Month: December 2005

This ad stinks…and I can prove it!

A recent email from Doug Stine, a copywriting colleague in Albuquerque:

“My question is this: The time tested techniques of
direct mail copywriting seem so fraudulent to me, yet
“research” says that they work. What’s the scoop?

“I recently received a direct mail piece ostensibly
from Tommy Franks. The teaser on the 9×12 envelope
was “check enclosed.” I opened the envelope. It was
a check for $1 and a solicitation to send money to the
cause. I felt deceived.

“It was a four-page letter. I know that research
(although I can’t find any of this research) shows
that people respond more to longer copy. Yet the last
thing I wanted to read was a letter “from the desk of
Tommy Franks” which I KNEW was not written by Tommy
Franks but a copywriter.

“The result? I tossed it in the trash.

“So my big question is this: why are these crap
mailers considered time-tested techniques? Am I
really in that much of the minority that I see through
these gimmicks? Are there enough people that respond
to these frauds that make them financially worthwhile?

“Is there really anyone in the U.S. who would say. “Oh,
WOW, a letter from the desk of Tommy Franks. I think
I’ll read the entire letter and send $400 to the
cause.” Are people that stupid?”

MY RESPONSE:

“I’d love to confirm that the “time tested techniques” really are fraudulent… But I can’t. One of the things about direct mail copywriting that is both a curse and a blessing is its measurability.

“We don’t get to say something is brilliant just because we think, as writers, it’s creative when the client who pays for it has the numbers to prove nobody is moved to respond. And the flip side is that we can’t say something is crap from a response standpoint if the numbers prove it works. (Though we can certainly say it is crap from a perspective of personal taste. But direct mail is expensive, and nobody’s going to pay us for creating a creative masterpiece that won’t get response. At least they won’t pay us twice.)

“I haven’t seen the Tommy Franks piece you describe but the format suggests something that has a lot of money behind it, so if you’re seeing it that probably means it has gone through repeated testing and trial by fire. And I can tell you the “real check” is indeed a proven and effective device even though it may seem phony to you. The Pavlovian response is to start salivating at the prospeet of free money, followed by a flood of tears when you realize someone else needs the money much more. (Which reminds me of one of my favorite teasers, done by a writer at Russ Reid: “Christmas gift enclosed. But not for you.”)”

Comments? Tommy Frank, if you’re reading, what do YOU think?

Electronic Etiquette

A good friend and colleague died this past winter. I quickly learned about a tribute website, and posted a message which expressed my feelings in the passion of the moment. Having achieved some satisfactory personal closure I never got around to contacting his widow, who is also a good friend and colleague.

That faux pas clearly deserves a bitch-slap from Miss Manners and I needed to atone for it. Thus, when the widow wrote a broadcast email with the news that she was moving to a small town where she would be mainly taking care of her aging parents, I responded with some personal news about my family and expressed a wish to keep in touch. I never heard back.

Some possibilities are: a/the lady’s mad at me, as well she should be. But what if b/in her new life she rarely checks email; or, c/my message got caught in her spam filter. How can I know and what do I do about it, if anything? Such are the new challenges of communication in the electronic age, as we attempt to communicate through media that are still being defined.

In my copywriting classes, I always do an informal survey of email habits. Some findings:

1. Email has gotten much more formal over the past decade as it’s become a primary mode of correspondence. Misspellings, for example, are no longer OK. (Save them for IM.)

2. The majority of female senders say they start their message with a salutation (Dear so-and-so) even though it’s superfluous. Most male senders don’t use a salutation.

3. Most people “sign” their emails with their personal name, even though it’s unnecessary because you can be identified both by the “from” line and from the boilerplate signature if you use one. A best practice seems to be to sign off with your first name just above the standard signature, as a way to personalize the email.

4. There’s a trend toward composing email in HTML even though there’s no need for it because no graphics are involved. I like words to stand on their own, so this one really makes me grind my teeth.