I wrote this up on my blog - but wanted to bring it here for peer review and debate -

Anyway, I'd love to get your thoughts on this.

"Copwriters: Early Brilliance – Later Consistency?

It strikes me odd that two of our greatest copywriters are best known for some of their earliest work.

John Caples best known ad “They Laughed When I Sat Down At the Piano But When I Started to Play!” was written very early in his career.

Ed McLean wrote the famous, “If the list upon which I found your name is any indication, this is not the first - nor will it be the last - subscription letter you receive. Quite frankly, your education and income set you apart from the general population and make you a highly rated prospect for everything from magazines to mutual funds.”

In both cases, they broke with traditional approaches of the time.
Is it the case that as a copywriter matures, he plays the odds and produces more consistency but less brilliance?

Early on I did a direct mail piece with the headline “Superstars bribe security officers” There was no benefit in it, only news and curiosity aimed at that particular list. It pulled crazy good - $349,000 in sales in a week in pre-internet days.

But what scares me is I probably wouldn’t have created that headline now, 16 years later. I know too much. I know you’re supposed to have self interest and a promise in the headline in addition to news and curiosity.

In hindsight, I believe it tapped into what Clayton Makepeace calls the “Dominant Emotion”.

But the point remains… In theory Caples later work should have been better known and produced better results more consistently as his understanding of direct response principles deepened.

So, you tell me, are new copy writers less likely to consistently produce winners but more likely to create breakthroughs?

Or, is it the luck of the draw? Some brilliant copywriters produce their best work when they are older - but remain anonymous while some young upstart pens a headline that creates crazy results and gains national prominence even though his career wins never match that of the old pro?"

In re-looking at this I think of Gary Halbert's early work as his most famous. The coat of arms letter, the No illegal sexual stimulant letter.

Is this a coincidence?

"Copwriters" - I heard they do it by the book.

LOL Mike.

Another reason I use real proof readers for client work laid right out there for everyone to see.

Sigh.

I think this aligns with many other fields. The one that sprang to mind immediately was physics. Einstein published his general and special theories while in his twenties and didn't really make any significant contributions to physics after that. In fact, he never even really came to terms with quantum physics.

As for copywriting in particular, it probably stems from young guns being willing to take a risk or simply not knowing any better and doing something different.

Once it paid off, others saturate the market with swipes and your brilliance is now matched against experts that are seeing further by standing on your shoulders, if Newton will pardon the swipe.

With the success is the added responsibility and expectation to do well every time and that in itself will make you more conservative in your copy.

The other side of the equation is what I wonder about. How many young guns tried unconventional stuff, got their heads handed to them, and never tried again?

I immediately thought of music, at least rock music. I can think of many of the most famous and popular musicians of the last few decades -- Lennon, McCartney, Kurt Cobain, and many others -- who flashed with brilliance in their 20s, and then quickly burned out (in some cases literally).

I think it's got something to do with keeping "beginner's mind," in the Zen sense. Like Trebor said, once you "know how to do it," your perceptions become rigid and you're stuck in your ways.

It would be interesting to examine people in these different fields who were able to avoid becoming rigid (back to the physics model, Richard Feynman comes to mind) and try to model them.