your learning.

Why do YOU have to gain value from this discussion? I don't recall it being aimed at you. If it's not for you or about you and you don't find it entertaining, illuminating or helpful, then why not walk on by? Or is it because you sense some affront going on? Us "amateurs" contradicting your worldview? All I can say to that, should it be true, is that it is a mark of maturity to know when to let go, and let the so called "amateurs" just get on with it. As they say in Scotland "Dae nae fass yersel".

Insults? What insults? What does it mean "belaboured price"?

Peter, if you want to live in a world where there's only one viewpoint, then I humbly suggest that you make your world very small. Otherwise, I think you will have to accept that when traversing the internet you will, with certainty, come across views that are polar to yours, and that you don't like. How much you suffer as a result is mainly down to your own reaction.

If Michel created this forum as a mutual appreciation society, then I'll have my money back, thanks. Otherwise, I think we would all do well to remember that EVERYONE'S view is valid, regardless of their level of experience, arrogance or stupidity.

On the subject of arrogance, I find a certain amount of "over-confidence" is necessary when you first start in business. It's necessary to be confident in stating your case whether your case has so many holes that it's like a leaky bucket when baling out a ship, or not. As a very good friend of mine often says to me "bull**** baffles brains".

In other words, we (I) must be confident of our abilities regardless of our lack of knowledge or experience, because it's actually risk-taking and guts that win the day, not professional knowledge or experience. If I had waited to get the experience through traditional employment before embarking upon the career that I wanted to engage in, I would still be here in 100 years' time waiting to feel confident enough to take the plunge. Instead, I took the risk and continuously take the risk everyday of being rejected, being called as a fraud etc.

Am I arrogant? Yes!! Absolutely. Because I'm arrogant enough to say "if he can do it, so can I, and I won't let my lack of knowledge or experience stand in the way". I suspect that all highly successful people have had to jump such a chasm at some point.

Personally, I have found Phil's arguments and point of view immensely valuable. He has challenged me to think about my style of copy, and has added a level of reality to an issue that I had been debating, circular fashion, in my own head.

Long live debate and controversy and freedom of expression. It's free, it's entertaining, and we will all learn from it.