Michel,

I really don't know what point you are making at all. I cannot fathom it.

It seems to me that you dislike or are averse to any kind of controversy. Well, that's what discussion forums are all about honey! That's what people are like! Do you want us to be other than human beings?

Alan puts his point. I counterpoint it. He gets excitable. I get excitable. He tries to make it look as though I'm more excitable than he is. I counterpoint that. He wants to "win" because he's a Mancunian man.

GLB comes in, and proffers his points of view. He's also a proud, egotistical man. I disagree with his stance also - let's see what the outcome of that is.

But whether you like it or not, controversy is good because it causes people to rethink their position. They may rethink the position and come back with more conviction, or they may rethink their position and feel that a change is needed. Either way, they have moved forward.

The absence of debate leads to staleness and sameness. If you'd rather not hear new ideas, then fine - don't court new participants. But if you do want new ideas, then don't get upset when you get them.

It's all worryingly similar to a Big Brother state. It's not so much a case of the FBI or the CIA or the Federal Govt told me to say or do this, as it is a societal norm in North America to quash all dissenting views, on any subject. It's become a bad habit.

Happily, I don't live in that paradigm and I feel free to express my views and ideas. If they're not welcome here, then that is fine also - I shall simply take them elsewhere. Because I actually think my points of view and ideas are valuable.

And Michel, I wasn't (as I said) commenting on the copy, I was commenting on the look of your site - which I think is awful. Would you have me say different? You asked for feedback, and I gave it. The site looks awful and my eyes could not cope with reading your copy. Maybe I am in some weird minority of people who find that sort of thing unappealing, in which case, feel free to ignore my comments. Otherwise, why not take note and change the look?

I just love the human mind. Its a wonderful thing. I love people. We are all so different. I love reactions and opinions they make for conversation, debate and hot topics. Dont you just love life? Dont you just love copywriting.

Still... its a 3 T thing. Test. Test and dont forget ... Test.

I love debate and controversy, and I reiterate my earlier point that debate is good since it shows that we have passion for our craft. I was pointing the finger at everyone and at no one in my previous post.

However, sometimes these debates heat up to a degree to which I feel I must "put the breaks on." Although we're not there yet, some posts are on the edge of becoming personal attacks on one and other, which I will NEVER tolerate.

If anyone wants to make a negative comment, make an intelligent one. Tell me why you think it's negative, and what do you think is better. I truly believe we learn and grow from the positive more than we do otherwise.

Sure, I want this forum to be controversial. And it is. But I don't want this forum to become a free-for-all, which caused the demise of other great forums. And I certainly don't want people to abstain from posting lest they be chastised for their opinions.

My point is this: Let's be controversial. But let's be constructively controversial.

Hi, because of the holidays and working on some rush projects, I didn't get to see the letters until now.
I thought both were excellent. I loved the headline for the Stephen Pierce 3 Bears one, because it made me think, "If a disabled guy with a brain tumor, barely able to work a few hours a day can make a good living...good gosh, I can, too!"
And I'm sure that's how the folks that read this will react. It's powerful, and the story draws the reader in. I've found that a story will suck even advertising-hardened moi in much more often than simple facts...I want to know "What happened to him? Did he live? Is he still making lots of money? How?"
I'm trying intensely not to be jealous of your gift
Sheri

Dear Michel,

I find the design of the websites you produced most unappealing. You are not using colour theory to your advantage - the sites come across as cold, foreboding and unfeeling.

Apart from this rather obvious psychological dis-appeal, they are a tad old school. I'm sure it's possible to convey the message in as convincing a way without sticking to the old rules. You never know, this might give the site added credibility.

By the way, content and article rich websites score higher in search engine rankings so I'm told. That might be helpful to know.

If you try a radical new approach, do let us know the results of your tests.

Hopefully the politeness police won't get me just yet

Geoff Bryan made a reference to "the one-legged golfer" headline, written by John Carlton. I just ran across it and thought someone might enjoy seeing it.

Amazing Secret Discovered By One-Legged Golfer Adds 50 Yards To Your Drives, Eliminates Hooks And Slices... And Can Slash Up To 10 Strokes From Your Game Almost Overnight!




Peter Stone

Lovely forum and interesting debate!

I agree with Michel that the attack and counter-attack had started getting personal and would have moved to a flaming war soon.

Jane, I encourage you to hang on. Don't give up yet! There are many lurkers here who are as conservative as you are and hesitate to adopt the bold, shake-them-from-the-slumber, direct response attitude that Mike has. The problem is, while you can tell that you don't like this copy, you can't offer an alternative.

I understand that you have a problem with the hyperbole in the copy. But you also proposed that the same copy be at least put in a better looking site. Can you show us some sample of this? I think Michel should have no problem in adopting that if you can impress him. Use the color-advantage may be.

You talked about the soft approach of some article-filled and content-filled sites. This type of sites want to develop loyal subscribers and repeat vistors. The sites that Mike is talking about, are direct-response sales sites where you take it or leave it. Sell-then-tell as compared to tell-then-sell

The bold hold-them-by-the-jugular sites are generating good sales for many and that is the reason they are so popular. I can appreciate your aversion to this attitude but it works. Even my site is converting much better after I introduced these concepts.

Yes, these sites have a tough time ranking high on the search engines and that is the reason, Stephen and others don't bother about search engines and use joint ventures and other promotion techniques to get visitors.

Arun,

The style (the plain "letter-like" looking template) is a test we're conducting right now. And it seems to pull more. As you know, John Reese and Stephen Pierce have tested this extesnively -- such as removing the header completely, which increased sales by 35 to 50% -- and the plain background (making the web page look like a direct mail piece). Here are some others from very well known copywriters (like Bob Bly, Bill Bonner and Michael Masterson):

http://www.thewriterslife.com/wb/
http://www.thewriterslife.com/dm/pop4/
http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/ACL/WACLD812/
http://www.underachievermethod.com/
http://www.selling-yourself.com/success/

This is the client's choice. Not mine. (Stephen Pierce is a fanatical tester, and I'm happy to write copy for him because I learn in the process.) The 3 Bears angle is a National Enquire-ish approach. You know, the kind with shock value and a "hook" (a la John Cartlon).

Hi Arun,

What you say makes a lot of sense - it has helped crystallise my understanding.

I think we've finally hit the nail on the head in that this "grab them by the jugular" style of copy and design is to grab people the first time they stop by. I didn't understand what Alan meant about not bothering with traffic building the other day, but it makes more sense in light of what you have said.

By the way, I am not an advocate of short, bullet-point copy either, unless it's for something like technical sales to technical people. Most products or services do require some explanation and leading the prospect by the hand to the desired action. I'm looking for and trying to craft an approach that will be acceptable to my clients and their clients. This may well end up being longish copy, but more toned down and in a better design environment. On this point, what I have just said is the alternative I suggest for myself, and I have actually pointed out examples of this.

On the whole, though, most websites fall into the categories of limited information, "me-too" copy and no compelling reason to get in touch, OR no resource pages, just a scream in your face sales letter. The first approach doesn't work too well, and the second approach is not congruous for companies trying to build trust and credibility, possibly leading to long term business relationships with their audience.

I feel better for having achieved this level of clarity, and I hope this makes my position more clear.

Jane -

The problem (as I understand it -- no direct experience with this) is that if you aim to please your client and their clients with appearance/tone, you may end up with something that looks great but doesn't convert traffic.

If my target market buys more widgets with an approach I hate (assuming it's still ethical), isnt it in my best interest to grit my teeth and bear it -- all the way to the bank?

I think you can build a long-term relationship with a "scream in your face" sales letter. After all, if your product solved their problem and you have a good follow-up after the sale, won't they be happy customers no matter what the web site looks like? (That's not a vote for ugliness, though.)

Thanks for the debate -- you guys have entertained me *and* educated me. =

Jay Jennings
jayATjayjenningsD0Tcom