Hi everyone,

I've brokered a JV between an ezine owner and my client. The publisher has 30,000 or so attorneys that subscribe to his "law technology" newsletter.

The endorsement goes out this friday - and YES, I've been frantically trying to test/track results from PPC and other marketing mediums for about 3 weeks already - with not a whole lot of luck.

I'd appreciate your advice on the following copy, keeping in mind that the target audience is attorneys...

http://www.accept-by-phone.com/attorneys.html

Okay, here's what's being sold:
--------------------------------------

The Product: Specialized Merchant Account that enables small business owners and professionals to accept credit cards by using their cell phone or landline - thereby bypassing the majority of costs associated with accepting credit cards.

The Target: Attorneys, specifically criminal and domestic (family) practitioners.

Price Point: $5.00 a month, 3.95% discount rate, $97.00 one-time fee to set up account.

USP: Super easy to use, only $5.00 a month, no leases, no equipment, no cancellation fees, no contracts, MOBILE.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I was told in an earlier thread here that I should keep the "tone" of the copy fairly non-hyped for attorneys.

So I've tried to basically just display the USP, the benefits and the call to action in a "factual" way, which is different than what I'd use for an info-product.

Also, this headline was the only one that got any traffic with previous text ads and craigslist postings...

http://www.accept-by-phone.com/attorneys.html

Your experienced-based comments, advice and suggestions are appreciated.

Thank you.

-Chris Rempel

I like, except in the head: Despite all the comments on other threads about what cheapskates these high-priced attorneys are, I wonder if the price needs to be in the main headline. Perhaps that could be moved to a subhead, and instead emphasize the mobile part in the head -- that's really your USP, as I understand it. I'm sure the low cost will be a draw, but I doubt that's going to be the main attraction of your service.

Ken Strong

Chris,

is not a benefit!

You don't have to hype to find a benefit.

comes much closer to being a benefit statement. But, it's still not there completely.

You need to dig deeper to discover the USP -- the BIG promise... the WIIFM!

Isn't it...

Your copy focuses heavy on $5/mo as the big deal. I'm not sure that's it.

Also -- it would help if you would post what you're putting in the email to the ezine publisher's list. That way we know how they've been PRE-SOLD when they get to this page.

Okay, I'm new... So this may suck, but...

On the note from the president... Couldn't you turn "I am entirely confident that Accept by Phone will bring your law firm, practice or legal business to a whole new level of convenience for you and your clients...." into
"I'm so confident that Accept by Phone will... blah blah blah, that I'm willing to make you a deal. (Insert offer here.)"

Chris,

This page says that this service is especially for attorneys. But two of the four testimonials are not from attorneys. This undercuts the credibility of the whole argument.

I don't understand the applicability of cell phones to attorneys. Except for criminal attorneys, every other kind of attorney I know of meets clients and sets up a fee agreement in their own office. I would therefore downplay the cell phone possibility for this profession and emphasize the convenience of doing it by phone.

And I did not see a word about the security of this service! If I went to an attorney and saw them submitting my credit card number over an ordinary cell phone I would be very concerned.

Marcia Yudkin

Thanks for the help, JP.

I know the benefits are lacking.

I guess I'm caught between trying to have the service appear "bank-ish" - or having it invoke a response.

My partner especially does not want to appear "salesy".

And I'm all for direct-response, but we've got alot at stake with how these guys even perceive us as well. As I'd mentioned in an earlier post, this JV is really just so that we can have some real numbers to show our potential integration partner, and that would be a multi-million dollar deal...

...but I can guarantee you that a salesletter will be a turn-off to anyone in the legal market who it doesn't apply to - including our ever-watchful potential partner (not the list owner of 30,000 - the one with over 40,000 employees and almost a million legal customers).

And no, this isn't BS. I've got my fingers crossed as we speak...

This current JV is a means to an end, so it's a bit of a catch-22.

My old headline was:

"Who Else Wants to Boost Their Client Volume - and Slash Their 'Receivables' in HALF - by Accepting Every Major Credit Card for a Fraction (Literally) of What it Usually Costs?"

But we didn't make one sale with that one...

Nevertheless I will try to isolate the real USP.

Thanks again, JP. Much appreciated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marcia, we are only targeting defense (criminal) and family attorneys.

Accepting credit cards is actually extremely helpful for attorneys like that to collect retainers, and they usually do this outside the "courthouse" - which makes it perfect for a cell phone user.

(We've actually been acquiring several legal clients entirely by word-of-mouth since we started targeting this market.)

Alot of attorneys have "accounts receivable" issues with their clients - especially for criminal and some domestic cases.

In fact it's very relevent, and we are currently discussing integration strategies with the R&D teams from both Thomson West and Lexis Nexis. Thomson's biz dev team actually sat down and looked at it for an hour or so - they wouldn't do this if the service was a dud.

THAT'S why so much is at stake with this "test" JV...

I will stress the security of the service, but anytime you're dealing with Visa or MasterCard (and the others), the third-party processors and so on have absolutely no room for error.

The merchant industry is very tightly governed.

I'm not sure if the non-attorney testimonials are a good thing or a bad thing. Both attorneys AND the others run a small business that requires mobility.

This "deal" has a lot of strings attached to it, and it has alot to do with "appearance" as well as response - which makes it tough.

Anyway, I will adjust my headline until I strike the right nerve, and I'll stress the security of the service.

Thanks everyone.

-Chris

I'll post that up as soon as it's finished...



-Chris

Chris --

Maybe I'm a bit dense, but why would an attorney worry about getting charged five bucks to process a credit card when they are charging their clients outrageous fees for their services?

It almost as though you are trying to combine two different niche markets into one.

Not trying to stir up trouble here Chris -- just trying to understand -- please "enlighten" me.

Primo,

Good question - no worries.

It's not so much the "cost" that's an issue - although attorneys are surprisingly cheap when it comes to stuff like that...

Anyway, the merchant industry is RENOWNED for forcing people into long-term contracts with cancellation fees, as well as restrictive equipment leases.

Not to mention "minimum volume quotas" and all the rest.

The APPEAL here is that it's $5 and NOTHING ELSE - not so much just the "5 bucks" part...

If that makes sense...

Alot of processors have a "$0/mth" program fee, but they have annual fees, transaction fees, statement fees, mandatory equip. leases and so on.

In other words, that's not a problem for a retail type of outfit, but it would be for a solo professional like a criminal attorney.

With Accept by Phone, they sign up, it's $5/mo. and if they move their office, resign or take time off, then all they do is cancel the account.

No fees, no nothing.

We make money on the residual (flat-rate percentage per sale), which is average, but not a hindrance for non-retail clients.

That's the difference.

-Chris

But what were the "bad" headlines?

And there is a HUGE problem.....( just my opinion, mind you)

is that in a LAWYERS mind there is a big catch.

The head and subhead promise $5 a month with NO catches.

But you lied....... because of the $97 set up fee.

Naturally that 3 minutes of his billable time.....but mentally, its a catch.


So I would put the years fees as $160 for the year or "less than $17 a month and even less after that. " Even if you increase rates the second year it should be less than $17. Lower costs? Unheard of!.

But I think the setup fee is a big "catch".