Since we were talking in another thread about Dateline, FDA/FTC, fraud, how gullible some people are and how sneaky some marketers are, it got me thinking.

Because of technology people are becoming more and more sophisticated. Our jobs as copywriters are becoming increasingly more important if not tougher. But before I expound, I'd like to clarify a few things.

Sure, believability, credibility, trustworthiness, proof, credentialization and so on have always been crucial and fundamental components of copy.

When people say, "How do you write copy for an audience that has become more jaded, cynical, skeptical, cautious, blah blah blah," I kinda laugh because I don't think they are "more." They have always "been."

It's just more of an issue of transparency and availability of information, that has caused a growth in all types of markets and marketers. More and more consumers are becoming jaded, just as much as more and more people who are gullible (in one way or another) are entering the market, and more and more marketers are becoming sneaky, crafty, creative, and insidious.

I think that proof, proof, proof is the order of the day. It always was but now copywriters are starting to get it. (Although we still have a ways to go yet.) And while our jobs will be a challenge to come up with different ways to prove our case, there are some basic things we can do to communicate it, even if subtly.

And that includes the message you communicate as well as the message you imply. "Implication is more powerful than specification," a mentor once told me. And the image you project, the quality of your copy and the packaging of your product (which includes the design of your salesletter or website) imply credibility.

Another thread started on this forum debates "good design" versus "good response." To me, that's somewhat of a non-issue because we are debating the wrong things. Why? Because good design has spoken and will always speak volumes of the quality of the product and service you deliver.

People will have tendency to judge your business by the quality of your appearance. And that has never changed. When people say "don't judge a book by its cover," the fact that such a saying exists means that we do. Regardless of how much we want to change how the world thinks.

It's just human nature, pure and simple.

Here's my thinking.

Clunky, shoddy or cluttered design has a place in copywriting. Or perhaps let's say it "had" a place. Marketers will profess that the "value is in the content," and that "why pay for the packaging?"

In a world stuffed with fancy design, highfalutin' corporatespeak, brand building, costly holier-than-thou packaging, etc, people have become jaded, but for different reasons.

Big name copywriters say, "Fancy design doesn't sell, only good copy does." I agree. But it shouldn't be a substitute for good design, a professional image and a clean message.

True, such things are sometimes used only to be representing a product or service that was later found to be substandard (and therefore leaving people with a bad taste in their mouths). That's why clunky design, at one point, spoke volumes because people were jaded with fancy design work.

But they didn't buy from clunky design because it was clunky. It was because it spoke about something else. It was different. And it implied another form of meta-message.

That's the same as the Dateline scam mentioned in another thread. You can package a fake product, shoot a professional-looking infomercial, fatten it up with hype, and back it up with madeup credentials (in this case, clinical trials). But the product is still fake. And people will soon realize they've been conned.

So when "clunkiness" appeared on the scene (more because of Dan Kennedy than any other marketer, in my estimation), people bought because it was different, and not necessarily because it was clunky. The clunkiness communicated a meta-message based on the awareness level of the market.

What do I mean by "meta-message?" It's the message beyond the message. The implication, in other words. And that meta-message was this:

"If they spent less money and time on the design, then that means they spent more time and attention on the content."

That may have been true, but those days are gone. Well, not entirely, but let's just day their "heydays" are gone. When something is overused and abused, it loses its impact over time. It loses it's uniqueness and "difference."

(Take the case of red headlines. When they were new, nobody was using them. So they attracted attention, caused response rates to shoot up, and forced people to read. Now, they're so overused that every bloody salesletter with a red headline looks like... well... a salesletter. So response rates are slowly going back down. That's why I'm starting to see better results with black, and blue, headlines. Just like before.)

Back to the issue of clunky design.

The UPA (unconscious paralleled assumption, i.e., they unconsciously assume there's a parallel between one part and its whole) is that poor design equals poor quality product, service, customer service, etc. And that has always been the case.

Because it's simply human nature. (Which is why Dateline made such a good case with their fake moisture pill.) People WANT good design, professional quality, a sound image, great packaging, etc. Just as good covers DO sell books. Great packaging does sell products. And great (and great-looking) copy does sell more.

Especially in the long-term.

Otherwise, with bad design, their thinking is, "If they can't take care of their design (their website, their writing, their image, etc), how in the world are they going to take care of ME?"

That's why, especially to consumers, good design communicates CREDIBILITY. And while it may have fallen out of favor for a little while, mostly because of the teachings of some top marketers, it's coming back.

With a vengeance.

Speaking of insidiousness, there's the other end of the spectrum. Just as much as we can manufacture credibility using the power of packaging and marketing, which gave rise to the clunkiness factor, we can also fake the lack thereof, with information and marketing intended to lose credibility, especially of our competitors.

And those days are gone, too.

Look at my recent blog post where a larger company tries to muscle out their smaller competitor by literally calling them names on their blog. A cancer. By doing so, he counterproductively helped generate more interest and business in his smalltime competitor.

Not only that, but people are not taking things lightly, too. Take fore instance the recent USA Today article, describing the case of a woman who recently successfully sued another for 11.3 million dollars for defamation, after being accused of being a "fraud" on -- of all places -- a forum.

It's the first time someone is held accountable for their words on a forum. But it's not the first time someone got sued. Take blogs, for instance. One blogger, who was disgruntled with a company he purchased from, decided to air his dirty laundry on his personal blog.

He was sued by the company, who won $50,000 in reparation against him.

So the issue is all about one thing: credibility.

People are more educated and informed than ever before. It won't stop scammers from lying, cheating and abusing consumers. But at the same time, it won't stop the need to project a more credible, professional image.

However, it will put more onus on the copywriter and business owner to find new and creative ways to communicate that credibility, even if it's indirectly, through "meta-messages."

And yes, it starts with your design, your copy and your image.

As war may seem to rage on between both camps, there's a relunctant middle, in my estimation, that will become more and more prevalent.

The happy medium, between clunky copy and fancy design, is the use of great copy that's personal and not contrived like some of the coporate-like copy from ad agencies, with professional design that's clean, builds trust and credibility, and modest.

My 3 cents.

Another word used to describe "clunky credibility" is authenticity. Eugene Schwartz calls it belief structure.

Godin explains the same thing in a recent post Just saying it doesn't make it true and Red Lobster.

Several years ago the Stanford Captology Lab (Captology = Persuasive Technology Design) released the first web credibility study.

Anybody who writes copy for the web should be studying captology and persuasion design. It's like what Caildini would do if he were a web designer.

Thank you Michel your post in a mine of gold, there is so many thing and pragraphs that I read many time and I enjoyed reading it thank you.

it is inspiring.

Here, here! I was going to ask about the Dan Kennedy "ugly" pieces, but you addressed it nicely.

John

Amen Brotha... You stole the words right out of my mouth.

Dave Miz

Excellent thread Michel!

Something that I've seen and that bothers me is this.

I've done some private critiques (away from this board) for info-products.

I've seen (way too many times) where not only was the design a complete mess, but the wordage, grammar, and the message of the sales copy was poorly done as well.

After doing critiques on info-products I usually feel terrible.

Let me explain.

Many times I realize that by helping someone out with their sales copy, their actual info-product will not even come close to the same caliber as the sales page.

I feel as though the product owner is about to cheat someone out of their money, not because of the content (some of this is great).

It's just that when a prospect makes a purchase they are judging the product on how well the seller put together his or her sales letter (including the way it "looks").

To me "presentation" is a direct reflection of the product you are about to purchase.

Once they get the product, they soon realize that:

1. The seller has used somone else to write (or rewrite) the copy.
2. That the seller didn't put the same effort into the actual product.

No stats on this, but it seems as though this would create not only a firestorm of charge-backs, but an "I'm never going to do business with that seller again" attitude.

In either case the buyer either feels "lied-to" or "cheated".

Am I wrong?

Let me know how some of you feel about this.

Thanks!

In most cases, I don't think so. The web credibility project specifically tested design, and good design = good credibility. The exception? When you are consciously crafting a "down home" look. In other words, doing it the old fashioned way -- by not knowing what you're doing -- is going to hurt sales.

Consequently, having great design means the design of the product. You have to have consistency and coherency -- the one thing people pushing branding got right.

You can not write copy for a silk purse and deliver a sow's ear. You can not sell the sizzle, and deliver a cold ham sandwich.

Thank you, Michel!

Very well said.

Excellent response! Thanks John.

So the right way to do this is to make sure the salespage and the product make a good match... makes a lot of sense.