If you’ve been following this series you are now at the point where you have a good idea of the buyer’s interests and concerns. It’s time to show how your product and service matches those interests and solves those problems because it always does, right?

A tyro copywriter will do this with features: throwing out a razzle-dazzle of technical information and forgetting to tie it back to the reasons people buy. (Remember, prospects may evaluate a product logically but their ultimate buying decision will always be emotional.) An experienced copywriter will always translate those features into benefits… how a technical characteristic answers one of the many cravings we talked about last time.

Even better is something called “FABS” which I was trained in when working for a home entertainment chain way back when. This is features, ADVANTAGES and benefits—describe why it does, explain why this is an advance or a superior solution compared to other products that claim to do the same thing, then drive home the benefit. It’s especially useful in selling high-tech products.

(In a live selling situation, a good salesperson will pause after presenting each FAB to gauge the prospect’s interest level, then adjust the presentation of the next FAB accordingly. You don’t have the benefit of the face-to-face contact as a copywriter, which is why it’s extra important to do your research or have a good creative brief.)

In my copywriting class (which is usually techie-heavy) I do an exercise where we pass a #2 yellow pencil around the room and each student has to present a feature, advantage and benefit of the pencil. This gets very interesting when it’s a large class and all the obvious FABS are claimed early.

For example:

FEATURE: the pencil is bright yellow.
ADVANTAGE: I can easily find it compared to other writing instruments.
BENEFIT: I enjoy peace of mind because I’m never without a way to express my thoughts.

FEATURE: #2 pencils are the standard used for computer graded tests.
ADVANTAGE: I know I have the ideal technology to complete the assignment.
BENEFIT: I won’t have to worry about getting marked down because my answers can’t be read by the computer.

And here’s one that came out late in the exercise in a large class:

FEATURE: #2 pencils can be sharpened to a very sharp point.
ADVANTAGE: That point sticks easily in the acoustic tiles when I throw it up at the ceiling.
BENEFIT: I have a way to amuse myself when the class gets boring.

Next time: the five buying decisions… and why buyers always make them in the same order.

Professional salespeople never forget they are selling to a human being, because that person is right in front of them. Copywriters, though, can become confused. They satisfy the requirement of filling a technical need, and forget there is a person signing the purchase order or keying in the credit card number. Unless personal emotional gratification is delivered, the sale may fall through because your solution is not perceived as relevant or important.

Why do buyers buy? Bob Stone, in his classic Successful Direct Marketing Methods, details the two categories of human wants: The desire to gain, and the desire to avoid loss.

Robert Collier, the “Giant of the Mails” who was at his peak in the 1930s, lists  six prime motives of human action:

1. Love
2. Gain
3. Duty
4. Pride
5. Self-indulgence
6. Self-preservation

And here are Roy Chitwood’s six buying motives:

1. Desire for gain (usually financial)
2. Fear of loss (again, usually financial)
3. Comfort and convenience
4. Security and protection
5. Pride of ownership
6. Satisfaction of emotion

Note that every one of these is EMOTIONAL…people buy emotionally, not logically. This is true even when selling business products to people in a business setting, because people are still people.

Next time: features, advantages and benefits.

Business is getting better, but I still make an extra effort to seek out potential projects I think would be fun or challenging. The creative director at one such client contacted me last week and said that frankly, their management was used to seeing potential creative resources do products on spec and I’d probably have to do the same if I wanted to get an assignment.

I sent a response in which I said, politely I think, that

There are two concerns I have on a philosophical basis about the whole idea of spec:

–for the writer, if you have other, paying clients waiting you are inevitably going to spend less time on the spec than a “real” assignment.

–for the client, there is the temptation to value the work on the basis of, it’s worth what you pay for it. They have no skin in the game, so they’ll evaluate the spec result less seriously than something they’ve paid good money for.

I didn’t hear back and not sure I will. This isn’t a stretch, by the way. It’s a category where I have done a lot of work for a competitor in the past and that work is easily accessible if they want to see “what I can do” in selling their product.

It’s my loss, but also theirs I think. If you demand spec work then you lose access to all the writers and designers who are too established or busy to be able to consider it.

And here’s something else. A good writer, especially a direct response writer, is going to go through a self-editing process (often unconscious). They will go through a series of drafts they never show the client because though they may sound sweet, they don’t have the oomph, benefit statements and sharpness required to sell effectively. This is something you don’t get from junior writers who may be great wordsmiths but not experienced salespeople. And if the client is used to choosing their talent pool from spec submissions, they may never know what they’re missing.

Along these lines, here’s a nice piece from a down-under designer on “Why Logo Design Does Not Cost $5”. Copywriting neither!

Mike Sciosa’s decision to take out John Lackey in Inning 7 of tonight’s Angels-Yankees playoff game has to rank among the all time worst decisions. But close behind it is the new In-Synch tagline from sponsor Travelers Insurance. That’s right, not “in sync” but “in synch” even though if you do a Google search for “Travelers in synch” they’ll correct it to “did you mean Travelers in sync”?

I’ve done advertising for Travelers in the past and trust me, they are not adding piercings and tatts to the traditional insurance pitch. This is an ill-advised attempt to slap on something of interest to a younger audience that would logically have little interest in insurance.

The ads, including a cute one with a terrier that ran during the game (he frets for his lost bone which he should have insured with Travelers) are standard stuff but then the bizarre tag line appears. “Travelers. Insurance. In-Synch™.” That’s right, in addition to pandering to 25-34 they are kowtowing to the legal department which is not the way to get the attention of the young and the restless.

Travelers, welcome to the Badvertising Hall of Shame.

Last weekend I visited friend and fellow copywriter Dan Shaw and we were bemoaning the tight creative budgets in this economy. The issue is this: if a client can get an email or a web page written for $100 or $200, why in the world would they hire someone like us at several times that amount?

The answer is that you’re not just paying to get a project completed and checked off in your to-do list. You’re paying for results. And if a page costs 5 times as much to create yet generates 10 times as many leads, clicks, sales or whatever you’re looking for… then it nets out 50% less expensive. That’s hidden money in your advertising which is there for the taking as soon as you look beyond the basics of “how cheap can I get it”.

Writers and designers who do direct marketing well are compensated on results. If we interview with a prospective client we expect they will ask us to show us our “controls”—these are campaigns (the term usually refers to direct mail) that beat out competitive tests or previous controls so thoroughly they become the standard that is used again and again.

The more controls you have under your belt, the better you are likely to be compensated. Because your client is paying for results, they know that a writer who has the skills, instincts and experience to win repeatedly is likely to do better for them on the bottom line.

For example, Dan does some marketing to prospective college students who are choosing a school. He was telling me during our visit about a usability study he attended where he watched students as they interacted with web pages to see what elements appealed to them and were easiest to use. This translates into better results when he does his own pages for clients.  And his clients are quite happy to pay for that knowledge and insight.

With budgets tight, it’s very tempting for a marketing manager to just hire the cheapest provider and it’s tempting for a marketing director to review their direct reports on the basis of “how much money did you save me this quarter?” But it’s a cheap fix and in the end it may cost you more if your true goal is to get more customers, leads, donors, sales dollars etc. which of course it is.

Next time you bid out a project, take the extra step to hire somebody who’s good enough to charge more—and can prove it. If your management asks why you did not choose the cheapest possible solution, tell them you’re paying for results. And that’s how to find hidden money in your advertising.

A well-intentioned nonprofit falls into a puddle of we-we.

In an earlier post we talked about the problem of “we weing all over yourself”, letting a plural corporate voice take over your advertising to the exclusion of reader empathy and common sense. The billboard at left is a great example.

Here we have a public service campaign which has been running for awhile in California. The original headline for this was “My kitchen, my rules.” (Quite often rendered in other languages.) That is good and makes sense: a feisty mom stands her ground and insists on healthy choices in food for her family.

But now we have “our neighborhood, our rules.” Same picture but now she’s the spokesperson for an amorphous entity which might be vigilantes or a street gang. (The billboard was photographed near one of San Francisco’s more troubled housing projects.) A single mom is endearing, a mob is scary. Except that it’s not credible. I don’t buy for an instant the notion of these angry homemakers insisting that I will bow under their demands for healthy habits, or else.

The change in tense to the first person plural is, unaided, what causes the damage. It’s not the typical corporate chest pounding but more likely an aging campaign that got relegated to the creative farm team. But the effect is the same. Don’t we we on your own marketing like this.

A good writer quickly learns the importance of developing a voice for his or her writing. Readers get more involved when they feel like a real person is writing to them. And over time you know what that voice is for a particular genre or publication and you fall into it like an actor playing a familiar part.

The author of otisregrets, for example, is somewhat professorial, a bit stuffy, yet tries hard to be approachable and takes extra care to explain what he means if it’s not immediately clear. While Otis M writing on Yelp is very different. That author is about 10 years younger and something of a wise guy. He uses catch phrases and occasional puns and enjoys going off on tangents in his reviews.

I know both these writers well and so do my readers. These voices haven’t always been there, as you can see from reading some early posts in either forum. I didn’t set out to be that person, but rather evolved into it over time.

All of which is my preamble to a theory on why I haven’t developed a habit of Tweeting frequently: I can’t find a way to develop a voice in 140 characters (which I try to keep to 120 for retweetability). By the time I say the bare minimum I have to say, I’m close to the limit.

After I realized this I started looking at other people’s tweets to see who had a voice I can recognize. @the_real_shaq has a voice, but he’s one of a kind. (Shaq’s eulogy for former NFL quarterback Steve McNair, who was shot to death yesterday: “Rip steve mcnair Roo roo q dog”) @broylesa has a voice, but she is nearly always writing about food in the Austin area… maybe very specific subject matter is a key.

Everyone else in my tweetstream is sticking to the facts, unless it’s personal. Here’s @heatheranne who works in advertising which is probably why we follow each other: “Trying to get glass out of my now-jammed garbarator. Oh my…” Now that is good writing, a vivid word picture plus a made up word and comment that makes you feel what she is feeling. I am going to go for adjectives and a personal aside next time I tweet and see what happens.

Free! You! Now! We’ve all head about magic words that help your copy sell more effectively. But what about words that push readership and response in the opposite direction? Here is a starter list of five words (and word categories) to watch out for…. additional submissions appreciated.

1. “I”. Nobody cares about you, except your mother. Readers want to read about themselves. That’s why the presence of “I” in a classic marketing message is a clear indicator you are wandering into dangerous territory. (Social media is an exception, along with scenarios in which you expect to create a first-person story the reader will identify with.)

2. Even worse, “we”. Still in the first person, but now we’re talking about a corporate presence. “We” is a favorite word of posturing messages that are meant mainly to be read in the boardroom. Writing such messages is called “we weing all over yourself”. Try the We We Calculator to see if you are guilty of too much wee-ism in your copy.

3. “It”. Unless they’re already engrossed in your copy, when you use “it” the reader is going to have to refer back in the message to find out what the meaning of “it” is. They’re not likely to take the trouble.

4. Words that can be read more than one way. “Read” (present tense) and “read” (past tense) is one example. As is “lead” (make people follow) or “lead” (the metal). Anytime readers get confused because they have misunderstood your meaning, they’re likely to just stop reading.

5. Words that look similar enough to be misinterpreted by a hurrying reader. Example: “through/thorough/though”. If you depend on them to get your message across, you’re toast.

And, a bonus phrase:

6. “As I just mentioned”. Using this expression is what I call “as-backwards” copywriting because the reader probably doesn’t remember what you’ve just mentioned. You’re expecting them to reverse direction to find out when, more likely, they’ll just hit the delete button.

This is one of a series of excerpts from my DMA class, “Copywriting that Gets Results”.  Visit the Copywriting 101 category to see them all.

You too can have marketing which is meaning-based.

Maybe you are making no attempt to put any meaning into your marketing today. Or perhaps it has not occurred to you that you should be “understanding — not merely tracking — all forms of customer interactions to deliver online experiences that are more relevant, engaging and profitable than ever.” If so, this free event is for you. And you even get a steak dinner out of it!

Yes, that’s the sound of my tongue in my cheek. This is funny but it’s not. As hard as times are, it’s hard to imagine how somebody could choose as their “light bulb” moment that maybe marketers have not had it occur to them to make sense of their advertising.

By the way, the link is clickable to the real invitation.

What’s so different about Twitter? And how do you use it to best advantage? One wonderful SXSWi panel, featuring rhetoric professors from the University of Texas, answered these questions by going back to Aristotle, the original documentarian of the use of words as a persuasive medium.

The original rhetoric, as Aristotle described it in 330 BC, was temporal: arguments were oral and words could only be processed in the order they were spoken. Once the written word came along, texts could be read in any order but there was a new limitation, spatiality: once words were put on paper, the printed information itself could not be moved. The web has made possible easily movable written information and Twitter carries this to the logical extreme with a constantly moving stream which is in essence a personal newspaper with an audience of one. (Here I am brutally paraphrasing the segment of Prof. John Jones which can be seen on ZDnet.)

No two people will ever see the same Twitter stream, and you yourself will never see your stream in exactly the same way twice. Yet it is very easy to control and edit your personal newspaper through the people you choose to follow. My experience is that if you start with a few people you find inherently interesting, like @guykawasaki or @broylesa (the terrific food columnist for the Austin Statesman, who stokes my interest in eating and makes me feel like I’m still at SXSW) and then check out @ tags in their tweets to see who THEY correspond with, you will soon build a fascinating stream. And if you’re interested in a topic, whether news or personal curiosity, a # search takes you in another satisfying direction.

Back to the panel, they said the best way to write your own tweets is to take into account the possibility of modularity and reuse. Prof. Jim Brown observed that every tweet has both an intended audience (the person you identify with an @ tag at the beginning, plus your known followers) and an unintended audience (everybody else, now or in the future.) A corollary of this is that the often-levied charge of Twitter narcissism is bogus. “Narcissism isn’t in the status update, it’s in the person annoyed by the update. If you’re annoyed by the tweet, it wasn’t meant for you.”

Apparently last year was the year of Facebook at SXSWi, and 2009 was the year of Twitter. Many of the sessions were specifically about Twitter, and everybody everywhere was twittering away on the new TweetDeck desktop application. We SXSWiers seem to like Twitter very much. Savant and trendsetter Guy Kawasaki was asked in a session to confirm, “If they charged for Twitter you’d probably pay whatever they asked” and he responded “that’s right.”