May 5th, 2010
esterday, my colleague Johan and I were editing down some sales copy.
You know the kind of job. You obliterate every superfluous word until you achieve total clarity.
Net result, prose so simple that everyone assumes they could have written it themselves.
It opened Johan’s eyes. “It’s almost as though I’m not fulfilling my role,” he said.
“What do you mean?”
“Well, before I started work as a copywriter, I assumed that the writing would need to display more ingenuity. But the greatest ingenuity lies in the simplicity of getting the message across with no apparent effort.”
So true. The only problem is getting your clients to see it the same way. How do you get someone to pay for something they think they can do themselves?
The answer, of course is to let them do just that. Do you agree?
The best copywriting: so simple people won’t pay for it?
10:38 am. Filed under: Blog, copywriting.
Author: Ben Locker.
« Introducing Johan, our new copywriter | Do you have a stationery fetish? »
Tags: copywriting, payment, simplicity
25 Responses to “The best copywriting: so simple people won’t pay for it?”
So Johan’s made that observation after what, a week?
Damnit, I spent at least a fortnight trying to be too bloody clever with my copy.
He’s completely right though, of course.
Write as you speak, not as your English teacher told you to, and you’re two-thirds of the way there. That’s what I reckon, anyway.
Let them have a go, realise, like me trying to rewire my house or plumb in a new bathroom suite, that they can’t do it and then pay you to sort it out!
I remember the pain on my accountant’s face when I told her I’d been doing my own books for the last few years. It’s the same deal.
Re your point about editing the copy to achieve simplicity: there was an old tale about a wood carver in India who carved beautiful elephants from what started off as shapeless blocks of wood. When asked how he was able to produce such remarkable art, he replied “I simply chip away at the bits that don’t look like an elephant.”
Give your clients a block of wood…or a blank sheet.
Can’t make it simpler than that.
Brilliant story…
Although my area of writing is a bit different, a line I often use to describe what I do applies to both:
“I get paid to delete stuff”
In a sense, when clients supply their version, they often have written a large part of what us writers finally come up with. The problem is they’ve surrounded it with a whole load of unnecessary words as well.
Knowing what to cut is an art, especially if it’s your own stuff.
You’ve made a very good point Ben. I think many clients feel they’re paying a copywriter to come up with some magical story that’s more like a novel rather than good sales copy.
The real skill lies in getting the right message across in a simple and straight forward way rather than using 20 words when 5 will do.
I can do them a novel if they want, but they can’t expect it to sell their products…!
This reminds me of the time I edited a long old waffly piece of copy for a client. It took ages. And then the client sent me an email saying “can’t believe how much I’ve paid for a bit of typing”.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch!
Pithy post Ben and on the money as usual. IMHO you can’t get people to pay for something they think they can do themselves. Head … brick wall…
Far better to find clients who know they can’t do it and work for them! They tend to be more grateful and because they don’t f around with your work they sell more.
Incidentally, in your post I’d definitely edit “obliterate” and “superfluous”
“Cut” and “needless” do it for me!
You’re right, but I wasn’t paying myself to write it
Whilst I’m definitely not of the George Orwell school -”Never use a long word where a short one will do” -err, why not?? and therefore cannot find fault with words like “superfluous” and “obliterate” – if we don’t use a more complex vocabulary, we’ll end up like a NatWest briefing that even deems words like “statement” too difficult for its customers – the point I was going to make is a different one: As a copywriter in an ad agency, you don’t just deal with the client, you have a lot of “literary critics” in the shape of account handlers who give you useful advice and handy hints on how to write copy. That’s quite often even more difficult to deal with than the client itself…
Yes, the account handlers thing is true… then you have to remember the sage advice of Chesterton and Ogilvy that no-one erects statues to committees.
Or, to rewrite this entire article, in full: “Less is more”. (and lots of lovely white space)
Not quite Dom…
Maybe going off topic a tad here but to answer Margit’s Q, the reason you don’t use a long word when a shorter one will do is because to do otherwise wastes your reader’s time. And possibly confuses them. So they don’t do what you want them to.
Obviously this doesn’t apply to writing fiction or poetry
The key phrase in Orwell’s injunction is “will do”. In other words, use a long word by all means – when it’s the *only* word that fits the bill.
[...] Locker explains how clients don’t value simple copy. I try and demonstrate its purpose to colleagues [...]
Yes, “the greatest ingenuity lies in the simplicity of getting the message across with no apparent effort.”
Or as William Zinsser notes, “A clear sentence is no accident.”
But it’s often tough convincing clients of this truism. I’ve had clients ask for rewrites of superlative-free copy–or simply pencil in a load of “innovative” “world-class” words.
Sigh.
“Innovative”… yuck. I think part of the problem is that some people want the same stuff as everyone else. Saves them working out whether it’s any good or not.
There is no sentence that cannot be made better through judicious editing. Including the one I just wrote.
Just surfed on in from your comment on ABC Copywriting and I couldn’t agree more with this post!
I wrote about this problem back in January here, saying that “I can wire a plug, but I don’t think I’m an electrician, just because you can write English, doesn’t make you a copywriter.”
You’re completely right that the simpler something is, the more powerful it gets (usually). That’s the theory behind minimalist writers like Raymond Carver, Bret Easton Ellis etc.
But editing down isn’t exactly the same skill as copywriting, is it? It’s being a good editor. I’ve known people who can edit but can’t write, and who can write but can’t edit.
If a good copywriter needs to do both, perhaps copy “writer” is the wrong term for what we do after all.
It’s a fine line huh? I’ve always found that in cases like this, where you’re simplifying text, a little bit of justification goes a long way. I employ the basic idea that you should educate clients as much as possible as (a) it obviously builds up trust between you and (b) it stops them calling with every little problem, saving them money and you time.
Alastair has a good point though, some copywriters are wonderfully creative whereas others are anally astute; so perhaps best to play to your strengths and be honest?