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?