Brand Story

Copywriting School

Michelle Miller at WonderBranding points us to a terrific (so far) series on effective copy writing from the geniuses—Jeff Sexton in particular—at FutureNow. I've had the opportunity to work with the FutureNow team. They know what they're talking about.

The first segment is about how to choose between writing from an intellectual perspective or an emotional one. It's very good stuff. Here's a follow-up.

The second installment (or is it the 6th?) deals with using positive or negative imagery: "worries trump daydreams." Check out how this applies to VW's recent ads for Jetta.

The Third Installment focuses on intensity and involvement. The fourth should be up on Monday.

This is very good stuff. Not just the advice, but the copy examples are also stellar.

Check it out at Grokdotcom.

And if you like that, here's another favorite: How to Write Better Ads. Great advice that most writers have forgotten (or never learned).

Copywriting is (Mostly) Dead

Brian Howlett (not his photo) of Axmith McIntire Wicht has a great column in this month's CA Design Annual about the place of copywriting in the advertising world. Worthy of a read, if you, unlike most consumers and adfolk, can stomach more than a few words of copy. But then that's the point.

Brian has a pretty clear grasp on the value of copywriting today:

"All along, you’ve suspected that if advertising’s various disciplines were to occupy offices, New Business would enjoy the corner suite with windows straddling both walls and the most expensive lamps; and Strategic Development, Media and Creative Direction would be right down the hall, jockeying for adjacency.

But Copywriting? It wouldn’t even rate a cubicle. In fact, it would be in the broom closet. No, make that the broom closet in the boiler room in the parking garage. Look around your agency. If there are 100 people, how many are asking you if the copy is as good as it could be?

Why would they?

Clients don’t come to agencies looking for wordsmiths. Search consultants intimate with every agency’s strengths couldn’t tell you which ones “write well.” Awards show judges are far too preoccupied looking for the next funny visual. And creatives’ bookshelves have far too many back issues of Lürzer’s Archive magazine to leave any room for Alastair Crompton’s The Copy Book.

...copywriting is dead."

I'd rather think that copywriting is "mostly dead." As Miracle Max said, "There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive."

Read the whole thing.

Another good copy-related link: Do you make these mistakes in your writing?

Thinking About Brand Voice

I've been thinking a lot about brand voice lately. How companies talk to their customers. What brands sound like. How they read.

I'm not just talking about how a brand sounds to the ear, though that is important for products that communicate with broadcast media: think Tom Bodette and Motel6 or Hal Riney (who voiced Reagan's famous Bear Ad) and Bartles & James.

There are lots of examples of companies that consistently use identity design to reinforce their brands, but far fewer brands seem to give as much thought to the voice of their communications. Mini does it exceptionally well, across all mediums. The Economist and Apple too. Harley Davidson does a pretty good job (there are exceptions). Saturn used to have unique voice—before it was assimilated.

But what's the brand voice of Marriott? Cascade? Pepsi? Dell? Citi? Buick? Is there anything unique about the way Kroger, Budget, Hershey's, or Delta speak to their customers? None of these are bad, but none of them speak in a special way to their customers.

Try googling "Brand Standards." There are dozens of examples of identity guidelines showing how to use official logos, fonts, and colors. But very little attention is paid to brand voice—the words, phrases, and characteristics that set a brand apart take a back seat to the more "important" visual aspects of the brand.

Why is this? I have a theory. As we grow up and attend school, most of us "learn" that we are not good artists—that is, we can't draw much beyond doodles. Bureaucrats think of art classes as luxuries, and cut funding because they are not as important as the standard reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Writing on the other hand is more universal. Very few people learn they can't write in the same way they learn they can't draw. Regardless of whether you are good at it, writing is required for most classes from math to English, debate to biology. So most of us grow up thinking we write relatively well (even though we probably don't). Certainly well enough to communicate.

So we don't trust ourselves with the design of marketing and other important business materials. We hire professionals for that. And we create brand standards to help us when the designer isn't there. But we do trust ourselves to write effectively enough to get our point across, even though we don't have the training to create a brand voice. So we create copy. Lots of it. Most of it bad.

Even many copywriters don't think about copy the way designers think about design—tweaking a few words here, cutting a phrase there, rewriting a paragraph over and over until it sounds just right. And that's too bad, because when done right, the brand voice is the most difficult part of branding to copy. You can't fake it.

Have you seen a brand standard recently that includes direction on the brand voice? How well is it followed? Does your business use a unique voice to tell your brand story? Let me know in the comments.

Read a little more about brand voice here.
More thoughts (video) about the failure of our schools to teach creativity by Sir Ken Robinson, here. I highly recommend taking a few minutes to watch this very funny, very insightful video.

Wall Street Journal Letter-writer, Story-teller, Dies

Last week, Martin Conroy, the man famous for writing the "two young men" letter for The Wall Street Journal, passed away (New York Times article). The letter was used by The Journal continuously for twenty-eight years and is revered by writers in direct response advertising for its creativity and success. It is the longest running direct response letter ever used, and has been called the most successful advertisement ever run. I still have a copy of the letter in my swipe file.

Why was this letter so successful? Because it tells a compelling, relevant story. And it sold subscriptions. Millions of them. One source says it was directly responsible for bringing in more than a billion dollars.

The letter begins:

“On a beautiful late spring afternoon, twenty-five years ago, two young men graduated from the same college. They were very much alike, these two young men. Both had been better than average students, both were personable and both — as young college graduates are — were filled with ambitious dreams for the future.

Recently, these men returned to their college for their 25th reunion.

They were still very much alike. Both were happily married. Both had three children. And both, it turned out, had gone to work for the same Midwestern manufacturing company after graduation, and were still there.

But there was a difference. One of the men was manager of a small department of that company. The other was its president.”

The letter then goes on to ask and explain, what made the difference?

Read the whole letter here.

It was so successful, that it has been copied numerous times (never as well-done as the original).

The Times quotes Direct Response Guru, Alan Rosenspan, who uses the letter in his direct response seminars, saying: “I ask people to read out loud the first paragraph of the letter. And what’s astonishing to me is that they never stop at the first paragraph. They keep on reading. And I tell them: ‘You have just proven why this letter’s so powerful. It’s a story.’ ”

Sifting through the stack of junk mail (credit card solicitations, non-profit fund raisers, cable subscription offers) on my desk this morning, I wish there were more writers like Martin Conroy who believed in telling a relevant story. Sadly, they are, very literally, a dying breed (no pun intended).

Hat tip: AdJab.

"Branding" and Brand Loyalty

Every once in a while I hear criticism of "branding" like this from Bob Bly, suggesting that it doesn't create loyalty. By branding, I believe Bob is mostly referring to "image" advertising.

He's right. Image ads don't make customers loyal. But done properly, they can create desire and establish reasons to buy. This ad by DDBLondon for VolksWagon comes close. Notice the product focus.

Much of the image advertising from Madison Avenue deserves criticism and closer scrutiny. But Bob's anecdote doesn't prove his point. Bob's friend Richard was loyal to a particular shoe (we're not told why, but are led to assume it was because of "branding"). Another friend recommended a new brand. After trying the new shoes, Richard switched brands. Is this a failure of "branding"? No. It's a success for word-of-mouth and a compelling brand experience (both vital components of brand building).

Richard says, "I have brands that I prefer among just about everything I buy… but virtually every single one of them is negotiable. Show me that your product is cheaper and/or better than my current brand, and I’ll switch in a heartbeat." The fact that Richard has brand preferences in the first place shows that branding does indeed work. He believes his brands are better than others and he's loyal to them until he has a reason to switch.

The problem is most advertising doesn't communicate a good reason to switch or demonstrate a compelling reason not to switch when a competitor comes along. But don't blame "branding", blame the marketers and creatives who don't understand how to sell products effectively.

In a previous, related post, Bob Bly wrote: "As a copywriter, I don’t get paid to 'build great brands.' I get paid to generate greater ROI from my clients' marketing. In other words, to make the cash register ring."

Frankly, I don't see the difference.

Buckley's—A Brand Story I Love

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about several ideas to consider when writing your brand story. Here's another. Use your product's weakness, make it a strength, and build your story around it.

That's exactly what Buckley's cough syrup has done. It tastes awful. In fact, it tastes so bad that it has to work or nobody would ever use it again. And the story has caught on. It's featured prominently in advertising and on the web. Customers are encouraged to send in photos of their contorted faces after they have had their dose of nasty tasting cough syrup. Buckley's website features a short note from Frank Buckley about a recurring "nightmare" that he has to take a taste.  It's a terrific example of building a brand story around a product feature (one most brand managers would rather hide).

Compare Buckley's story to Robitussin or Triaminic. You'll search in vain for a brand story for the other two products. Does anyone remember the Dr. Mom campaign? These days Robitussin says they have a formula with my name on it. Not much of a story there—especially when the formula I need has Roz's name on it. And this is what passes for a story on Triaminic's site. I'd like to meet the child who asks to log on to Triaminic.com to play the games.

By contrast, here are a few of the headlines Buckley's has used to tell it's brand story:

Made with oil of Pine needles. What did you expect it to taste like?
People swear by it. And at it.
Our largest bottle is 200 ml. Anything larger would be cruel.
I'm dedicated to ensuring that every new batch of Buckley's tastes as bad as the last.
Four of the most dreaded words in the English language: "Get out the Buckley's!"

It's a great story. Admitting their weakness upfront humanizes the brand and makes it more acceptable. Other cough syrups seem cold in comparison. Kudos to Buckley's for creating a story consumers can actually relate to. You can read more about Buckley's here. Thanks to Brand New Day for the links.

Another Sally Hogshead Link

At the risk of appearing as if I'm stalking Sally Hogshead at the HogBlog...

Sally has posted her advice to anyone starting out in a career in advertising. Her 83 things I wish someone had told me while I was learning how to be creative is great (we expect nothing less from her). My favorites include:

9. Smart beats clever.
14. Spend more time thinking, less time executing.
44. You can't out think everyone, but you can out-work them.
74. Don't work for someone whose taste you don't respect.
79. Being creative is only a small part of being a good creative.

However she missed two:

84. You don't have to wear black.
85. Share the credit. Even when you don't have to.

All of it is good advice and worth the read.