How long does good work take?

When I first started freelancing, I’d frequently have time to spend two or even three days on a project I’d quoted a day’s work on. After all, I needed the work and didn’t want to price myself out of the job. But I had extra time to think about projects and more time to recharge in between. My work was better, because I took longer over it.

Since updating my sales pitch to feature “Ogilvy style” persuasive techniques updated for the web, I’ve been inundated with work.

A quick aside for everyone who wanted to know if my experiment with long copy worked

My bounce rate rose by 18.95% — almost immediately. In other words, I was turning more people away — making them think ‘this guy’s not for me’ — yet overall time spent on the page rose slightly and overall time on the site rose significantly, and enquiries via phone and email more than doubled, up to an all time high of 11 a week this month.

In other words, the people who stayed were more than twice as likely to read my sales pitch and get in touch — exactly what Ogilvy would have predicted.

With all the new work, I’ve felt a little rushed.

In other words, when I say you’re getting a day out of me, I mean it. There’s no time to go over your text the next day, because the next client is already demanding their work. Combined with the extra admin time taken by the new enquiries and my foray into social media, I’ve felt as if the quality of my work has suffered.

I know I can produce better work in three days than I can in one. The trouble is, getting clients to think that way. It’s hard work convincing every client that good work takes time. My solution: from now on, I’m only going to take on new clients who are prepared to let me take my time and produce my best work.

Less, but better – a philosophy for good copywriting.

Dieter Rams, the creative director behind Braun’s legendary designs, believed in the philosophy of “less, but better” — he meant it to apply to functionalist, minimalist, high quality products (he’s since said that Apple are the only people today still producing consumer goods according to this philosophy). But I believe it can be applied to copy, too. It’s not just a matter of saying things in fewer words (“less is more”) it’s vital those words are better, too. And good work takes time.

It’s easy to churn out words quickly. But the sign of good copy is taking up the least possible amount of space — long copy is fine, but there should never be superfluous copy.

Badly edited copy isn’t a sign your copywriter is bad. It’s a sign he’s too rushed to do the job properly.

Correspondingly, I’ve raised my copywriting day rate from £200 to £250.

This will probably mean less work, but it will give me more time to do the things I used to do to recharge — go to the gym, go for long walks, take the occasional extra day off. I’ll produce less work. But it will be better.

I haven’t changed my day rate in over two years. Raising my prices will reduce my workload and allow me to concentrate on producing better copy for clients who know good work when they see it.

I still think I’m giving my clients great value for money — in fact, I think by taking on fewer clients I’ll be giving the ones I choose even better value for money than ever before.

For all my existing clients, I look forward to welcoming you back. Don’t worry — long-standing clients have always qualified for discounts. And to all my new clients, I look forward to working with you, spending more time with you, and continuing to offer brilliant value for money.

Less, but better. It’s a guarantee.

1) half a dozen other people will be doing the same thing, and at least one of them will be doing it better than me, and
2) I’m not a “social media type”. I don’t tweet, I’m a reluctant user of Facebook, and my tumblr doesn’t have one single picture of a rebloggable kitten.

So I’ve decided to do something that follows the first rule of good blogging — I’m going to provide content that’s as unique as possible.

In honour of London Social Media Week, I’ve decided to dive in head first.

Eagle eyed readers may have noticed a new sidebar appear on the site overnight:

My aim is to actively use all three sites over the next 7 days to drive traffic to my site and secure new business.

When it comes to social media, there are two types of people. Either you’re an early adopter and you’ve been using it for years, in which case this blog post isn’t for you — although you might get a kick out of finding out how much I manage to get wrong — and how quickly I manage to learn from my mistakes. Or you’re like me:

The social-media-phobe – a description.

Chances are you’re on Facebook.

After all, everyone is. But you don’t use it. Not properly. You don’t “like” random people’s pages (especially business pages) and you don’t feel comfortable with Facebook mining your data. People have told you about the existence of this amazing game called Farmville and you’ve shaken your head and wondered if they’re feeble minded. You get angry when people “tag” you in photos. You’re probably only even on Facebook because someone you fancy is. You’re on Facebook, but you’re a Facebook-phobe.

You don’t “get” Twitter.

Supposedly 74% of people have no interest in using it, ever. You don’t see how friends and total strangers pinging you short messages in real time is a good thing. You find text messages annoying. You feel no particular need to update the world about what you’re doing. You see similar updates (“I’ve just farted in the bath lol”) on Facebook and you wonder why the hell anyone would ever want to do that. You read somewhere that Kim Kardashian was on Twitter. You see that as a good enough reason to never, ever go near the site.

Someone told you LinkedIn was really, really good for work.

It may have been your boss, or a colleague, or you may have read it on one of these new-fangled blogs. You may have even heard someone say “yeah, it’s like Facebook, only it doesn’t have Farmville or Mafia Wars or idiots” and you thought you’d check it out. You added a couple of your old co-workers and maybe you added someone you met at a networking event you really wanted to work for.Then that’s it. Your LinkedIn page languishes, unchecked, because no-one you fancy is on it so unlike Facebook, you never log on.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest this describes about 50% of you.

It’s a pretty accurate summary of my attitudes to Social Media — and I work on the web. It’s not just me. I know designers and devs, marketing consultants and other copywriters who are all based on the web who have the same attitude. We just don’t “get” social media. We’re too busy doing our actual jobs — whether that’s programming or designing or writing.

So, over the next week I am going to:

• Set up a Facebook page, a Twitter account, and dive head-first into LinkedIn.
• Try different techniques to attract fans, followers and drive traffic to my site
• Write a diary about my exploits — so I can show you what I get right and what I get wrong, with the metrics to prove it.

This is my Social Media Week challenge. I’m open to suggestions in the comments section about what I should be doing, who I should be following, what advice I need to be reading.

In the meantime, you can also follow me on Twitter, view my newly created Facebook page, or add me on LinkedIn.

Who the hell is David Ogilvy?

Well, first things first, let’s be clear. David Ogilvy is not Don Draper. In Mad Men, Don prides himself on his creativity, his appeal to the emotions and, above all else, the fact that he’s “never written anything that’s longer than 250 words.” In many ways, Don represents the advertising world as it’s become: an emphasis on short copy, striking design and appeals to the senses, rather than to the rational consumer: don’t make them think they want it, make them feel it.

A classic "Ogilvy Formula" print ad

Ogilvy’s old school. He emphasises the importance of research, as well as tried and tested formulae — his book Ogilvy on Advertising devotes a considerable amount of time to telling the reader why they should never set white type on a black background, as well as why a 6,450 word ad in the New York Times was one of the most successful of all time.

I’m inclined to believe in short copy, particularly on the web. I tell my clients “stick to 300 words per page, preferably less, or people won’t read it.” Blog articles are the only exception to the rule. Even then, never use more words than is absolutely necessary to get your message across.

Ogilvy suggests a simple formula for print ads:

• A large photograph taking approx. 3/4 of the page.
• A headline of up to 9 words.
• 240 words of “editorial” style copy.

Ogilvy’s ads look a little dated and slightly corny now. But that’s only because they worked so well, everybody copied them — and they became overused.

Adapting Ogilvy’s technique for the web

When I launched my site, the front page consisted of three “sliders” with a little over four sentences on each. It looked beautiful. Designers praised it. But it didn’t convert.

I asked myself why and came up with an answer: it told people what I did, and what I believed in (“simple” copy). But it didn’t give them a reason to choose me.

So I decided to be more combative. My first page is as it always was: a picture of me and a description of what I do. I agree with Ogilvy: it helps to show a picture of the product. You’re buying my time — you’re not buying a typewriter. So my page features pictures of me, not copywriting cliches like clipart typewriters, pens, bottles of whisky, etc. My second page I changed to an argument, directly adressing the reader: telling them “their copy sucks” and I could do better. My conversion rate doubled.

But it’s still far from what Ogilvy suggests.

Ogilvy suggests the following “magic formula” for generating sales:

• A long headline (10 words) that offers helpful information or news
• This inspires up to 75% more people to read the copy, copy that should
  also explain the benefit to the customer
• A clear indication of price, as well as the suggestion of any discount.
  How many people would walk into a shop without price tags?

This is combined with his golden rule: advertising is never about guesswork, it’s always about research.

Using Google analytics, I noticed the following:

• Twice as many people (39%) viewed the “three sliders” as viewed the next nearest page, “about” (18%).
• At least half, and maybe more of the people who viewed this page, were web designers or digital agencies who’d come to look at the site’s design.

I’d previously written off most of these visitors as unconvertable — they’re not here to view the merchandise, they just like the design of the shop. Yet designers and agencies need copywriters — in fact, every one of these people is a potential sale.

It wasn’t a huge leap of faith to assume that my site wasn’t converting because it wasn’t speaking directly to its target audience. Using the techniques suggested in Ogilvy’s book, I came up with this:

Before:

After:

Before:

After:

The changes I made (and the changes you should make, too):

• Targeting each type of visitor and selling to them directly
• Being specific, open and up-front about price (even making it a feature)
• Providing information under headlines that promise it.
• Using print techniques like bold and underlining to highlight the message
• Eschewing “fancy” design — letting the words speak for themselves.

Is Ogilvy right about competing on price whenever possible?

With the exception of a couple of introductory offers, I haven’t raised or changed my prices in over two years. I’m now charging approximately 25% less per day than the average copywriter. Meanwhile inflation is running rampant at 4.8% and the price of petrol is almost double what it was in 2008. I have my own central London office that’s about 200 yards from the Thames. These things aren’t cheap.

So I figured there were two ways to make money: either start charging more, or find a way to increase my conversion rate. I’ve always agreed with Ogilvy on one thing: the price is always a selling point. It’s why I’m amazed more copywriters don’t even give ballpark figures on their websites, let alone a simple, transparent rate.

Again, I’m using research: more people find my site via Google through price related keywords like “rates” “copywriting rates” “price per word” etc than any other way.

So I’ve made my prices a major selling point — as well as explaining why this actually enables me to offer a better standard of service to my customers. If Ogilvy comes through for me and my conversion rate increases, I’ll be able to keep my prices low. If not, I guess I’ll have to raise them for the first time since August, 2009.

It’s a gamble. Will it pay off? Like Ben Locker, I’m putting my money where my mouth is and testing whether Ogilvy’s techniques still work. Watch this space.

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.

More posts to come soon!