We use cookies to improve your experience. By using our site you are accepting our cookie policy. 
Read our privacy policy to learn more.

Innovation and Best Practice
for Business Success

Established 1967



Why Most Copywriting Fails To Achieve Its Objectives: Part 1

24th October 2014 | Andy Maslen

Copywriting expert Andy Maslen explains that good copywriters, among other things, discard what they learned in school and employ empathy.

persuasive-copywriting-9780749473990-.jpgMost, if not all, copywriters do not have any formal, long-term, structured training in copywriting. That is simple to explain: there IS no formal, long-term, structured training to become a copywriter! It does not exist on university syllabuses (thank Heaven); there are no Guilds or Royal Colleges (again, thank Heaven). Despite the fervently held desires of many a writer-for-hire, it is not a profession, but a trade. And an unregulated trade at that. Most of us pick it up on the job, augment our skills through reading, attend the occasional training course and hope for the best.

This is not to say that copywriters do not have any formal, long-term, structured  training. They are trained – or taught – to write. Throughout our childhood, adolescence and young adulthood, we are taught to write. By mainly skillful, well-meaning teachers. And here are some of the things they teach us: long words are better than short words. Long sentences are better than short sentences. Lots of punctuation is better than a little. The rules of Latin grammar are an excellent framework for English composition. Paragraphs should continue until you have finished a complete thought.

Particularly in further and higher education, we are taught that the way to present an argument is to amass and then lay out logical reasons. We are taught to avoid personal language – I think … you can see that... – in favour of a neutral, dispassionate tone of voice that places facts front and centre. And, for the teachers, lecturers, tutors and professors who are paid to read what we have written, this is enough.

This emphasis on logic is fine in the wooded groves of academe. It sits well with other disciplines such as economics. Classical economics and its adherents have always claimed that with perfect information comes perfect decision-making. That human beings, when in possession of all the facts, make logic-based decisions through a calm and rational analysis of the risks and benefits of each competing option. Aah, sweet!

Recently, faced with the disconcerting evidence of their own eyes, (and possibly behaviour), economists have started to wonder why it is that human beings, when in possession of … etc. etc., don’t make rational decisions. Why do people smoke? Drink to excess? Have affairs? Break the speed limit? Eat fatty foods? Vote for fascists? To accommodate the evidence, classical economics has spawned an untidy, mutant offspring called behavioural economics. Behavioural economics is a fancy term for “psychology”. Itself a fancy term for “why do people do such crazy stuff all the time?”

After much head-scratching, experimentation, “modeling” and other pseudo-scientific thumb-twiddling, here’s what they have come up with. Ready? Sometimes people do stuff that’s bad for them because it feels good. Ta daa! (And that, gentle reader, is why you should never let your children study economics at university.)

But back to the power of logic. Of accurate description. Of reason.

This focus serves another trade remarkably well: journalism. And because journalism has the written word as its stock-in-trade – but not, or not usually, the income that a smart copywriter can command – many journalists jump the fence and set up as copywriters. As they do, they bring with them an idea that what matters is one’s ability todescribe things.

Now, it’s true that descriptive powers do no harm in the hands of a skilled copywriter. In fact, they are one of the abilities that we should cultivate. But they are secondary to the real, scratch-the-surface-and-you-find-it skill that defines the advanced copywriter.

Empathy.

There is a second group of entrants to the copywriting game who do possess the ability to empathise. They are interested in what their interlocutor is feeling, more than what they are thinking, or saying. And they are skilled at paying attention to the cues that suggest a person is saying one thing but feeling another. Those people are sales people. They may have a classical sales background: in door-to-door selling, like David Ogilvy; in mail-order selling, like Drayton Bird; in face-to-face selling on shop floors, car showrooms or Tupperware parties; or in telephone sales.

They may have a direct marketing background, like mine, where every day we would open the post and count order forms returned to us by customers. Or they may have a broader marketing or commercial background where, nonetheless, they were judged on their ability to affect the P&L of the company that employed them.

This second group is the one to watch. Having switched to the copywriting trade, they are less interested in advancing a coherent, logical argument than in arousing feelings in the breast of their reader. Three of their best friends are FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt), FAG (fear and greed) and FOMO (fear of missing out).

Hmm. Fear seems remarkably popular. Why is that?

Well, it all started a long, long time ago. I want to introduce you to somebody who can help us understand why copywriters need to respect the power of fear. He can also help us to understand why people do irrational things. His name is Ug.

Ug lived 200,000 years ago. He lived with his wife and children in a small tribe of early Homo sapiens in a … well, in a cave of course. Ug had a hard life beset by problems. Here are the two things that bothered Ug the most.

One, getting food to eat without dying from it. Two, avoiding being eaten by something big and fierce. 

One day, Ug was sharpening his spear-point by the fire when he saw his children Little Ug and Little Ug (What? You were expecting Lily and Tristan? ) wandering off to play in a patch of red berry bushes.

“Hey!” called Ug. “You see those red berries over there?"

“Yes, Daddy.”

“Last week, Little Og ate some of those and guess what happened to her?”

“What, Daddy?”

“She turned green and fell down dead. Anyhoo, have fun, kids!”

Guess who didn’t eat any red berries.

Unbeknownst to Ug or Little Ug or Little Ug, the week before, an almost identical scene had played out on this very spot, between Mummy Og and Little Og. Here’s how that went.

“Hey!” called Og. “Statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests that ingesting those red berries over there will lead to an early and painful demise. Here is an infographic charting child mortality and red berry-eating that makes the point rather well.”

“Oh, OK, Mummy.”

“So, don’t forget not to eat the berries.”

And here’s what Little Og heard: “Hey! Blah, blah, red berries, blah, blah. Child, eat the berries.”

Storytelling, it turned out, and story listening, conferred evolutionary advantage. Which meant that, as the human race advanced haltingly towards the present day, our brains evolved to respond to stories. To the point where your brain, and mine, releases dopamine when we listen to stories.

In Part 2 Andy will discuss dopamine, the amygdala and how to get to grips with the fact that emotions drive decision making. His new book, Persuasive Copywriting, will be available in March. You can pre-order your copy today and get 20% off with discount code MKTACPO

 

buynow.jpg