What does it do?

In short, Scribe is an SEO analysis tool that provides a full report on a Wordpress post or page once you’ve written it. So rather than suggesting that you build a page around a set of keywords, Scribe analyses you writing and tells you how search engines will see it — indexing keywords based on position and frequency, rather than relying on you inputting keywords for it to analyse.

This review gets a 95% score for SEO purposes!

Scribe’s unique approach might take a few passes to get your head round. I analysed the same page seven times making minor tweaks so I could see how it worked. And admittedly, some of it still doesn’t make sense to me. When looking at my own marketing, I changed the page so that “freelance copywriter” appeared as a keyword more often than any other phrase. Yet it still insisted words like “creative” and “London” were more important. Maybe I haven’t got the hang of it yet, but therein lies the biggest problem. It’s a subscription service and you only get so many reports per month.

The flaw: A limited subscription model

Yes, it’s relatively cheap — $27 will buy you 30 reports a month, but $97 will buy you 300. At a dollar a report, it’s pretty steep. But if you’re a professional buying in bulk, 30 cents seems like a good deal considering the quality and depth of the analysis Scribe provides you — at first. But how much value will does Scribe really give you?

I used up most of my ten free tries making very, very minor tweaks to my copy. Infuriatingly, Scribe charges per report, not per page — so even though I was perhaps only changing a word at a time, it still counted as another report. So it’s probably better to get value for money by writing two or three very different versions of your post, and comparing those. But copywriting can often be a tweak-by-tweak process, especially when the client gets involved. Personally, I’d be a lot happier seeing an unlimited reporting option — or are the folks behind Scribe really trying to tell me that it costs them nearly 30 cents every time I request a report? I’m willing to bet that the marginal cost of each additional report is next to nothing.

OK, so I’d have to write one blogpost a day and analyse each one ten times to run out of pre-paid reports, but I can imagine quite a few pro bloggers doing just that, if they’re ‘tweakers’ like me.

I guess this is a very back-handed endorsement of Scribe.

The Scribe SEO plugin is easy to use, valuable, and I can see myself using it, a lot. There’s really nothing else like it on the market at the moment, and a web version and MS Word version are on their way. But the pay model doesn’t sit well with a tweak-by-tweak approach to writing. Which is, obviously, the best way to learn.

I think Pat O’Brien’s review of Scribe says it best:

“I think the intro price [$27 for 300 reports] was great, but the full price may be a bit much for some. But that’s true about a lot of products.”

I’ve got some very keyword heavy blogposts to write this month for some of my clients, blogposts that are purely for SEO optimization purposes. I still say that original content and linkbuilding should usually come first when blogging, with on-page SEO coming a distant second. SEO copy frequently looks lifeless and clumsy. Scribe is better, because it analyses your copy after it’s written. But it’s still more important to write copy that actual people, not robots, will read.

I’ll be using Scribe to double-check my posts this month. But as a pro blogger, I’m scoring 95% first time — so how much use is this software going to be to me in the long term?

Scribe wins bonus points for

• being very user friendly and easy to set up
• showing you how a search engine is likely to see your page
• providing reports in plain English, not tech-speak
  
• offering helpful suggestions to improve your copy, title and meta tags

but

• it may be hard for beginners to understand why certain changes improve or worsen SEO
• …without requesting a lot of reports with only minor changes
• …which cost at least thirty cents a time.
• …and pro users already skilled at SEO best practices might not learn anything new.

Is it a game changer? Probably not.
Is it good for intermediate users? Yes.
Is it worth the price? That’s for you to decide.

But it’s the fact that Twitter is so immediate that makes it so dangerous. It’s like having a gun with no safety catch. If you hold it in your hand, if you play with it, if, in short, you don’t know what you’re doing, sooner or later it’s bound to go off.

And that’s exactly what happened to Labour politician David Wright yesterday.

In a tweet, David Wright MP referred to opposition politicians as “scum sucking pigs” — hardly insult of the century, you might think, but in Britain the political system is still pretty formal, in fact you can’t even call an opposing MP a liar without the speaker of the house demanding an apology and a retraction. Protocol is a big thing in British politics, which comes as a great surprise to all of us, even in the UK, as the majority of the population probably do think that all politicians are scum sucking pigs, regardless of political persuasion.

So it didn’t take long for a storm to brew up in this particular MP’s teacup. But where he really damned himself was his defence. David Wright argued that someone had edited his tweets. As political blogger Guido Fawkes was quick to point out, you can’t edit a tweet once it’s been posted. David Wright was quickly caught out and accused by a much wider community of being a liar — with proof.

He’d compounded his initial mistake. He tweeted without thinking, then he paid a further price the next day by not understanding the technology he was using.

I’ve said before that Twitter is very much a double-edged sword. Used well, it can be an immensely powerful marketing tool. But used badly, it can be a PR disaster for you as an individual or as a company. Even when you think you’re using it ‘correctly’ it’s too easy to be seen as spamming twitter with your marketing if you don’t contribute to the community. There’s nothing worse than someone constantly talking about themselves, constantly trying to push their services, trying to make you pay attention to them — so whenever you’re tweeting, you really do need to give extra special thought to what you say.

I’m still not on Twitter, because I haven’t found the time for it. Between Facebook for status updates, RSS for news and Tumblr for fun, I haven’t found a reason to tweet. The designer of this site wants to add a ‘re-tweet this blog’ button to make it easier for a wider audience to read, digest, and disagree with my ramblings. I’m tempted to say yes. But other than that, how do you think I should be using Twitter?

Apart from occasionally updating you on my latest blog posts and perhaps sharing links from other sites I find interesting (which I already do on Tumblr), what would you want me to tweet about? The fact that I haven’t been able to answer that question satisfactorily is what keeps me from using it at the moment.

Unlike David Wright MP, I like to think before I open my mouth. And right now, I think I’d just be spamming you with links about me and my business, and in the long run I think that would do me more harm than good.

So come on, folks. I’m asking for your advice. Would you want me to tweet, and if so, what would you want to read about? I’m open to suggestions.

Love it or loathe it, Valentines Day is the mandated time of the year when we’re supposed to make a pitch for our lover’s heart. Some say it with flowers, with a special breakfast… or even a special ring to surprise their loved ones. But what if you’ve got something more to say? What if you’ve always struggled to explain how much someone means to you?

A love letter could be just the thing.

So what can a copywriter teach you about writing a love letter?

Well, you’ll find that all the basic advice that applies to good copywriting applies to writing a good love letter. Doubly so:

Avoid cliche.

If you wanted to say something trite and unoriginal, you could’ve sent them a store-bought card, right? The point of a love letter is that it’s personal. Be original. Be truthful. It doesn’t have to be perfect. Like most pitches, battles are lost or won over the issue of trust.

Don’t go overboard.

‘Purple’ prose, overwritten prose, that’s full of outrageous metaphors or overly descriptive passages, always strike the reader as untrue and distract from your overall message. Don’t say “thou art lovelier than the gorgeous burnt ochre dawn of a summer’s day” if what you mean is “I want to screw your brains out”. Say “I can’t control myself when I see you. Your eyes burn into my very soul and I need to feel your lips pressed against mine.” It’s better to be honest and passionate than try to sound like a 16th century poet.

Passion is good.

You’re not writing an essay, you’re not going to be marked out of ten. You don’t have to set out a rational argument for why your lover should love you. Nothing kills romance like the cold steel blade of logic. So no bullet point lists, no detailed explanations of why you’re in love. Love is there to be felt, not thought about. There’s a reason Mr Spock never gets any Valentine’s cards. Open up to your instincts.

Show off.

Okay, this might sound like a contradiction, but don’t forget, a love letter is just a pitch. You’re trying to prove yourself to your beloved. And that means playing to your strengths. Fantasy is good. Include them in it. Tell them how much better you are as a person when they’re in your life. Tell them all the crazy things you’ve dreamed about doing with them. Make sure that they know that they’re the missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle of your life. But whatever you do, don’t sound like a sap. Put yourself in their shoes. What would you want to read in a love letter written to you?

As for us copywriters, what can we learn from you lovers?

Copywriting is a fine art. So is writing a good letter. But moreover, the thing they really have to have in common is passion. It’s more important that the words are true than perfect. It’s more important that they convey enthusiasm than sound strict and formal. It’s important to make a personal connection. In many ways, the love letter is the ultimate sales pitch. This Valentine’s day, how are you going to market yourself?

This lonely old writer will be staying in with a good book. As the Beautiful South once sang, “write your love letters on rice paper, at least you’ll feed the poor.”

But when it comes to writing, everyone’s a DIY merchant. Everyone thinks, well, I speak English, so I can write well. That’s why it’s hard for a copywriter to make it in this modern climate. People will happily shell out for web design, because it’s easier than learning HTML. But English is a language everyone understands. Or so they think.

I studied hard to get my MA in creative writing, and I’m an expert copywriter. I know the English language inside out. I know what works and what doesn’t. I know how to turn a phrase and how to turn your customers on to your services.

The hard part is convincing you to think the same way I do.

It’s hard to sell your services as a writer. That’s why there are so many beautiful websites containing awful copy. It’s the bit everyone does themselves to cut costs. Why pay a writer when you can do it yourself?

The truth is, most people can’t write very well at all. Writing well for an audience is an art, and it’s as hard as fixing a car or a broken boiler. Okay, maybe it’s not brain surgery, but like most things, you get a better result when you call in the professionals.

Dustin Curtis provides an excellent example of how a well written call to action can improve your response rate. By changing his call to “you should follow me on twitter here” from “I’m on twitter” he improved his response rate from 4.70% to 12.81%

That’s a threefold increase just by crafting a better written sentence. Heck, even adding ‘here’ to the end of the sentence resulted in a 3% increase.

That’s the power of good writing. A good copywriter can take your message and sell it to your customers. In short, he’s talking their language. Are you?

The chances are good you could vastly improve your marketing right now by hiring a professional writer, like me. The question is, why don’t you?

You should get in touch with me. Here.

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.

Happy holidays everyone. It’s been a great year.

Photo by my friend Spencer (here), check out the best and worst agency Xmas cards here (and the very best here) and remember: Rage at no.1 this year proved one thing: it’s been a really great year for viral advertising (and, err, Sony Records).

See you all in the New Year!

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.

But it’s not SEO. SEO involves vast amounts of repetition, as well as angling in every possible keyword you can on any given page so you can be sure you’re covering as many bases as possible. It seems to me that people want their sites to get searched for, but they don’t want “SEO copy” any more. People have moved on.

Fact: what looks good to a search engine doesn’t look good to the naked eye.

People want sales copy. Not SEO copy.

Yet they still want organic traffic from google and the like.

This is what I advise my customers:

1. Get your <title> right. Load it with keywords. It makes an enormous difference to search engines, and people don’t read it much.

2. If you’re using wordpress, use the All in one SEO pack — that’s where you need SEO copy. The SEO pack will  handle your title, description, and keywords (meta tags).

3. While you’re at it, make sure your permalinks are SEO friendly. It’s another good place to add a keyword or two.

4. Blog. If you have a six page brochure / portfolio site but you blog once a week, in six weeks you’ll have doubled the size of your site. That’s twice as many pages with keywords about your business people will potentially search for. Not only that, it’ll encourage increased traffic, repeat visits and inbound links to your site. All these things will help raise your site’s search engine ranking.

5. Use localization where possible. If you’re based in a small to medium sized town with little competition (but at least some demand) put your location somewhere prominent. You’re the only game in town. Exploit that fact. It’s also wise to submit your site to Google Local where possible, so people searching for your service who live in your area will see it automatically.

That’s five suggestions. And none of them have been “use SEO copywriting” to pad out your site. Sure, adding lots of keywords, etc, might make a difference. But it will negatively affect user experience when people actually start visiting your site.

People like short, snappy informative headlines. They also like originality — which SEO copywriting prohibits.

It’s a cost-benefit analysis situation. As far as I’m concerned, concentrating too much on SEO ruins the look and feel of your site. And, with the five SEO strategies in place I’ve mentioned above, you shouldn’t ever need to use it.

So the short answer?

Yes, SEO matters. But BTL style SEO copywriting is an ineffective strategy.

The most validatory statistic from the poll toward my view that Twitter ‘ain’t all that’, is that 76% of the British population said they’d never used Twitter and, also, had no intention to use it in the future. In other words, Twitter is a communication medium that encourages groupthink whilst simultaneously making the group believe their views are having influence on a wider population when in fact they’re all just shouting at each other in a locked and sound-proof room.

If 3/4 of the population aren’t using it, and have no intention of using it, it’s a severely limited medium. Sure, it’s great at getting in touch with that 1/4 of the population. But only a fool would put it at the heart of their marketing strategy. When you rely on twitter to do your marketing for you, you’re broadcasting only to a limited number of people with limited appeal. As Dizzy puts it, ‘a locked and soundproof room’.

The prospect poll shows that most twitter users are left leaning liberals. What would a more detailed survey show? That they were more likely to be vegetarians, that they were against nuclear power? That they were more likely to be anti-capitalist hippies? Probably not. But Twitter only reaches a certain type of person. Personally, I think it’s great for tech launches and reaching people who work within the technology / online industries. But that’s as far as it goes.

Because nobody else uses it.

It’s simple. Spend less money.

But hang on — if you spend less, won’t your payback fall too? Couldn’t your ROI actually fall if you stop spending money on social media marketing?

Of course it could. But that’s where most people are missing the point of social media. I don’t think there’s any specific correlation between the size of your investment in social media and the returns you get. Of course, if you spend more money putting your face out there, the chances are you’ll get noticed more. But it’s just that — a chance.

So what you need to do is find a way of spending less while still getting the same returns.

It’s difficult to measure social media ROI. But one thing’s for certain:

Increasing your chance of getting noticed isn’t the same as increasing your social media marketing spend. There is little to no correlation between the two.

Social media acts differently to traditional advertising mechanisms in that you, yourself, aren’t doing most of the marketing. What’s more important to you? That you have a regularly updated twitter feed or facebook page, or that you have a thousand followers? You can pay someone to regularly update your twitter feed. But you can’t pay a thousand people to follow you. Well… you could… but you’d be missing the point!

Unlike traditional advertising, where the more you spend, the more “airtime” you get, the bigger your advert or the longer it runs, etc, the point of social media is that people do your marketing for you.

So how do you get noticed?

The only worthwhile investment targeted at social media is good creative.

If you want people to blog about, tweet about, or simply share your message, you’ve got to give them an incentive. Only a good creative can come up with an inspired idea for a video that goes viral. Only a good copywriter can come up with a message that people want to pass on. Only a good designer can come up with an image that sticks in people’s minds.

If you spend thousands promoting yourself via social media, think again. Sure, you need to spend some money promoting yourself, getting your face, your name — your brand — out there. But the less you spend actually marketing yourself, the better. Good creative will provide you with a message that your customers will pass on to each other. It’s the only worthwhile spend there is.

So by all means cut back on your social media budget. There is, after all, good evidence that social media isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. But it’s not just a case of investing less. It’s a case of investing smart. Creative is the way to do that.

A strategy for success:

Produce less content. Spend less time actively marketing it.
Spend money creating content that actually gets people talking.

Good content will market itself.

Simplify your online presence. Invest in good creative.

I’ve blogged before about how the forthcoming election will represent a paradigm shift in the advertising industry. Elections influence the advertising world for years to come, in the same way that wars create demand for new weapons… election campaigns force us to regularly re-evaluate marketing strategy. It’s a compressed period of time, a testing ground where we can quickly figure out what works and what doesn’t. The forthcoming election will be almost entirely about digital media. Whoever comes up with the most rebloggable, retweetable, viral content will win the advertising war.

Political blogger Iain Dale seems to think so too. His comment about Labour’s new poster campaign being almost totally irrelevant says it all:

No political party worth its salt spends any money on poster campaigns any longer. They don’t need to because the marketing can be done virally, for free.

It’s those last four words that count.

Marketing can be done virally, for free.

When it comes to social media, the only worthwhile spend is on good creative.

Good. He’s a hero. An archetypal, flawed, don’t-make-’em-like-that-any-more hero. He also happens to work in advertising.

He’s also a fictional character. But what can us real-life ad men learn from Don?

1. Stay ahead of the game

I just watched the finale of Season 3 online. I live in the UK. I’d have to wait months to see this on TV. So I didn’t.The world has moved online. Move with it, or be left behind — just like Harry is ahead of his time setting up a TV department at Sterling Cooper, so too have the agencies who saw the potential of the web powered ahead. Online advertising spend now outstrips television advertising. Get with the times.

If a film comes out in America but the release is delayed for even just a few weeks here, I’ll watch it online. That’s the way the internet works. Once it’s out, it’s out. You can’t censor it, block it, or slow it down. This is why Rupert Murdoch’s plan to make all his online newspapers subscription only will fail. Someone will reblog them for free.

2. Everyone at an ad agency should be creative.

It’s not just the creatives who have to think fast. Whether it’s a secretary coming up with a good excuse for why her boss is out of the office (hint – “he’s at the printers” doesn’t work in a digital age) or a personal assistant coming up with a reason why he needs an office, thinking on your feet gets results.

Pete Campbell gets made partner because he’s as creative as Don. No, he doesn’t have great advertising ideas. But when it comes to manipulating people, he’s good — one of the best .Whether it’s blackmailing Don or cooking up intricate schemes to get the next-door-neighbour’s au pair in the sack, he’s great at handling people. He’s creative.

Creative itself has to be creative two times over. Half of what Don does is to sell an idea to his clients. He has to be able to explain to them why his ideas work. If you can’t explain it to your clients, go back to the drawing board. Your idea’s just not that good.

3. Be cool.

Sharp suits. Sleek cars. The best barber in town. Everyone in Mad Men oozes cool the same way real-life ad-men sweat. Cool always saves the day. Whether you’ve been caught having an affair, or someone’s foot has been run over by a John Deere tractor, be cool.

For the last few years to be a “creative” you’ve had to look like a cross between a mad artist and an eccentric hobo. Either that, or look like you’ve just got out of bed. Times are changing. Clean cut is cool again.

Success breeds success. Successful people are successful because they look the part. People trust them. They look like winners. Would you let a loser loose on your account?

4. It’s tough at the top. It’s even tougher at the bottom.

Don’s broken away to form his own ad agency. He’s struck out, boldly — perhaps taking a leaf out of Connie Hilton’s book, or maybe just finally getting round to reading that Ayn Rand that Bert Cooper lent him. But suddenly the team’s gone from working in a gorgeous serviced office to working out of a hotel room. Sure, they’ve got room service, but it’s going to get cramped.

The point is, branching out on your own brings rewards. And if you don’t want to be a cog in a wheel, sometimes you’ve got to take risks. There are some agencies I’d love to work for. There are other jobs I’ve turned down. I’m a freelancer because the hours and the pay suit me right now. But if the right company made the right offer… or if a beautiful viscount’s daughter came along…

The most successful characters in Mad Men take risks. But they also take opportunities when they come knocking. And they’ve always got one eye on the next rung on the ladder. They play the long game.

5. There are some things you can’t get away with any more.

Drinking in the office. Now frowned upon. Try going for a gin martini after work instead. Drinks in the morning? Don’t get caught out in an embarassing pants-wetting episode. Try rehab. Sexual harrassment — it’s out too, I’m afraid. Homophobia — see how far that gets you these days. Television? Who cares. And for the love of God, don’t tell your boss you’ve had “a great idea to target the negro market”.

Mad Men is brilliant because it simultaneously shows us how far we’ve come, and how similar we still are. It’s a triumph of style and substance. A show whose popularity has spread by word of mouth.  In fact, Mad Men is just like the best marketing campaigns.

It’s won our hearts. We can all learn from it.

It’s inevitable. Most people see social media as a way of connecting with their friends. Nobody sees it as a glorified mechanism for product placement except for advertisers and their clients. People are going to start blocking out marketing-related social media the same way they kill adverts with AdBlock Plus (which I use, by the way — it’s there, who wouldn’t?).

We’re killing the golden goose.

Brand Republic reported today that only 33% of customers trust social networking sites to provide the information they require to make an informed decision about a purchase.

I’ll qualify that with the following comments:

• It’s perfectly possible the study was commissioned with the aim of putting social media in a bad light. But cui bono – who benefits? Most agencies are stampeding over one another to reach the top of the social media pile. This study should give us all pause for thought.
  
• The statistic is 33% to “make an informed decision” about a purchase. It’s perfectly possible that 99% of social network users see social media as part of the process of making an informed decision. They’ll then google prices, reviews, etc –  while social media may not be the deciding factor, it still has an influence. You wouldn’t buy something just because someone’s twittered about it. But you might read a review about it, or go and check one out in the shops.
  
• When compared to the 68% who trust “other online sources”  such as price comparison websites, it’s clear that social media isn’t the ‘magic bullet’ some commentators were making out it was. In fact, it’s perfectly possible that social media just isn’t that important.

But why isn’t social media as important as a price comparison website? The answer lies with the question of trust. 33% trust social media. 68% trust other sources.

I think the flood of digital marketing agencies towards ‘harnessing’ social media is responsible for this lack of trust.

How do we we rebuild trust in social media?
The answer’s simple. We stop milking it for all it’s worth.

Consumers are getting smarter. They were never dumb. But the more information they have at their fingertips, the harder it is to pull the wool over their eyes. So don’t try.

Inform first. Persuade second.
Then, when that’s done, try to sell.

Nobody likes spam. They do like product comparison websites. Nobody likes being told what to think — or what to buy — they do like making informed choices. And if you talk to them like human beings, they’ll listen.

That’s the way to use social media.

Engage with your customers. Strengthen your brand by building up trust — talk to them. Social media is a conversation. It’s not a platform for you to shout your wares like a Sunday market trader.

So I got talking. I didn’t go to pitch my services, rather I went to brush up on the latest developments on the web. What are London’s finest web entrepreneurs talking about?

Well, unsurprisingly, the present obsession is social media. What did surprise me somewhat was how cynical many of the people I met were about it.

Web entrepreneurs think social media has limitations

One person — whose business is basically centred around Twitter — told me, in devastating words, “social media is just a buzzword… it’s the new SEO… all the people who were marketing themselves as SEO experts or gurus or whatever a couple of years ago, well, now they’re the social media experts. Of course they know nothing about either.”

Of course he’s right. SEO was an arcane art and promised more than it could deliver — usually because it attracted one real expert to every ten cowboys. It seems the majority of web entrepreneurs feel social media is going the same way.

People are five times more likely to trust social media than other ads — but for how long?

I’ve been doing a lot of work in social media lately. I think I know a lot about it — I’ve been blogging almost nine years, I was on Facebook when there were only a few ‘university networks’ and you had to have a uni address to join (remember that?) and I can cogently argue using examples, metrics and conversion rate statistics to explain to you exactly why I don’t bother using twitter.

The most interesting statistic I’ve dug up on social media is this: people are five times more likely to trust a recommendation from a friend than they are an advert on the web (stat derived from Socialnomics). That’s not surprising in itself. In fact, it seems like stating the obvious.

What I do wonder is how long that will carry on for. I see an enormous amount of social media “experts” all jumping aboard the bandwagon trying to use social media as a cheap, ROI rich way of advertising. There’s little evidence that social media boosts conversion rates although as I’ve said elsewhere, “you can’t put a price on a conversation, or value the ability to get inside your customers’ heads.”

But I’ve come to look upon social media as something of a goldmine. Incredibly valuable at first. But sooner or later, it’ll run out.

My fear is that the more and more we use social media to push products,
The more social media will become devalued as a platform.

People trust it at the minute because they’re not cynical towards it,
The way they’re cynical about ads on radio or TV.

What will happen if social media marketing campaigns are mismanaged? I know some very good ones — in fact, I’m working on one right now. But I do begin to fear the backlash as more and more companies rush to cash in on virgin markets.

People trust social media. The question is, will the increased use of social media to market goods and services result in a loss of trust — or will social media find a way around it?

Will it, essentially, learn how to reject the most overt advertising campaigns, and pour scorn on the people who use it wrongly, as it did when Habitat attempted to use Twitter?

It’s hard setting time aside to relax, especially when you’re an “always on” kind of guy like me. I used to have a pool table (technically, a friend’s pool table) and that helped me to focus a lot. A fifteen minute work-out on the table gave my mind just enough breathing space to recover and get back in the game.

I wouldn’t say I’m a loner. In fact, I love being around people. I love watching them, love trying to figure them out — I wouldn’t be very good at my job if I couldn’t get into people’s heads. But when I’ve got two, sometimes even three clients, all expecting work to be delivered within strict deadlines… it gets hard.

I live about an hour outside of London, but when things get stressful, there’s a place I can drive to to clear my head. Sometimes I take a notebook. Usually I just go up there and sit for a while and ideas come to me. I’ve held off mentioning it here because I’ve often thought some clients might take exception to the fact they’re paying me to sit in a clearing for hours at a time and clear my head.

But that’s where the best ideas come from: a clear mind, uncluttered, unfettered by daily designs.

This is where I go when I need to come up with new ideas:

It’s really quite beautiful. Breathtaking, actually — this photo clumsily snapped on my 2MP BlackBerry hardly does it justice.

Us creative types are odd. When I was first starting out, a friend told me all I needed to succeed in advertising was a good haircut once a month and a good idea once every three or four years. I think that’s changing as social media makes the world turn that little bit faster and faster… but nonetheless — the busier the world gets, the more important this seems:

You’ve got to find time to stop and see things from afar.
That’s when the bigger picture becomes clear.

When you’re stressed, stop working. When you’ve stopped working, stop stressing.
Then get back on with the job.

I’m thinking about moving closer to London to be near to my work, but I’m not sure I want to leave this place behind.

I guess with all things it’s just about finding a coping strategy. Maybe I’ll have to buy myself a new pool table if I move back to the city.

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…

This post, linked to by Guido Fawkes simply as “Twitter Tsar Talks Tosh” on PR-media-blog.co.uk, sums up a lot about what’s right and wrong with Twitter. Skip to the end:

Labour is experimenting with different social media activities, including a way of using Twitter to make grass roots activists feel more included…

…but is there a risk that Labour positioning itself as the “social media party” will detract from the real issues the public care about? “We’ve been careful about this,” says McCarthy, “as there’s nothing worse than politicians trying to be trendy. Authenticity is important and people will see if we are using it as a gimmick…

But how significant will social media be in helping Labour to victory in 2010? “It’s not the magic bullet that will win the election; it’s a small part of getting across the message but will help in getting activists enthused.”

PR Blog has highlighted a good point: twitter only reaches your converts. It rarely converts new listeners — and advertisers need to be noting that as keenly as politicians. They’ve also made a glaring mistake, by equating twitter with social media. Yes, Twitter is a form of social media, but it isn’t all social media.

As I’ve already pointed out, viral video and other ‘blitzkrieg’ guerrilla advertisements will be what changes the next general election. Tweets will merely give them more exposure.

With devastating simplicity, Guido has passed his own judgment in the comments:

“Oh and she is wrong about the use of social media in a political context, preaching to the choir or interacting without purpose with your base is not politically significant, nor will it have an electoral effect.

Carry on Tweeting, it won’t change the polls.“

I’m not against microblogging.

I’m just not a fan of the twitter format,

or the attitude that goes with it.

I’ve found one that I like – Tumblr.

It’s a great idea: a microblogging service that bills itself as a scrapbook for thoughts, musings, quotes, pictures, links and video. In short, it’s twitter without the restrictive word-count and the emphasis on links. You follow people and have followers. I’m already a big fan. I’ve been following Don Draper for quite some time. My tumblr is full of random musings and aphorisms — it’s also considerably less professional than my blog here. It’s good to let your hair down.

Can anyone recommend me any other good tumblr’s to follow? I’m hooked.

Speaking of mistakes…

…a neckbeard got in touch to point out, not nicely, either, that there was — shock horror — a spelling mistake somewhere on this website and I’d never make it as a writer if I couldn’t spell. I pointed out, rather brusquely, that I’m not a proofreader, and I am, in fact, shockingly, human. That’s to say, I do make mistakes. People hire me because I come up with brilliant branding ideas backed up with sound, cogent copy. They don’t hire me because I’m a grammar nazi. I apologise for my mistake.

He’s the first person out of 16,831 visitors to this site since July to notice. Or perhaps, simply the first person to care. I won’t be offering a prize. I’m sure fastidiousness of this nature is its own reward.

If my eagle eyed friend thinks my dropping an “e” from a word was the most enormous mistake I’ve ever made, I’d hate to see what he’d make of my last relationship…

I like being twittered about. It brings hits to my site. But I don’t twitter about myself. Direct tweets, linking to your own material, are virtually worthless. They’re spam. They’re a flood. They’re a transparent attempt at generating traffic, without regard to the type of user you’re attracting, or the conversion rate you’ll get.

It’s great when people tweet about you, because that’s a personal recommendation. But I also trust a recommendation from a friend on the basis of a blog post, facebook message, SMS or word-of-mouth.

Social media is in danger of becoming just another buzzword. The new SEO. It’s too valuable a tool to let that happen.

It’s become a digital arms race — everybody’s looking for the nuclear social media technique. Twitter, while it has its uses, is more of a cluster bomb — indiscriminate, and used improperly, bloody annoying. Constant twittering will eventually become the social media equivalent of constantly resubmitting your site to Delicious, et al. Devalued to the point of worthlessness.

I read 30 blogs via RSS every day — from the BBC and Times feed to Guido and Perez Hilton, to pirate operations from the bedrooms of as-yet-undiscovered friends. Why? Because they keep me informed. They are my filter to the events of the day. I trust these thirty or so to tell me all I need to know. I turn to their Facebooks, their Livejournals and yes, even a select few twitters, to keep me in the loop. I’m selective, and I generally want a bit of explanation along with my link. Twitter just doesn’t provide enough information for me.

I’m an information hound.

Most people are content with a lot less. Most people are content with fast food, too — but you’ll never attract your best clients that way. I reckon quality content, with a bit (not too much) detail is the best way to increase serious traffic and boost conversion rates. So if Twitter is a Big Mac & Fries, the smorgasbord of social media I’d suggest is more like a palate-perfect plate of nouvelle cuisine.

The key for advertisers, and the companies they represent, is figuring out how to reach people.

A lot of other digital media is getting overlooked in the big rush to Twitter. Don’t forget that people spend three times as long on Facebook as they do on Google. And whether or not they’re reading blogs, someone is — that’s why big, “household name” blogs set the agenda for what everyone’s talking about, and that’s what influences people’s daily tweets.

In short, it’s important that your social media strategy
reaches everyone, either directly or indirectly.

The best way to do that is by influencing the wider discussion,
across all social media, with intelligent comment,
not just mindless links.

And it has to be simple.

Case in point:

I was frankly baffled by this newest offering from Pizza Express. To briefly explain, you have to install (yet another) app in Facebook, invite whoever you want, use the app to make a reservation at your chosen pizza express, and then you get lunch for a tenner. Oh yeah, and Facebook proudly tells the world you’ve installed the app and invited your mate out for a cheap lunch. Privacy concerns? Not half.

I had lunch last week. There was a Pizza Express and a Prezzo on the same street. If I’d planned in advance, and used a system that’s a lot more complex than a printed, money-off voucher, I could’ve got the Pizza Express deal. The Prezzo had a sign outside saying “Buy one get one free on all main courses”. I picked the Prezzo.

Social media only works when it takes the shortest path. When it simplifies. When it makes life easier.

That’s why this is a brilliant example of social media being used to good effect: you can now befriend a gorilla on Facebook for a dollar, a bit like sponsoring a pet. Only it’s simple, immediate, fun, doesn’t require an app, instantly tells your friends that you support wildlife conservation. It’s an instant hit.

I blogged the General Election, back in 2005. Blogging was different then. We were mostly ignored. My blog was just an irreverant look at the campaigns, you wouldn’t have come to it for news.

Yes, we all know blogs are going to be important this time around. We’ve got Guido, Iain Dale, Conservative Home, and even a few offerings from Labour — which are nowhere near as widely read, which I thinks says a lot.

But in the hoo-hah about blogging, it’s easy to forget that the internet is much more than just the political blogosphere.

It’s not just blogs that have gone mainstream in the last five years. It’s viral video.

Dan Hannan’s searing attack on Gordon Brown went viral. Two and a half million views of his “devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government” speech. The blogs have given us smeargate, the ousting of Damien McBride and Derek Draper by Guido Fawkes. That’s a much more powerful story. But when it comes to general elections, campaigns get quick and dirty. Viral video will be the blitzkrieg tactic of choice for both sides.

Not all the videos will be sanctioned.
Many will be sanctioned. Secretly.

All the main players know the power of a good attack video — both political parties, and their supporters. Five years ago, to reach voters visually, you were limited to a 5 minute party political broadcast, a few a month, at set times, with strict limits on what you could say.

What’s interesting is that, today, the electoral commission has come out and said that in this battleground, there will be no rules. None. At all. They cannot police viral video.

Expect things to get down and dirty, very quick.

A couple of examples —
Guido uses his blog to simply demonstrate Gordon Brown caught in a lie. He doesn’t even need to pass comment.
The unofficial ConservativeHome produces a blunt attack video to highlight Gordon Brown’s broken promises.

I for one would love to know which agencies are handling the digital accounts of the main parties, and their supporters. Viral videos are cheap to make, incredibly powerful, and totally without boundaries. The next election campaign will be like none we’ve ever seen before. Whoever makes the most memorable attack video will probably make the same name for themselves that Saatchi & Saatchi made in 1979 with the slogan ‘Labour isn’t working‘ — probably the most memorable British political campaign of all time.

This is an exciting time for advertisers willing to get their hands dirty in politics. Reputations will be won and lost. The direction of British politics decided for maybe a decade, or more.

The Internet: still the World’s Wild West.

It’s also a very good move. Increasingly, we’re skipping ads. We’re ad savvy. I do it on the internet all the time: I use adblock plus. When I owned a television, I’d skip the ads with sky + (that’s a TiVo to friends across the pond). Or before the age of the TiVo, I’d resort to the less technical solution: I’d wander into the kitchen and make myself a nice cup of tea. Now I skip the television altogether and stream my content. I’ll let you guess how many ads I watch when I do that.

The advert has to evolve or die.

There are two ways it can evolve. Either ads get better at entertaining us, which is why we switch on the TV in the first place, or they get more subtle.

People don’t respond well to bad ads. Here are two I remember very well: the Cadbury’s gorilla and the DFS furniture “rockstar” advert. The former is an advertising classic. The latter is thirty seconds of pure pain from the devil’s own VHS collection. The “good” ad is a minute and a half long. Yet I challenge you to sit through ten seconds of the furniture advert without cringing. Go on, try it? Does it make you want to buy a sofa?

So as our tastes become more sophisticated, so our demands on adverts increase.
Product placement is the perfect way around that.

It’s not an advert for coke. It’s your hero, drinking a coke. See the difference?

Of course you do. Because product placement is already everywhere. It’s in films. Sometimes, film characters even endorse products.And does anyone else remember the Starbucks logo in Austin Powers II? How blatant was that? Did we mind? Did we think we were being brainwashed? No.

Product placement is a direct alternative to direct advertising. In an era when ads have a reduced impact, and many of us aren’t watching them at all, it’s not even a necessary evil. It’s just necessary. One of my favourite imports from the US at the moment is the brilliant Mad Men, a series set in an advertising agency in the early 60s. It’s full of product placement. Nobody complains.

But it can’t be done badly.

As my example of the two adverts — the gorilla and the sofa — shows, people respond to subtle endorsement. Or else, as the Austin Powers integration shows, you can be as blatant as you like about it so long as you’re funny. Or just be slick, like Mad Men.

Either way, UK ad agencies are going to have to figure out the product placement game pretty quickly. But there’s no need for it to stop there.

Television is a dying medium.
Product placement in viral video has been around for a while.
It looks to me like, once more, television is just playing a game of catch-up.

The rest of us are already on the web.

I’m a busy man. Just give me the information.

Facebook lite promises to roll back the clock four years and give us the slim, streamlined social networking tool that made MySpace look ugly, primitive and unintuitive. I’ve had a ‘lite’ profile for a while now. No pictures. No surplus user information for third party apps to harvest. No quotes of the day, no videos, just my contact details, alongside the ability to message me and see what I’m up to.

My facebook is just my LinkedIn at play. I wouldn’t want it any other way.

It isn’t perfect yet. It’s still in beta. The text is too big, and I’d like it to be more customizable — there’s some information on the big facebook I might still want to access.

But what interests me is seeing just how many people will switch to Facebook lite once it’s done. I think takeup may well be over 50% — if they can get the interface and integration right. There’s a lot of us who carry on using services like Facebook on sufferance, because it’s there, because it’s the only way of keeping in touch with our friends. We’re the sort of people who grit our teeth and look away in despair, as if a silent fart has drifted across the room, every time you mention Mafia Wars.

We’re the silent majority.

The implications for social media, even if takeup only hits, say, 20%, are obvious — and huge. It means a massive number of users are rejecting the bloatware that’s been foisted on them the past few years. It also means that any links they do share, anything that does go on their profile, will be much more valuable, from a social networking perspective.

Make no mistakes. Facebook Lite isn’t a pioneering project to reduce bandwidth in third world countries, whatever they may say. It’s a system that proves what many of us have been saying all along — when it comes to social media, less is more. Sure, some people twitter every hour. They’re probably the same people who post a dozen quizzes to their Facebook wall every day. But the person who posts just one thing a day, maybe even just one link a week, or even a month — they’re being selective. That makes the value of that post is far greater.

Of course, the new Facebook Lite interface is a lot more like twitter — it does after all focus on status updates. But it remains to be seen if people will use it like twitter. After all, isn’t there already a service called twitter for people who want it?

Anyone who uses social media as a marketing tool should be taking notes.

I’m actually in awe of Facebook for doing this. They’ve differentiated their product for users like me, who are busy and just need the basic facts, from the people who use it for “fun”. My only question is, why didn’t they do it sooner?

Are they worried about the competition? With Twitter on one side and LinkedIn on the other, the answer is almost certainly yes. Facebook lite appeals to users of both.

It’s a stroke of genius.

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.

Keep it simple

It’s not Shakespeare. Nobody wants Shakespeare, either. He’s old and nobody understands him. But I guess if you’re writing copy for a living rather than plays about kings and murder, you’ve figured that out already.

But what you might not have worked out is that simplicity isn’t just about using common words. That’s just patronizing — and audiences hate that. Sure, you want to go easy on the thesaurus, but simplicity comes from using a minimal number of words in a short sentence, without redundancies. Treat your reader like a savvy, time-poor client. Pitch to him quickly in easy to understand language.

If you can say it in a sentence, don’t use a paragraph. Because people won’t read it.

Break up your text

Like I’ve just done. If all the reader sees is the two sentences above in italics, and not the preceding paragraph, they’ll have got my message.

Nothing is harder on the eyes than blocks of identical, lengthy paragraphs.

That’s doubly true on the web. But even on printed copy, if you’re working with material of any kind of length, break up the text. I’ve been working on a 5000 word brochure. I’ve already got it down to 3000 words. That’s practically an essay. But I can’t take out any more text without the client getting unhappy.

So instead I’m going to break up the text with

headings

italics
bold
and of course

• bullet points.

Avoid bad words

There’s definitely a list of words you should never use. “Fresh” is one of them. Nothing described as “fresh” ever sounds fresh. It sounds like a marketing consultant with a clip on pony tail muttering things like “fresh and funky” whilst stroking his goatee beard. “Funky” also means “smells bad,” folks. So if your text is funky, it sure as hell isn’t fresh.

I could go on for hours. Apparently, the world’s most hated word (if you’re a woman) is moist. I’m not sure why. Perhaps we’re all living in a pornographic cliche. But it’s a reminder: know your audience.

My pet hate is the word “basically”. You know. “What I’m basically trying to say is…”

Stop. When you say “basically” you’re saying to someone ‘hey, I’m smarter than you, and I’m simplifying for you, because I don’t think you’d understand.’

If you have to simplify, use the word “essentially”. That way your reader knows you’re leaving stuff out because he’s busy and you’re just presenting him with the main facts. Not that you think he’s an idiot.

Last but not least… avoid cliche.

Think about it. Where did that idea for a great blog post come from? If it came from “that guy you read last week” don’t bother, unless it’s a direct reply. You’re just rehashing other people’s material. I post once or twice a week. Because, honestly, that’s about how much I have to say.

It’s also acceptable to use irregular punctuation when you’re speaking in a conversational style. If you’re writing formally, don’t dare. You’ll just look uneducated. But if you’re trying to build up a rapport with your audience, use punctuation as you’d use breathing marks if you were reading out loud. Your reader will love you.

You either get up in four hours, and sleepwalk through the day. Or you shut out the glimmer of light that’s already peeping through the curtains, and get up in the mid-afternoon.

Either way, your day’s been written off. Or has it?

In my case, yes, the day was definitely written off. I was so angry about being kept up I found it impossible to concentrate when I finally rose, zombie-like, from the pit of my bedchambers and poured myself what was to be the first of about twenty coffees. I ended up spending the day shooting pool. I lost almost every game.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

As a creative, I need my sleep. Without it, my imagination seems to die. There’s tons of research out there linking sleep with the creative process, so I won’t bore you with it. You might, you know, fall asleep. Suffice to say if I have bad dreams, I usually have a bad day at work. And I sometimes find my best ideas come to me in bed, which is why I always keep a notebook beside me. The draft copy for this website was written two minutes after waking.

I’m a big fan of the power nap. In my youth (I still think I’m young, but you try telling a teenager that) I used to swear by them. An hour’s kip before a big night out always got me through it. These days, sometimes, if I’m having a hard time, I’ll rest my eyes for an hour and let my mind wander. Usually, I snap out of it, and come back refreshed and with new ideas (hint: if your desk is in a large, open plan office, you probably shouldn’t try this at your place of work).

A friend once told me: I don’t have bad days, ever, because I can choose to start my day at any time.

It’s a good one to remember. Although it’s hard to live up to chirpy advice when you’re angry and you haven’t slept. But if you can’t sleep, you can’t beat a change of scenery — take a break, go for a walk. And if you can’t change that, maybe you should change your job, or find a more understanding boss who knows that productivity can’t be shoehorned into a 9-to-5.

There’s nothing wrong with taking a siesta. It’s probably a lot healthier than that eighth can of red bull.

Thanks to my neighbours, I’ve been doing research (research I’d admittedly rather not be doing) into unusual sleeping patterns. For me, I’ve found that six or seven hours at night, with a one or two hour top up late afternoon / early evening maximizes my productivity throughout the day.

But take a look at this. Theoretically, it’s possible to cut your sleep down to six twenty minute bursts throughout the day — to train yourself to get the “recharge” your body needs. I’m hoping it won’t come to that. There’s a reason this sleep pattern is called “the uberman”. But I can’t help but wonder. With a few half hour bursts of sleep a day, would I be more creative?

Or just mad?

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.

If you’ve got a website and you don’t know what SEO is, you might as well sell your computer and buy a typewriter. Or at least rip your modem out of the wall. Let me guess — you’re still on 56k, right?

But let’s assume for a moment you don’t know what SEO is. To be honest, unless you’re a web developer/marketer/copywriter, you don’t really need to know what it is. That’s what you pay us for. Right?

Still, a passing familiarity couldn’t hurt. Here is a good, quick guide on how to write for SEO. If you’re going to write your own copy (rather than, cough cough, pay a professional to do it for you) you could do a lot worse than start here.

But I want to go out on a limb a bit and say this. SEO is not the be all and end all of writing for the web. It is an important aspect of it. But the fundamentals of good writing still apply. Hype always accompanies any new industry. I laughed so hard this week at this absurd proclamation that “[mobile phone] apps are going to be as big as the internet!” Really?

My one experience with mobile phone apps was when I asked a friend to look up some train times on his iPhone. He had a choice – either pay a fiver for the app that connected to the website to search for times. Or look it up directly, on Mobile Safari, for free. Guess which one he picked?

Mobile phone companies have always been shameless self promoters. Anyone remember the hype about WAP a few years ago? Thought not. Similarly, SEO based copywriting/design agencies have a vested interest in selling you the primacy of an SEO solution. Don’t forget that, when you’re forking out your hard earned cash.

SEO is about getting people there. Driving up hits to your site.

Good copy is about keeping them there — then selling them something.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive. But they are different skills.

Less isn’t always more. Sure it’s important to be concise, but too many sites have become a game of buzzword bingo, bland corporate jargon that’s designed to give a good ranking on Google. Copywriting sites are perfect examples. They’re inevitably well constructed, but invariably bland.

The most important thing when considering copy is this: what makes you stand out from the crowd?

The answer: an outstanding copywriter!

It’s worth noting that this freelancer on Copyblogger doesn’t even mention SEO as one of his ten key skills for copywriters.

By all means concentrate on an SEO strategy for your landing page. Get the visitors in. Get hits on your site. But don’t forget to back it up with substance. Build up a dialogue. Be different. Make your customers remember your name.

There are plenty of strategies that don’t require specially written copy, just well written copy. Linkbait is one of the best — produce something that people want to see, and they will share it with their friends. Word of mouth isn’t half bad, either. That’s like linkbait, only in real life.

SEO is more than just the text on your page. It’s about linking strategies, social networking, the whole package. Good copy should still be good copy. Your landing page may need to contain catchphrases. But your site shouldn’t be riddled with cliche.

“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.