Hi Michel,
This is a really interesting one. Mainly because of who it should be targeted at and what the "hook" should be.
Would I be right in thinking that this might be a product that could help us copywriters? If so, the current appeal didn't work for me. They specifically say in the video clip that it would help entrepreneurs and small business people, but that didn't come across to me in the top part of the copy.
Initially, the focus came across to me as being on middle-managers or general employees who want to get on. I tried to put myself into that position from my days in the corporate world, and I just couldn't buy into the "better vocabulary" idea. My vocabulary is better than average, and I saw people with fairly poor english get promoted ahead of me. In my mind, there were other factors at play (creeping to the boss, being in the right place at the right time, being the face that fits etc.)
Also, I feel there needs to be a distinction made between vocabulary and communication skills. My boyfriend has an excellent vocab, but his communication skills are woeful. I would say that a good vocab is a sub-set of superior communication, but superior vocab does not necessarily lead to superior communication.
Also, in my mind, there are other factors which lead to people garnering respect and being put into leadership roles. There are such things as "prestance", presence, authority, confidence etc. Again, good communication skills are a sub-set of the overall package.
So for me, the argument that a superior vocabulary leads directly to a promotion or success doesn't work. As I am probably in the target market for this product, this might be something to consider.
I would still use the studies re: vocab, but maybe put them further down, but I don't think better vocab should be the central theme. I think there was also a contradiction where you say "and even if you think you have an above-average vocabulary (and really, is that saying all that much?)".
The way it's written at the moment it seems that you are implying that people must be losers if they're not winners, and that they must be a loser if they don't have powerful communication skills. Is there a danger of offending the audience by implying that they are losers?
But probably more important than any of that, is who are your best prospects for this product?
- people in hum-drum jobs?
- college students?
- emerging entrepreneurs and small business people?
- senior corporate executives?
- middle-management?
- immigrants who want to improve their english?
If we take Peter's rule of "I don't want to speak to the person embarking on their 1st diet, I want to talk to the person on their 34th or 35th diet ..." then would it make sense to target it at people who are already moderately successful and ditch the stuff about winners and losers (cos who wants to consider themselves a loser?). People who already recognise that spending money on learning and education will drive them forward to the next milestone in their success? The ever greens? Will the robots in a cubicle in the accounts department really recognise and seize the opportunity before them?
(And I didn't really get the reference to homogeneity in the workplace - it sounds like the 50s typing pool or a bit Orwellian).
The video did it for me. I've never heard of Michelle Blood - but she's great - so enthusiastic, and Joanna and Greg came across as very sincere people with a good product. I think all of the copy is in there
I would suggest doing several different versions of the copy to appeal to each of the target markets. For example, if you were to write some copy for small business people then I'd like to hear about how I can write reports more quickly, get my ideas communicated, be successful in persuading the bank to loan me money, be successful in persuading customers to buy from me, command respect at networking meetings, write powerful reports and talks that help my marketing etc. Could this product help me do those things?
Would entrepreneurs be an easier sell than workers struggling to get a promotion?
And then college kids would need a different appeal altogether.
Am I off-track or does that help?
Jane