‘You’re a good writer,’ he said. ‘But your stuff won’t be great until it has a through line.’

It’s the best writing advice anyone ever gave me. And it’s advice I’m still using as a freelance copywriter today.

Whose through line is it anyway?

A through line is a single message, or set of messages, that’s repeated throughout your copy. Whether you’re writing an article for a newspaper or a magazine, copywriting, or working on that novel you’ve been writing for the last ten years, your through line is the point you’re trying to make.

The purpose of The Great Gatsby is to criticise the American Dream. And the purpose of a Polly Toynbee column in The Guardian is to criticise the undeserving rich, as well as to break a few more windows in the glass house she apparently lives in.

Even when you’re not speaking directly about a subject, a strong throughline will still convey your message. Toynbee is an excellent example of a journalist who does just that which is, presumably, why she gets paid such an obscene amount.

Fitzgerald never once uses the phrase “American Dream” in his writing. He doesn’t need to. He gets his point across.

The purpose of a through line in any good piece of copywriting is to get across your client’s message…
…even when you’re not talking about it directly.

The through line is a merger of style, tone, and content to create a single, unified purpose in your writing.

“To fly, to serve, to be blunt.”

BA’s much maligned strapline is an example of strapline as throughline — they’ve even made the point by launching a campaign showing the strapline written through a stick of rock — demonstrating how the words are written through their very core.

“To fly, to serve” is written right through BA’s essence. It’s consistent. It is what the company lives and breathes. It is, ultimately, the sharp end of the point they want to get across.

If you don’t know what the through line is, you don’t have a point.

I’m not going to get further into the debate about whether “To Fly. To Serve” is a good strapline. Because I don’t believe that it is. My personal feeling is that it’s arrogant and condescending — the concept of “service” is being used to suggest a sense of superiority, kind of like a snooty English butler Americans imagine everyone in Britain has. But who knows. Maybe the line will appeal to the American market.

The point is, as far as through lines go, it isn’t very subtle. It’s a classic example of “show, not tell” not being implemented.

In other words, instead of letting you discover what BA stands for by giving clear signals that leads you, the reader, to make to a conclusion (a classic way of persuading people — make them think the conclusion they’ve made is their own), it bluntly tells you what to think instead.

Sometimes it works. But imagine if every other airline’s strapline was their throughline.

Virgin Atlantic: We’re cool!
Easyjet: We’re cheap!
Ryanair: We’re crap!

I’m a fan of the say-what-you-mean school of copywriting. In other words: “here is the product, here are the features“. As consumers become more and more aware of the persuasive techniques we employ in the advertising industry, this “does what it says on the tin approach” resonates with consumers more and more.

However, much like the game of seduction, sometimes the consumer actively wants a little persuasion. They want to feel like they’re being wooed, like their needs are being accounted for. The consumer doesn’t want to be told. They want to be asked.

Would you care to dance?

It’s hard to strike the right balance between being overly formal and overly friendly — you want to be conversational and persuasive, but anyone who’s ever been assailed by a random drunk knows it’s no fun when a stranger tries to be your “friend”.

Tom Albrighton suggests that “wackywriting” (zany copy that tries to talk to consumers like they’re children) doesn’t work, because it’s actually patronising and authoritarian. I agree. But to me, BA’s approach is a step in the wrong direction too. They’ve dropped the wackywriting, but kept the authoritarian. The result is a strapline (and a throughline) that simply sounds cold.

Finding the throughline

Finding the througline isn’t easy. For starters, it might not always be something you can say out loud. Your client’s message might be “We’re cheap!” But how many places can get away with saying that without losing business? It might, in the case of BA, be “we’re better”. But how do you say that without sounding snooty?

The trick is to use subtlety. To use a tone of voice that’s conversational, an argumentative style that’s persuasive, not confrontational, and above all else, to show not tell.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
You can lead your readers to a conclusion…
…but ulitimately they’re the ones who make the decision to buy.

A subtle, persuasive through line will enable them to think they’re making choices for themselves, rather than being told what to think.

• “We help people connect to the brands they love.”
• “We look at the world differently.”
• “We’re driven to help people genuinely connect.”

Sound familiar? That’s probably because you’ve seen these phrases everywhere already. So how do you stand out?

The answer’s simple: if your message is the same as everyone else’s, be different. If your message is too generic, be more specific.

It’s unlikely two people ever see the world the same way. So everyone sees the world ‘differently’ — in other words, what you’re saying is that you’re “different” — but the same way as everyone else.

It’s not enough to tell people you see the world differently. You have to show them exactly how you see the world. And you have to explain why your unique perspective benefits them.

The golden rule: Show, not tell.

If you take a creative writing class, the first thing you’ll learn is how to use the ‘show, not tell’ technique to improve your fiction. The good news is, it’s the secret of creating good copy as well. I won’t tell you how to do it. I’ll show you instead.

Consider these two sentences:

• “Jack had broken up with his girlfriend. He was very very sad. He had been crying. Katie really wished she could make him feel better. Katie was in love with Jack.”

Pretty uninspiring, right? Try this instead:

• “Katie knew there was something wrong with Jack when she came round that evening. She could smell whisky on his breath when she came to hug him. His eyes were quiet and sad. Jack hardly seemed to notice she was there. Then it hit her: all of Amy’s things were gone from Jack’s apartment. Suddenly, she realised the room was practically bare.”

Without directly telling us anything, this story shows us everything the first version tells us, and much more besides. It tells us that Katie loves Jack. It tells us that Amy was Jack’s entire life.More importantly, it tells us a story — by showing us, and letting us work out the details for ourselves.

So how do you “show” people you’re different, rather than telling them?

It’s simple: be specific. The whisky on Jack’s breath. The fact his girlfriend’s things are gone from his apartment. These are specific ways of telling us that Jack is sad and that he’s broken up with his girlfriend.

The same technique applies to copy.

Tell = General.

“I’m different. I find new ways for brands
to reach their customers with my innovative approach.”

Show = Specific.

“Unlike other digital copywriters,
I use the scientific approach advocated by David Ogilvy
to produce web copy that’s proven to increase conversion rates.”

Stop trying to be all things to all people.

People naturally want to cast their net as wide as possible. For example, since changing my home page to the more “specific” “this is how I do things, this is my price, and this is my USP” format from the “generic” “I’m a freelance copywriter, blah blah blah” my bounce rate has increased by 5%. The change was big, noticeable and immediate.

Discrimination isn’t a dirty word: turning some people away can improve your conversion rate.

Since switching to a ‘specific’ approach on my home page, my website turns more people away at the door — fact. Yet more people than ever before contact me or give me a call. In fact this week, I’ve had 9 ‘serious’ enquiries — up from a previous weekly average of 4 with the old approach.

Because I’m being more specific about what I do, people are in a better position to judge whether my services are right for them. My homepage acts as a filter: you know exactly what I do, how I do it, and how I think my unique proposition will benefit you. I think I’m one of the few digital copywriters who uses old-style techniques. And I’m pretty sure I’m the only London copywriter who’s doing it.

In short, I’m offering a unique proposition — instead of trying to ‘catch everyone’ with my sales copy, I’m specifically targeting the people I believe are the best fit for my services.

That’s the secret to writing a good proposition.
Show people exactly how you can help them.

Don’t just tell them, in general terms, what you do.

Some examples:
80/20

This site tells you exactly what the agency does — the design shows their minimalist user experience ethic.
Image Mechanics

Maybe I’m biased here because I helped creative director Jason whip his copy into shape (his previous copywriter had “borrowed” pages from somewhere else). Jason believes in Dieter Rams “less, but better’ philosophy. The simple, bold headline was his idea. It states clearly: we’re not just different, we’re unique.
Trib

Trib’s textual homepage is extremely discriminating: going so far as to tell people that their services aren’t for everyone. Their unique outlook is clearly evident in both their design and their copy.

Of course really smart businessmen hire marketing professionals — because they realise they’re good at making money, not at selling things.

They don’t think hey, I can manage a million dollar business so I can write a strapline, they think — hey, I’m smart enough to manage a million dollar business, which means I can afford to pay a professional to write my strapline.

KFC, in the UK at least, is changing its strapline. You know, “Finger lickin’ good.” What are they changing it to? “So good”.

I say: so what?

Says Martin Shuker, chief executive of KFC UK: ‘”Finger lickin’ good” is very good but it’s very food centric.’

I say: surely selling food is what you do.

Says Martin: ‘”So Good” is still about the food but it also allows us to more effectively communicate the breadth of different things about the brand, such as our people and our community’.

I say: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Martin Shuker is probably the kind of suit who would rebrand KFC as “Fried Chicken Solution” if he could. Actually, he wouldn’t. That’s too specific. “KFC Solutions” would be better. Why go out of your way to tell people what you actually do in your company name when a 3 letter initial and the word “solution” will do?

Maybe I’m being harsh here, but I just can’t understand why you’d want to change an original, timeless slogan that reminds you constantly about how good the food is. You know, selling fast food being your main, entire, whole, revenue stream.

“So good” says nothing about your product and it says nothing about your company. It’s bland, generic, and invites the question — “so what?”

A good strapline explains the value of the product.

McDonalds’ “I’m lovin’ it” slogan is actually pretty clever, even if it does sound a bit like a single by DJ Pied Piper and the Masters of Ceremonies. It’s a bold statement that aims to put food in your mouth by putting the words in first. “You’re gonna love this,” it says, boldly switching to the use of the first person as if to proclaim “there’s no way you possibly couldn’t love our food.”

“So Good,” we’re ambitiously told, will remind people about their campaign to stop the destruction of the Indonesian and Malaysian rainforests. But really. What’s the better strapline to encourage an eight year old child (or a drunk at kicking-out time, the mental age is about the same) to come in and buy a bucket of KFC?

“Finger Lickin’ Good.”
“So good.”

Side by side, there’s no competition.

I was recently lucky enough to be invited to offer a large telecommunications company some branding advice. At the meeting, I expressed concern that their existing marketing didn’t explain what their product did. Once the company managed to explain to me what their product was, I thought it was brilliant. But, I told them, you’ll never sell any if you don’t explain to people what it is, and how it adds value to them.

That’s the secret to a good strapline. Tell people what you’re selling. Then tell them why they want to buy it. “Finger lickin’ good” does both. “So good” does not.

Smart companies, like the telecomms company who called me, call in marketing experts to help them say what they want to say quickly. They’re in the business of making products, not selling them. KFC should stick to what it does best. Making fast food that’s finger lickin’ good.

Why change something that’s timeless and popular with your customers? After all, we don’t have to look too far in our past for a senseless rebrand that went down with all hands on deck, do we, Gap?

In other words, “easy as pie” can get your message across to your customer a lot more effectively than “our product is so much simpler to use than your competitors and we think you’ll love it” and is more informal and playful than “easy to use / to get started / to set up” etc. An occasional cliché of this type isn’t always a bad thing.

I’m taking about business-speak and marketing clichés.

Need an example? Look no further than the insidious, omnipresent word solution. Let me put it in context for you. I snapped this outside my house the other day:

I was amazed to discover that’s their actual brand now. “Brakes Foodservice Solutions”. Now in the future they told me my food would come in pills. But in a solution? That’s just disgusting. I put my contact lenses in a “solution” when I go to bed at night.  E=MC squared is a solution. Sorry to be blunt, but “Foodservice solutions” just makes you sound like a dick. Let’s compare their pre-and-post rebrand logos:

This is the logo I grew up with -

This is the logo after their 2002 rebrand -

See what they’ve done there? That’s right. They’ve jumped on a bandwagon. Some marketing genius with an MBA in delivering powerpoint presentations decided to rebrand their company as a “solution” because they think it makes them sound really super professional. The bad news. Everyone else had the same idea.

Now, I don’t market myself as a supplier of copywriting solutions. I’m a freelance copywriter. “Copywriting solutions” sounds suspiciously like jars of watery ink. Likewise, if I went into business selling parrot cages, I could market myself as a “bird confinement and presentation solution,” but I think I’d just be met with a lot of scratching of heads, and not just from the parrots.

The fact is, the only thing the word “solution” solves is the problem of describing what your company does. And as an answer, it’s a very, very poor one. The word solution is a stand-in for an actual description used by people who don’t fully understand what it is their company actually does. There’s nothing comforting about being sold a “solution” when what you really want is a parrot cage, ten thousand frozen ready meals, et cetera. Companies that market themselves as solutions generally don’t have a great grasp on what they sell.

Use cliché to make people feel more comfortable with what you’re selling, not to confuse them.

Don’t claim that you “deliver” unless you’re a mailman or a take-away pizza place. The chances are you don’t deliver anything. “Cooking our ready meals is as easy as pie!” is good. While “We deliver solutions” is just weird. Perhaps you deliver “deliverables.” Stop. Start telling people what it is your company actually does.

The reason why people come to good, freelance copywriters is because we’re better able to articulate what your business does, how you can help people, and why they should choose you.

So leave the powerpoint presentations in the office.
Explain, in real terms, to your real customers, what you really do.

It’s impossible to avoid being bombarded with advertising in London. As a copywriter working in London, it’s even harder to not stop and take notice. Like a surgeon holding his knife like a scalpel and listlessly cutting into his Sunday roast, it’s hard for a copywriter to avoid dissecting other people’s work.

I see thousands of posters every morning. Sometimes the copy is good, sometimes it’s very bad. Sometimes it’s short and sometimes it’s long. Sometimes, I’m only looking at an idea, three words, and a very good design. Whatever the ad, I judge it by the simplest and most obvious criterion: how memorable is it?

Is being memorable the sign of good advertising?

Take this advert for example: it’s a simple, almost simplistic poster ad advertising boohoo.com, an online clothes store:

I think it’s effective. Why? Because it’s simple, memorable and innovative.

Whether or not you agree the use of ‘OMG’ should ever cross over from the internet, whether or not you like the kooky smile on the face of the model, whether or not you like the poster’s basic design… it’s memorable.

So I’ve always imagined it’s a good advert. But I was on my way out with two girls in their early 20s last night and on seeing the poster they struck up a conversation. They both hated the ad. They thought it looked cheap and tacky and made the clothes look rubbish. They both claimed they ‘wouldn’t be seen dead in anything like that.’

‘Maybe you’re not the target market,’ I suggested. ‘Perhaps you’d be happier in a boutique or shopping at Selfridge’s.’

‘But we are,’ they both argued: they both bought clothes online. So was the ad a failure?

I waited five minutes until the conversation moved on a little. ‘That ad,’ I said. ‘Can either of you remember what it was for?’

‘Boohoo.com!’ they both said in unison. Then one of them added ‘boohoo I bought those awful clothes!’ They both laughed.

But by my standard judgement — is it memorable? the advert was clearly effective.

Conversion or conversation? Which is the better metric?

It’s easier to judge effectiveness once you’re on the web. You can see exactly how many people visit your site, you can work out how many of them buy your products — in short, you can see how many people your site is converting. You can do the same thing in real life with sales figures, but let’s stick to the web for a moment.

It’s said that social media is all about conversation. Well, I just gave you an example of a real life conversation that didn’t involve Twitter or a Facebook Wall — conversation the old fashioned way. Yet it didn’t apparently result in a conversion. So what’s the benefit?

Well, clearly the two girls remembered the name of the site. That may make them more likely to visit it anyway, even if they don’t like the ad campaign. Moreover, the old maxim — there’s no such thing as bad publicity generally holds true. Getting people talking about your brand, increasing brand awareness, is almost always a good thing. The more people talking about you, the more advertising you’re getting for free.

Conclusion: conversation can be measured.

It’s a bit of a buzz-word, but ‘buzz monitoring’ is much more possible now in the era of social media. Whereas before companies had to guess how effective their word of mouth campaigns were being, now you can see online who’s talking about you on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. The important thing to remember is that conversations don’t necessarily have a direct or rapid impact on your conversion rate. The fact that people are talking about you is (unless your ad is disastrously bad) almost always good. And even then, it can be-so-bad-it’s-good. The point is it gets people talking. The boohoo.com ad sticks in people’s minds and gets them talking, therefore by my definition, it’s a good ad.

It’s a rule of thumb that holds true 90% of the time: the bigger the brand, the more it sells. Creating conversation, therefore, is always valuable.

The London Long Copy challenge is underway. For those of you who haven’t seen the ads yet, it’s a competition for copywriters and creatives based in London to design London Underground posters led by copy of between 50-200 words. Which isn’t much for a sales brochure, but it’s a hell of a lot for a great big print ad.

Who reads sales brochures anyway?

There are two schools of thought in copywriting. One: you get a little information in quickly. It’s better than trying to get it all in and not being memorable at all. Two: the more copy you have, the more likely you are to get some or all of your argument across. I don’t need to tell you which style is more in vogue at the minute.

London Long Copy contest or not, the fact is most copy is short. It’s sharp. The only place for 200 words these days is in a blog or SEO led copy. That doesn’t mean sales brochures don’t have their purpose. They’re just usually given out to people who are at least half way sold on your services. A quick fire advertisment gets them to call. Then you send them the long copy brochure.

Long Copy is at the heart of copywriting history

On a quiet afternoon last week I visited the Museum of Brands in London’s Notting Hill and I remembered something I’d forgotten since history textbooks and school. Remember all those old products? The Bryllcream and the bear’s wax and the powdered eggs and all those other funny old brands? Take another look at the packaging. You’ll find more words on the front than tattoos on a hipster’s arm.

Minimalism – It’s just a fashion

As the years go by, copy gets shorter and design, packaging and other forms of marketing become more important. Why? Partly because it’s assumed that attention spans are shorter, partly because it’s assumed that people are idiots (remember keep it simple, stupid? well, now the emphasis is firmly on the stupid). But it’s also because design — and the role of the designer have become more important. Copywriters like me are usually relegated to the role of idea generation, creative direction and branding strategy if we’re smart, and a lifetime of report writing and coaching sales pitches if we’re not. Luckily I’m smart. But for all those copywriters who aren’t, it must look like we’re practically out of a job. And why? All because designers assume people don’t read any more.

Long copy still works.

Don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what some of the pioneers have to say:

“The longer your copy can hold the interest of the greatest number of readers, the likelier you are to induce more of them to act.”
- Victor Schwab

““Remember that long copy works better than short copy. Of all the things people dislike about marketing, “lack of information” comes in second. ["Feeling deceived" is first.]”
- Jay Conrad Levinson

Okay, so you know about ‘keep it simple, stupid’ but what about ‘garbage in, garbage out?’ A three or four word headline can be forgotten as quickly as it’s read. But if you can catch someone’s attention and keep them reading, it’s like reeling in a fish. Instead of four or five trite, pun-laden words and a generic smiling face (or whatever other design cliche you care to mention), you’ve got your audience’s undivided attention for maybe up to 30 seconds. A week may be a long time in politics, but 30 seconds is a lifetime in advertising.

Think how long your average TV advert lasts. How many words it probably contains. Long copy still has the power to reach further and deeper than other short-copy-and-design led ad campaigns.

The law of diminishing returns: in other words, don’t waffle.

Of course, it’s not always true that ‘the longer the copy, the more information you get across.’ The golden rule is this: use only as many words you need to get the message to your reader. If your sales brochure can be spoken in 1000 words, don’t use 4000 just because it fills up the available space. Don’t waffle.

Ironic as it may sound, long copy is at its best when it’s kept short.

Minimalism isn’t the art of using three or four words. It’s simply the art of using the fewest words needed to get the job done – whether that’s ten or ten thousand.

And if you don’t think long copy still has a place, ask yourself this. How many 25 word blog posts have you read lately?

Long copy works.

The fact is, what people search for — and what gets them to convert — often isn’t the sort of language you want to use in your copy. Sure, you may want the passing trade, but it’s bad for your brand. Googling aside, I wouldn’t want to stay in a luxury hotel that advertises itself as cheap. It’s not just a dilemma, it’s a paradox. So what do you do?

Am I a cheap copywriter?

I try to pitch on both price and quality. In other words, I do more for less. But the fact is the majority of the people who are searching for a good copywriter aren’t that bothered about price. If they’ve got enough money to hire a copywriter, they want the best. That’s because most business-savvy people realise that great copy is able to make them a lot more money in the long run as it increases traffic and conversion rates. In fact, I can think of few consultants who’ll give you a better ROI than a great copywriter. They’re the clients I want.

So there’s no point describing myself as cheap. I’m currently on page 4 of Google for “freelance copywriter” — and on the front page for”freelance copywriter London”. Yet I get very little traffic from these searches. My main organic search traffic comes from “copywriting and branding” — people looking to hire a copywriter who produces personality, not just words.

Am I targeting the right keywords?

I worked hard to get myself onto the front page for “Freelance Copywriter London” expecting it’d earn me the most traffic and, more importantly, the most conversions. But it turns out that the majority of customers across the world don’t care where their copywriter is. He’s just a guy at a desk and that can be in New York, Sydney or Outer Mongolia. So long as the copy’s good the client doesn’t care.

My point is this: sometimes, the obvious keyword isn’t the right one.

Thousands of people may be searching for a service that’s cheap. But you can’t pitch to them. Still more may be looking for a service that’s the best in the world, while you’re trying to pitch your services to local clients. As ever, research is the key to good SEO, combined with a constant quest to update and improve by tweaking copy to match current trends and continually blogging, ensuring an ever-increasing number of keyword-rich landing pages with which to snare potential customers. But here’s the snag:

“London Cheap Hotel” gets 165,000 searches per month. “Best London Hotel[s]” attracts just over 60,000.

The question is, whose business do you want?

I don’t advertise myself as being “cheap” because I don’t want to attract cheapskates — people who quibble over hours worked and whether or not I’ll give them a discount, when I’m already offering a service that’s 1/3rd cheaper than a London agency. Sometimes, volume isn’t everything. If the smaller number of people searching for “the best” have more money to spend than the majority searching for “the cheapest” — it’s in your interest to be the best, because you’ll earn more money.

• Unfortunately, that’s where SEO can’t help. SEO is all about volume.
• Market research is all about finding out how much your customers have in their wallets.
• SEO isn’t a silver bullet — and sometimes, chasing the popular searches is bad for your business.
• It’s better to have one person willing to spend £1000 than ten people willing to spend £50.

Proper research isn’t just finding the most popular search term for your site. It’s discovering who’ll spend the most. Sometimes, it’s better to cater to the cash-ready minority than the skinflint minority. SEO won’t tell you that.

In other words, it’s time to go deeper.

]]> http://allday.cc/blog/is-cheap-a-dirty-word/feed/ 1 http://allday.cc/blog/what-makes-a-good-strapline/ http://allday.cc/blog/what-makes-a-good-strapline/#comments Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:46:51 +0000 al http://allday.cc/?p=770 Straplines, headlines, taglines, slogans. Call them what you will, they’re what make the advertising world go round. It’s rare to find a good headline writer. That’s because headlines are hard to write. Anyone can fill a page with four hundred words, but how many people can catch an audience’s attention and sum up the product they’re selling in four or so words?

It’s more important to sound natural than to be clever.

F Scott Fitzgerald famously started out in advertising and came up with the slogan “we keep you clean in Muscatine” for an Iowa based laundry service. While he…

You go on the attack.

There’s no point launching a ‘new and improved’ campaign — nobody believes those three trite words anyway. It’s not enough to win back people who don’t trust your brand. You could change the name. But if you’re a big company, that gets expensive.

So Domino’s Pizza tried a different strategy. They attacked their own brand for being rubbish.

Their honest admission that their pizzas didn’t measure up to the standards of other takeaway franchises got people talking. It’s an act of public contrition. Then, and only then, once we’re convinced that _they_ know there’s a problem, were they able to convince us that they might be doing something about it.

Call it a relaunch, a reboot, whatever you want, the premise is that you have to admit your past failures and actively attack your own brand’s reputation in order to make progress. But is it really the best way to wipe the slate clean?

Gerald Ratner notoriously claimed his products were “crap” — and his brand reputation never recovered. Similarly the idea that drove the invention of “new” Coke was that the old Coca-Cola was inferior. It didn’t work.

Criticising your own product and admitting past failures are a last ditch measure — and I think you’d have to be pretty desperate to try them. That’s why it’s so interesting a lot of Labour party supporters in the UK are suggesting Labour adopt a “Domino’s Pizza” strategy, owning up to their failures in the past 12 years of government and admitting they’ve made mistakes. The problem is, this is the same strategy they used to get into government, rebranding their past as “old” Labour and their new policies as “new” Labour.

And that’s the biggest problem with this strategy. Assuming it works at all, as it did for Labour in 1997, it won’t work again now. If you criticise your past product as being a load of rubbish and somehow manage to convince people that you’ve changed… and then you serve up a product that’s still no good… you can’t get away with the same trick twice. You’re lucky to get away with it once.

So is it a good strategy? It’s very high risk, and can only really be combined with a very definite improvement in your product in the future. You only get one shot at it.

Personally, I’ve never had a problem with the taste of Domino’s Pizza. My problem is the price. Sure, their pizzas aren’t great. But it’s the fact that they cost twice as much as a not-great pizza from the local takeaway that gets to me.

If you can’t compete on quality, compete on price. If you can’t compete on either… it’s game over. Rubbishing your own brand is a last-ditch manoeuvre. If it fails, you’ve got nothing left.

A while back, I suggested Tiger ought to try humour to deflect some of the criticism about his adultery. You know, give a lovely smile and a “who, me?” shrug of the shoulders. After all, anyone who’s ever read Robert Greene’s The Art of Seduction knows that rakish charm can be very effective — like it or not, he argues, women love a cad.

This response is better. Tiger’s a number 1 sportsman. Okay, so it’s golf, but he’s still got something to prove. This photoshoot with Annie Leibovitz is a raw demonstration of power, defiance, and masculinity.

It’s a major repositioning for the Tiger Woods brand. It’s also a sure-fire success. It’s a powerful statement of confidence.

And confidence is always attractive.

He’ll alienate some (“disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” types) but ultimately, we’re all in awe of someone who comes out fighting. As a writer it pains me to say this, but sometimes, the best statements are made without a single word.

Remember this blast from the past?

Well, a good campaign does stick in the mind. You have to look at the Tories’ latest offering and wonder what they’re thinking…

I suppose it fits with their new image. It’s caring and compassionate while remaining simple and direct. Look at David Cameron — the man who would be king — he’s got big, puppy dog eyes and he looks… like an ordinary human being, in contrast to the camera-unfriendly, dodgy looking Brown.

But it’s not high impact. In fact, it looks kind of weak. Political Betting has a good analysis of the campaign here; suggesting the Conservatives have money to burn. But the fact is, they don’t need to burn it on dead trees. The web is undoubtedly the new political battleground. A lot’s changed in five years. Blogging, viral video… yes, even twitter. As we’ve all discovered, sometimes the best campaigns are free. Make no mistake, this is a socially augmented campaign. They only need one billboard (this one’s outside News International’s UK offices) to make a campaign go viral.

The Conservatives know this. That’s why they’ve set up their own social media networking site, myconservatives.com — I haven’t seen much mention of it, to be honest. I think it hits the problem all minority social media has. The big boys are on Facebook and Twitter. Nobody wants to take the time to use a micro-sized, single-issue site. If you ask me, they’d be better off setting up one big facebook group, or even designing a facebook-compatible app. Why not a simple rosette to show your support?

Obviously, the Tories know what they’re doing. They’ve created a campaign that’s subtle and starkly avoids the negativity of their previous campaigns. Cameron, borrowing heavily from Obama, is promoting a message of change, of healing, of compassion.

He’s also relying heavily on himself. It’s a bold move, putting your face next to a promise. Maybe that’s the idea. People trust Cameron — more than they trust his party. It’s a potential weakness, though, and it’ll be interesting to see if Labour can capitalise on it. The problem is, it’s hard to run a negative campaign against Mr. Clean.

I think the Conservatives are being very astute. They’ve covered all the angles. They’re going to look fresh-faced and modern. In short, they’re promoting a message of change.

Just like a certain successful US president.

Of course, the jokes are already all over the place. Nike are changing their slogan to “Just Screw It” — and Durex are going to release a new range of condoms that “bring out the tiger in you!” — but jokes like this actually make a good point. Why the hell should this so-called scandal really affect Woods’ ability to to sell?

Frankly, “rich man has multiple affairs” is about as surprising a headline as “snow falls in winter” — there’s more than a whiff of schadenfreude about this, and I suppose America has always had more puritanical mores than us in the UK. But really — there’s no such thing as bad publicity and unless Woods built his reputation on being a family man endorsing family products, I can’t see the problem.

Accenture have dropped him, only proving that accountants really are completely dull. Tag Heuer are standing by him*. Presumably they’ll be the preferred watch of playboys this time next year. Good on ‘em – there’s no such thing as bad publicity, and it’s even better when it’s completely free.

The truth is that this is a pretty hysterical scandal. And I mean hysterical in the meaning of ‘hilariously funny’ as much as I mean hysterically over-wrought and hyped up by a press enjoying a mini-silly-season around the holidays. As an ad man, all I see are opportunities. Tiger could turn all this around in an instant with a well placed joke, by showing he’s not too big to laugh at himself. An ad for one of his sponsors that spoofs himself could be just the thing. Okay, so he had a pretty clean-cut image before. That has to change. But really, I’m no more surprised that a wealthy, famous young man likes a bit on the side than I was surprised by the ‘revelations’ that Kate Moss enjoys the occasional line of coke. Supermodel takes drugs? The press can write as many column inches as they like, they’re still not going to shock anyone.

So long as the column inches keep on churning out, so long as the free publicity train keeps on rolling, someone, somewhere, will aways find a way to make money out of it.

Come out of hiding, Tiger. And when you face the press for the first time, make sure you get paid a million for endorsing Tiger Brand Condoms. This press feeding frenzy is nothing more than the media’s way of making money out of you. You’re a celebrity. Keep on doing what celebrities have done since time immemorial. Sell.

It’s not like anyone’s going to think any less of you.

*Edit 18th Dec – Tag have dropped Tiger. I think it’s an extraordinary sign of weakness when a brand does this. It’s like not sticking by your mates, you know?

*Edit 24th Dec – Another source says Tag are going to stick by Tiger. Good on ‘em.’ I definitely don’t think his recent actions are going to harm his ability to sell alpha-male watches…

Bill Werbeniuk, a legend from the 80s

It’s also seen better days. The 1980s are regarded as the heyday of snooker, with the world championship final in 1985 being watched by 18.5 million people. Despite being more of a minority pastime here these days, it’s become big in China — with up to 50m regularly tuning in to watch matches. So there’s life in the old sport yet.

In fact, it’s fair to say that snooker has an image problem. It’s too slow, too quiet, not exciting enough for most people. Even ardent fans from the 80s argue that snooker isn’t what it used to be, that there aren’t any ‘characters’ in the sport, that it’s become boring.

I love snooker. But even I have to admit sometimes it’s a little slow.

The UK championship kicked off this week. I caught Snooker’s number 1, Ronnie O Sullivan’s opening match. At times, somnolent didn’t quite describe it. Nor did sleepy, slow, tired or dull. There was even a five minute pause while a little old lady was assisted to a glass of cold water. I’m a purist. These pauses don’t bore me. Nor does a long tactical frame. But for most people, snooker’s simply too slow.

At one point, snooker was considered an exciting sport with a working-class image. But somewhere the novelty wore off. Now it’s considered a slow, boring sport with little to no image. With the exception of “Rocket” Ronnie, few people outside the game can name its stars.

Yet other similar sports seem to do well. Golf is watched by millions, even though nothing happens at all. And darts, a sport with a similar image to snooker, is still flourishing.

Change is afoot.

Last week, the chairman of the governing body of World Snooker, Sir Rodney Walker, was ousted, with legendary 80s player Steve Davis and Barry Hearn, chairman of the Professional Darts Corporation, co-opted onto the board.

The idea is that the new board will come up with a way of breathing new life into the game. Steve Davis is a popular, public figure. And Barry Hearn has kept darts alive.

How are they going to do it?

There’s a number of suggestions on the table. Among them are plans for a ‘world tour’ and more ranking tournaments, as well as plans for a faster version of the game containing fewer red balls, hoping that a faster game might do for snooker what 20 20 did for cricket.

I think the answer’s simpler.

Celebrity sells.

It’s true that snooker doesn’t have the same characters it used to. But it’s hard for players to express their character around the table, when there are so many formal rules. The players don’t get enough exposure. Unless you follow the sport, you’ll never see them.

I know nothing about golf, but I do know who Tiger Woods is. And frankly, I don’t think revelations about his womanizing are going to harm his career. If anything, he’s given his profile a massive, manly boost. He’s put golf on the front pages, too. Don’t change the game, change the image.

Back in the early 90s there was an enormously popular game show called Big Break, that paired snooker players with members of the public in a chance to win prizes. The players still played on a snooker table and were given a chance to show off their skills, but also their character. It’s remembered with the same fondness as Bullseye, which certainly kept darts in the public eye.

Snooker is a great game. It just doesn’t provide many opportunities for self-promotion. Putting snooker players back in the media spotlight off the table, by bringing back programmes like Big Break, would regenerate interest in the game, and give the players a chance to develop their character.

I look forward to seeing how the new, faster game pans out. It’s true the game needs to move forward. But the best way to bring Snooker back in the public eye isn’t by changing the game. It’s by giving the players more exposure off the table.

There were a couple of reasons for the change. Mostly, if I’m honest with you, it’s because I’ve noticed that while clients seem to prefer the image of the chain-smoking, three-day-stubble sporting writer on the page, when you show up at a 9am meeting looking like you’ve been on a week long bender and reach for your already depleted pack of Camels, they get a bit annoyed. So my new photos look a lot more like the way I look in real life — during working hours, at least.

This is what the old home page looks like:

and here is the new one:

I’m a big fan of the amazing Mad Men, the best TV show about advertising, ever. There’s some quite interesting anecdotal evidence about how “the Sterling Cooper effect” is changing people’s perceptions of how a creative should look and act. So I decided to suit up. But I lost the cigarette. They may want you to look sharp, but smoking in front of clients is no more acceptable than asking them if they’d like to split a pint of scotch (I haven’t actually tried this — I’m just guessing).

I also listened to my own advice and simplified my copy. Statistically, I have a bounce rate of about 36% — meaning that I lose a third of my readers after the first page. This is actually a slightly better than average statistic. Count how often you close a website down after viewing just one page. I bet it’s more than you thought.

The point is, I’ve pretty much only got one page to tell every visitor to my site who I am and what I do.

That’s how the web works –
You have to sell yourself in a second. Two seconds is too late.

Personally, I think both ideas are great. And they’re both definitely “me” — but they also project a different image.

So far, the feedback I’ve had has been positive. And prospective client enquires seem to be on the up. But I’m interested in what everyone else thinks. I’ve explained my reasons for the re-brand.

In actual fact, it’s been a mixture of both this time. I’ve been doing a lot of copywriting, but I’ve not felt as if I have a lot to add in terms of sharing my thoughts with the world. There’s my random musings on Tumblr, of course… but I’ll spare you those here.

The most interesting thing that’s happened for me recently is the milestone that says more money is spent on online advertising than is spent on TV advertising. It’s linked to what I’ve been saying before — the web is fast becoming dominated by social media and viral video, and these are the two areas every company and advertiser needs to be looking at in terms of securing their online presence.

But this is something you should already know. Unless you’re living in a cave, of course.

Most of my work these days is for tech clients, is writing on the web. Even my offline product launches, the work I do for my “real world” clients in the Home Counties, involves websites and web-work.

The internet has changed everything, and social media and streaming video have changed it again. I really think we’re heading towards a day when other forms of media will be obsolescent. Television — destroyed by Youtube, Megavideo, BitTorrent. Radio obliterated by Spotify. Newspapers — available online through RSS feeds, Kindle readers and syndicated web portals.

It’s a brave new world. What I want to know is, why aren’t more digital design agencies modernizing to support it?

Most web agencies seem to think it’s enough to build websites,
or promote them, or provide content.

They don’t seem to understand the importance of what they’re doing –
targeting potential customers, selling them something…
even if it’s just an idea.

Just as the web is slowly making traditional forms of media obsolete, so too I think the big advertising agencies will make smaller design agencies obsolete. They’ll be squeezed out, at the very least — big clients will want big packages, and total solutions, targeted at their customers. They won’t just want beautiful websites.

I’m not trying to be a web guru here, sometimes I get it wrong. I remember being blown away by the launch of Facebook Lite (because it meant no more mafia wars) but going back to full Facebook 24 hours later when I found I couldn’t put rich content into my links. Having said that, I reckon I still know a good product when I see one. I’m still using my King of Shaves razor, and Frassy seems to go from strength to strength.

But I do think even a blind man can see the changes on the horizon, the changes that increased spending on advertising on the web is bringing — not just to the web, but also to design agencies, and to branding consultants such as myself.

These are exciting times. I think there’s a lot of money to be made out there — if you’re good at what you do…

Everyone damns with faint praise so let’s start by setting out what the BBC does well. They do produce quality television.

They also produce a lot of dross, but so do the other channels. I’m quite sure that programmes like Jonathan Meades’ Magnetic North and Jonathan Dimbleby’s Russia would never have been made by another broadcaster. So credit where credit is due, they’re good at the highbrow stuff. Although I, a subscriber to everything from films through the post to a contract mobile phone I can watch films on, don’t have a problem with paying for it. This is subscriber-model stuff being foist on the masses, who are subsequently billed for it.

I don’t like anything else about the BBC.

By their own admission, their news output demonstrates an inherent left wing bias (despite absurd claims to the contrary) and it’s simply not true to say that ‘oh well, at least they don’t show adverts’. Because they do.

The BBC advertises itself.

I’m not just talking about those moments where they play two minute clips about how great they are in between programmes (although their smugness does nauseate me far more than any of the commercial ads on the other channels), I’m taking about the vast amount of money spent on lobbying and promotion and behind-the scenes jostling to ensure that the BBC remains the UK’s number 1 broadcaster, state funded — the biggest brand in the country.

So when polls like this one come out, saying how much everyone loves the BBC, I’m a little cynical. They love the BBC because they’re being told to love the BBC by the BBC, which dominates not just the programming schedules, but also the news agenda, with its ubiquity. I was installing widgets on my iGoogle page the other day and even though there were plenty of other options available, the news widget I installed just displayed headlines from the BBC. Why? Because they’re so huge in the UK, they dominate the news agenda. I know that whatever’s on their frontpage will be the thing everyone’s talking about, so for a quick look at what I need to know (to know about what’s being talked about), I’ll use the BBC. Then if I’m really interested in the story I’ll read the broadsheets and get some detailed analysis from my favourite blogs. At the minute, I still find it hard to beat a combination of The Times and The Spectator.

There’s a very obvious analogy to be made when it comes to state propaganda machines, involving people with funny accents, walks and bombastic salutes. So I won’t patronize you by making it. No, in fact, I think the BBC’s level of control of the UK population is far more insidious. The BBC is known as, calls itself, “auntie” — if there’s such a word as ‘matrician’ deriving from ‘patrician’, then the BBC is it. It’s like having a bigger, older sibling telling you what to say and think and do, carefully watching in case you slip up or say something out of line. Not that you’ll be told off, of course. Just politely told that you’re wrong. The BBC frames debate in the UK, making it utterly impossible to discuss things like the NHS (another state “institution”) sensibly and sometimes doesn’t even bother giving anyone right-of-centre the right to reply.

So what can we learn from all this?

Well, other than the fact that as something of a libertarian (my first degree was in political science, you know) I don’t like the BBC very much as a coercive state broadcaster, we can learn this:

The more you tell people you’re great, the more they’ll believe it.
Sometimes, people aren’t searching for evidence…
…they’re looking for reassurance.

That’s why “Auntie” is still alive and well.

I think Smashing Magazine think I’m a little bit arrogant. I suppose my face is plastered all over this site. But as regular readers of this blog know, I’m a big fan of the personal touch — adding that extra endorsement works, whether you’re a one-man outfit, or the boss of a much larger operation — it’s why I thought the promo campaign for the King of Shaves was so powerful. Sometimes, you have to be your own brand.

I’ve been taking on a lot of branding work lately — my favourite kind of work. It involves working with a client to figure out who their target audience is, then figuring out how to reach them.

So at the risk of sounding arrogant (sorry, guys) I thought I’d talk a little today about how I set up my own business.

It’s an example of what I can do for you.

The idea

This time last year I was a struggling journalist. To say I was earning peanuts would be an insult to monkeys. In fact, it’s an insult to peanuts, too. I’d done a lot of freelance copywriting, but I couldn’t get on the books of the big agencies. I was young, untested and we were in the midst of the collapse of the entire world banking system, after all.

Image is everything. How you pitch yourself determines who you are.

I saw an opportunity to take on the big agencies at their own game. I saw my chance to blow the opposition apart — not just the agencies, but also the old-school freelancers who knew a lot about writing (nice dictionaries, guys) but not a lot about what sells. After all, if they can’t pitch themselves right, what hope do they have of pitching anything for you?

A quick search revealed a lot of copywriters with poorly designed sites, loaded with copy as dull as a matt grey sky. You’d be amazed at the number of them who claimed their copy was “fresh”. Who even uses that word any more, let alone to describe a piece of writing? My competitors were stuck in the nineties.

I saw my chance. I took it. The result is this site, and this agency. You’re already here, so I won’t ramble on.

The secret

I’m a young, confident writer. I’m an individual. I work with branding, image and sales pitches. I don’t just work with words. Words are the end product of my work.

Most people who come to copywriters aren’t just looking for help with their text. They’re looking for a solution.

Copy is a string of words thrown together.
A brand is a sales pitch that gets results.

Most copywriters can produce the former.
Only a few can produce the latter.

My site is an example of good design, images and text that, taken together, create a pitch. My portfolio isn’t my words. It’s my image. That’s my brand.

When you buy my services, you’re buying me. You’re trusting me to come up with concepts that support my words. You want a troubleshooter, you don’t want the end-product of a team of suits “brainstorming” behind a conference desk. I get results, and I get them fast.

I’m more than just a writer. I’m a creative.

Maybe that’s arrogance. Personally, I think it’s just old-fashioned confidence. Either way, I’m certain it’s the secret to success.

“Oh, we don’t test third party applications or hardware, so if they stop working, that’s not our problem,” Apple cry. It strikes me as pretty obvious that this is deliberate.

As a Mac user for almost all of this decade, I’ll just come right out and say this. Apple have been in a steady decline the last few years. My old iBook G4 was built like a tank. The two year old MacBook I’m writing this on is full of holes. Literally. The flimsy casing is cracked, the dual core processor whines like a mosquito buzzing about your head, and the fans sometimes growl like they’re about to give in.

Apple have come a long way since their 1984 advert pitching them as the plucky underdog taking on the bland masses.

Unfortunately news like today’s is just the latest in a long line of disappointments from Apple. If people want to use a product that isn’t the iPhone with iTunes, let them. It’s better to lose a few sales to another product than lose a lot of sales when your brand’s goodwill evaporates.

Apple are no longer the plucky underdog. They’re just another faceless corporation grubbing for your money. They’ve become the epitome of style over substance, of branding a lifestyle that’s shiny and white but hollow inside. The iPhone is the apogee of this. It’s nowhere near as useful as a Blackberry. Yet still people buy it in droves, despite the fact that until the latest version, the iPhone didn’t even have a cut-and-paste function!

How is this possible? I saw an advert on the TV exclaiming the wonders of the new “cut and paste” iPhone and I couldn’t believe the bare-faced-cheek, marketing something so simple as an innovation. Heck, my seven year old Palm Treo could cut and paste. And the battery lasted longer than a few hours, too.

I happen to like OS X. I’d pick it any day over Windows Vista. This, for me, is the only reason I’m still buying Apple. But I’m doing it grudgingly. Yes, you have my money. But you no longer have my goodwill. The second a better product comes along, say, the new Google Operating System or even Windows 7, if it turns out to be any good, I’m gone.

Right now Apple strikes me as a lesson in how to have everything and throw it all away. Short term profit at the sacrifice of the values that put them where they are in the first place.

Think different? Right now, Apple’s managers aren’t thinking at all.

Okay, so maybe the fact that it’s chock-full of pictures of its extraordinarily pretty author has something to do with it. But there’s more to it than just that.

It’s a one-woman fashion blog written by, as far as I can tell, a recent graduate of Durham University. She’s not a professional, she doesn’t have any training, she’s just a girl, posting pictures of herself.

But this blog is a million miles away from a loose assortment of myspace poses and charity-shop dresses. This blog is a brand.

Modcloth.com have named a dress after her and it’s already out of stock.

How can a girl come from nowhere to become a rising star of fashion? With a good blog.

It’s a simple idea well done. A rolling style spread pitching the author as the star. She’s confident, bright, smart, sexy — and she’s managed to show it all with a few pictures and even fewer lines of text. Somehow, though, she manages to keep the intimate, conversational feel of a personal blog. I don’t know, but if I was a girl reading her blog, I think I’d feel as if I were being given advice by a friend, rather than told what to wear by a magazine.

Don’t be surprised if you see this girl editing Vogue one day. Or on the front cover. Or both.

I hate paying for razor blades. But beards are for students and hippies, and I’m neither — any more. So when my old Wilkinson Sword broke, I nearly cried. ‘Another expense,’ I muttered, cursing the fact I’d have to fork out for a new razor on top of the usual mountain of blades it takes to trim my thick-and-fast stubble every month.

Hurrying through the toiletries aisle, my eyes were drawn straight to the King of Shaves, a relative newcomer to the market. I picked one up because of the price. They’re 1/3 off in Tesco at the moment. But there was more to my decision than just that.

I read an article about the King of Shaves quite recently. The truth is, I can’t remember where. I just know I read about it. That’s lesson #1. Sometimes it doesn’t matter where your brand recognition comes from, so long as your customer remembers your name. Then I checked the regular price. A pack of new blades is priced at about 15% cheaper than my usual brand. That’s lesson #2. If they were half the price, i.e. cheap, I’d probably have stayed away, reasoning that they’d probably only be half as good. But they were priced competitively. So I was reassured by the price and the brand, but still happy that I’d be saving a little money.

How was the shave? Actually, it was pretty bloody good. King of Shaves markets itself as a no-frills underdog — the plain design accentuates this point without making the razor feel cheap. Like other reviewers, I had a little trouble at first (got my first shaving cut in years) but that’s only because (and here comes lesson #3) this razor actually works. It’s the closest shave I’ve had in years, and with considerably less irritation. All in all, I’m a pretty happy customer.

King of Shaves is a perfect example of how to market a new product in a challenging environment. Gillette control about 70% of the market. Here’s a product that’s a potential giant-killer. The fundamentals are there: a good product at a good price. But the marketing’s spot on too. The name’s bold and brash and holds its own against the ludacrisly hyperbolic Mach 3! Fusion! Quattro Titanium Precision! et al that litter the shelves at the moment. It’s a confident looking product that inspired confidence in me. I even like the fact that the designer’s mug is splashed all over their marketing material. Again, it screams confidence.

The economist Geoff Riley probably puts it best, explaining King of Shaves’ success here:

King of Shaves as the challenger brand has benefited from its willingness to take risks, use smart marketing campaigns, and change the pricing model which had become embedded in the industry and from its commitment to innovation and top level engineering skills in designing and modifying new products to meet changing consumer needs and wants.

What he leaves out is the sheer confidence of the brand. As a rapidly expanding company they’ve gone for an unusual way of raising money, offering 5000 ‘shaving bonds‘ with a return of 6%pa for the next three years, direct to their customers.

This is a brand that has confidence written all over it. This is a brand that looks like it could take on the big names and win. But I’m sure you’ve got that message by now. It’s rare that I’m impressed by a marketing campaign, but I can really see this one going a long way. It doesn’t surprise me that Will King, the company’s founder, is a former ad man. In fact, looking at the evidence, it’s pretty obvious.

If I had a grand to spare right now, I’d probably buy one of those shaving bonds — even though they’re relatively untested.

I don’t have a grand to spare, alas. I’ll just have to make do with having the closest shave I’ve had in years. But that alone makes me think this brand will go far.