The Copywriter Underground

I’m at my parent’s home in Central California, my brothers and I converging on our home because of the death of my father.

Those of you who’ve gotten The Call know the jarring mix of emotions that come with it, and right now we’re digging through the accumulated belongings of a man who — like many who lived through the Great Depression — threw little away.

It’s a little like an archeological excavation, with the artifacts getting older as you dig deeper, until finally — at the bottom of one box — we found the little cards he handed out to people at his high school graduation.

I’ll be back and blogging by the end of the week.

Technorati Tags: painful stuff

I’ve repeatedly said you should pick the clients and projects that interest you, get your foot in the door (via lumpy mailers), and get the business.

But how do you pitch prospects — and make them buy what you’re proposing?

I’m working on a pitch right now. (And yes, I  generated the meeting via a lumpy mailer sent to a high-value prospect.)

So OK, I got my foot in the door.

Now what?

It’s time to show up on the prospect’s doorstep, and convince them they can’t live without you.

It’s time for a pitch.

Gushing is Bad

Pitch hint #1: Don’t show up empty handed, sit down at the conference table, and gush about yourself.

Don’t gush about your accomplishments. Don’t gush about your capabilities. Don’t gush about your ability to meet deadlines.

Don’t gush.

In a former life, I worked at a high-tech ad agency, and sat through a pitch from a freelance writer. He advertised himself as the area’s "foremost copywriter," but over the course of the pitch, revealed himself as something less lofty.

He talked endlessly about himself. And never once asked how he might help us.

When you write copy, you do so with this question in mind: "What’s in this for the reader?"

The same is true of a pitch. What’s in it for the harried, sleep-deprived marketing director sitting across the table?

People are busy. And even those who aren’t busy have better things to do than sit in conference rooms while you convince them you’re the second coming.

The area’s "foremost" copywriter ignored that rule, and walked out without a prayer of getting an assignment.

When Gushing Might Be Good

If you absolutely must gush, gush about the benefits to the pitchee.

You know. The growth in revenue. The truckoads of leads. The increase in loyalty. Regrowth of their hair. Whatever you’ve got.

Don’t be afraid to be specific, and then back those specifics with real data (if you’ve got it).

For example, this prospect is a non-profit, so I researched non-profits running similar membership programs. I emailed two of them asking for help, and now I’ve got a handful of warm, fuzzy statistics plugged into my pitch.

With a solid foundation of benefits in place, I move on to the next step.

The Pitch Outline

Ok, so you’ve opened with a few strong benefits (like "I can help Conglomco triple its membership retention rates"). The next step is to connect the benefits to your proposal.

Paint the broad strokes of your proposed project, but don’t delve into unnecessary details.

People get hung up on details, and the last thing you want is for your carefully built pitch to sink beneath the waves because the prospect hates the purple in your sample layout, or thinks the blog you’re pitching should run on TypePad instead of WordPress.

Make it deft, keep it light, and (once again), connect the benefits to the project itself.

In other words, don’t just toss out a few benefits, outline a project, and call it a day. The prospect needs to see how the project produces the benefits. It’s your job to weave the two together.

I do this mainly via spoken word, though I’m not above putting together an outline to keep me on track.

Do I prepare visuals for the prospect? Yes. Sometimes a flow chart, outline, org chart or informational graphic are necessary.

I don’t like prospects reading proposals while I’m pitching them, so I tend to keep it simple. And I haven’t yet fired up an animated presentation with a soundtrack.

That makes me a passive part of the process, and computer-run presentations don’t respond to your prospect’s questions or body language.

And while you’re prepping, don’t forget to formulate answers to potential objections (time, money, impact on an overworked staff, etc). You can’t predict what might get thrown at you, but it’s worth five minutes of your time trying.

What’s Your Leave Behind?

The pitch is finished. The prospect’s eyes are bright and shiny. They’re licking their lips over the program. They want it. Bad.

Yet they can’t make the final decision. But their boss can. Can you really rely on them to repeat your pitch from memory?

My preference is to leave behind a single sheet of paper summarizing your pitch. What should it contain?

• The benefits (duh)
• A very brief outline of the project
• A compelling argument why you’re the perfect person for the gig
• The call to action (everyone forgets this)

This isn’t rocket science; keep it clean, simple, and smart. Bullet it where needed, and don’t forget a call to action — the prospect needs to know what you want from them.

When you leave, don’t forget to push for a resolution — or at the very least, let them know you’ll call them in a few days.

Full disclosure: lots of people do this differently (more visuals, animated presentations, etc). It works for them, this works for me, and I’m not suggesting there’s One Way to do this.

I’ll let you know how it goes.

Keep pitching, Tom Chandler.

Michael Stelzner of Writing White Papers blog fame has garnered a barrage of bloggy notice for his recent (and ongoing) free video releases. He offers you an interesting glimpse into his lead-generation white paper strategy, and it’s worth a few minutes of your time (you can read the blog entry here).

Even if you have no interest in writing white papers (for yourself, or anyone else) — it’s intriguing to watch his campaign unfold.

Take notes, Undergrounders. There will be a pop quiz the next time a client wonders how they can generate a lot of leads.

Keep writing, Tom Chandler.

In a prior post, I wrote about the growing commercial value of high-quality content — and why content-based marketing offers long-term opportunities to new copywriters.

Now — Nicholas Carr (who remains a favorite online read) — points out why you don’t want to be somebody else’s free content generator (a point also made by Brian Clark in in this perceptive Copyblogger post).

Carr said:

Bebo founders Michael and Xochi Birch are the latest Web 2.0 entrepreneurs to cash in on user-generated content. A little over a week ago, the Birches sold Bebo, the third largest social network, to AOL for $850 million, about $600 million of which will reportedly go into the pockets of their jeans.

As for the millions of members who have happily served as sharecroppers on the Birches’ plantation, they’ll get the satisfaction of knowing that all the labor they donated to their "community" did indeed create something of tangible value.

Carr’s point is simple; the people whose content "built" Bebo received marginal (if any) value for their efforts while the site owners pocketed a cool $600 million.

InBebo’s case, musicians largely built the site by posting music (mostly in the vain hope of a big break). The real "value" they received? Not much, for the most part.

It’s a good illustration that "user-generated" has fast become a corporate code phrase for "free."

Given that copywriters are increasingly being asked to write for nothing more than the "exposure," you need to look hard at your non-paid writing efforts.

I’ve done articles for free in the past — and I’ll certainly do it again — but I always ask myself this: Am I significantly furthering my career, or investing my time building value for someone else?

I’ve repeatedly highlighted the marketing benefits of quality content, and believe engagement marketing gigs (blogs, e-newsletters, etc) offer copywriters a shot at excellent long-term (and profitable) projects.

Next time you’re pitching a content project, don’t forget to roll out this excellent example from a Direct Magazine article by Joe Pulizzi:

Being Girl, sponsored by P&G brands Tampax and Always, is a microsite and social community dedicated to young women’s questions about PMS, dating, and other issues. Forrester Research analyst Josh Bernoff has reported that Being Girl is four times more effective than a similarly priced TV advertising program.

Phrases like "4 times more effective" make marketing directors sit up a little straighter — especially when you’re referring to a project run by a huge packaged goods company.

Need more ammunition?

Keynote tracked respondents’ behavior on three separate automotive microsites. Its research showed the more time visitors spent on a microsite the more likely they were to make a purchase. Even if the prospect initially was thought to be a poor candidate for buying anything, that probability soared after just a few minutes on the site.

There are a couple of important points to note here. First, relevant and valuable online information significantly affects a purchase. Second, a prospect who isn’t necessarily ready to buy can be positively influenced by Web content.

To many writers, "content marketing" means cheaply produced articles, written by the dozen, and yet it doesn’t have to be that way.

Proctor & Gamble — and many others (including niche companies like Pyramyd Air — have demonstrated the excellent returns delivered by high quality content.

Say you wanted Double Chocolate Fudge ice cream, but the ice cream folks kept handing a single scoop of Mango Fruity Bubblegum across the counter.

You’d leave and go where you got to pick the flavor, right?

So why do so many copywriters passively let the universe pick their clients for them — when they should be actively picking their own?

The Part Where I Take My Own Advice

I’ve long told my readers to pick their own clients — that waiting for clients to pick you renders your copywriting career about half as gratifying as it could be.

And no, I’m not talking about the basic marketing activities everyone does.

Instead, I’m talking about targeted pitches, where you pick the clients, projects (or causes) that interest you, and then pitch them. In a rare example of  me taking my own advice, that’s exactly what I’ve done.

How? (I lay out a six-point plan for pitching higher-value clients in this post.)

Once again, I’m firing up my favorite foot-in-the-door tactic; the lumpy mailer. I covered it in some detail in this post, but in simplest terms, I’m defining a short list of high-value prospects, and sending something fun and three dimensional (in this case, a toy).

It’s Fun. It’s Affordable. And It Works.

The lumpy mailer is designed to stand apart in a pile of mail (it’s a parcel, after all), and once opened, it delivers a fun, short, powerful message (via a drop card attached to the toy).

In this case, I sent two clients wind up chattering teeth (communications being the common thread), and customized the message for each client.

The goal here isn’t instant success. It’s to open the prospect’s door to a pitch, softening them up so my phone call isn’t a cold call.

And yes, it almost always works.

That’s not to say I always close the deal; the prospect may have little interest in what I’m offering. But the lumpy mailer demonstrates interest, creativity and yes — that I’m fun to work with.

It’s Working

The score so far? Excellent. My highest priority target received the mailer last Thursday, and sent a very promising email over the weekend (I’d planned to call this week, but now don’t have to). We meet in two weeks.

I called the recipient of the other mailer, who immediately recognized me (Oh yeah, you’re the chattering teeth marketing guy.")

While their budget doesn’t include the project I pitched, I was asked to get back in touch in two months, when the new budget would be drawn up.

Sure, the dance has just begun, but at least I’m out on the dance floor. And yes, I’ll share my upcoming lumpy mailer results with you (including the results of my engagement marketing project pitch in two weeks).

The moral? Pick your client and projects instead of letting them pick you. Years from now, you may not be any richer, but you will be a lot happier.

Keep pitching, Tom Chandler.

While I’ve written a lot of direct response projects over my 22+ year career, I’ve happily avoided getting myself and my clients in trouble.

That’s because I’m a staunch advocate of ethical marketing practices, and long been an outspoken critic of deceptive mailing practices.

In an age of increasingly jaded customers, deceptive marketing practices harden customers, eventually harming all marketers — especially those marketing fairly.

That’s whyBRANDWEEK sourced me when they wrote a story about the growing practice of deceptive mailings. While they ran several quotes, this stood out:

"The public is exposed to so many messages that when a growing percentage of those messages turn out to be deceptive, the result is yet another upward ratchet in consumer cynicism," said Tom Chandler, a 20-year ad copywriter and consultant based in Mount Shasta, Calif., who operates ChandlerWrites.com. "That growing suspicion of marketers and brands has become so profound, some companies can’t even get customers to open envelopes containing real documents."

Delight, Don’t Deceive

The rule here is simple: rather than deceive, why not delight recipients with a novel or creative approach?

Most deceptive marketing practices rely heavily on fear appeals. Unfortunately, the psychology of fear is well understood; the next time fear is falsely used as a motivator, you’ll need more of it to get the same response.

Where, exactly, will that end?

There’s also the larger question of brand value; as a proponent of engagement marketing, I must ask why anyone would risk their brand?

"What I don’t understand is why organizations allow deceptive practices to undermine their carefully [and expensively] cultivated brand images in the first place," said Chandler. "I recently received a series of envelopes from a large credit-card bank where I held an account. All shared the same alarmist stamp that "Important Information" about his account was enclosed. "Of course, it wasn’t important information," Chandler said. "It was a series of cross-selling pitches. After a month or two, I canceled my account."

The Ethical Marketer

Every seasoned copywriter I’ve ever spoken to has a similar story; a chilling encounter with a client pushing them very, very hard to do something unethical.

In the moment, it’s always tempting to succumb, reasoning the work’s unsigned and nobody will know (how I wish copywriters received the credit/blame for their work).

Believe me, you’ll know.

Of course, one marketer’s "deceptive" is another’s fair game. And where that line should be drawn is never clear, though one thing is; if marketers keep stepping over that line, eventually regulation will be created that limit those transgressions (and probably do it poorly).

As copywriters, we are responsible for our work, and blaming clients for "making" us engage in deceptive practices is simply a wonky moral dodge.

Keep writing, Tom Chandler.

Today’s clients are using landing pages a bazillion different ways, making them a true “bread and butter” category for any online copywriter.

The good news is the Copywritering Maven’s landing page makeover series on Copyblogger has been rolled together on one page, so you can access them all with a single click.

The Maven managed to jam a lot of insight into her makeovers, so they’re worth a look.

Keep writing, Tom Chandler.

Technorati Tags: copywriting,copywriter,copywriting maven,landing page,landing page makeover

I held the phone in my hand, staring at the receiver. The person on the other had just muttered something unprintable, and hung up on me.

My offense?

Simple. I didn’t want to write five blog posts a week for free.

Overexposure

This call came from an "entrepreneur" who contacted me by email; he said he wanted an experienced, knowledgeable writer to populate a "high profile" blog, though the true "height" of the profile fell as the conversation wore on.

In my email reply, I said I’d been asked to write several blogs, but the stumbling block was always budget — a gambit I use to filter out those seeking freebies.

Sadly, he called anyway, but more startling was his attitude; he expected me to jump at the chance. And got agitated when I didn’t.

You Can’t Eat Exposure

Exposure is fine. Exposure is good. Still — despite recent scientific advances — you can’t actually eat exposure.

In the copywriting world, the promise of "exposure" is fast replacing "there’s more work in the future" as the empty negotiating promise of choice.

When a prospect promised me more work in the future, I learned to ask two simple questions: how much work, and what kind of contract were they willing to sign right now?

Similarly, when someone promises you exposure in lieu of monetary compensation, you’ve got every right to ask "how much exposure?"

If they can’t (or won’t) quantify the audience, it’s like saying "we’ll pay you, but we won’t tell you how much."

Copywriting is evolving rapidly, and it’s not all for the better. Truthfully, I’ve never been asked to write so many commercial projects for so little.

When confronted by that choice, I simply asked the prospect exactly what he was offering me. He hung up, suggesting he wasn’t offering much.

I wouldn’t go for that. You probably shouldn’t either.

Keep writing, Tom Chandler.

Modern Web browsers are far nicer than the limited creatures we wrestled with in the mid-90s, but as “Web 2.0” matures, why are we still using Web 1.0 browsers?

Consider this: prior to Web 2.0, the Internet delivered a largely linear, site-to-site experience, with users moving like automobiles on highways.

Today’s user is more akin to a hub at the center of a hyper-connected Web experience, with connections, relationships and conversations running in all directions – sometimes numbering in the thousands.

In that environment, you have to ask: are today’s “popular” Web browsers really serving advanced Web 2.0 users?

I Try Two “Web 2.0” Browsers

As I noted in an earlier post, I’m trying to refine my online experience, eliminating distractions, reducing my time investment, and focusing on the media channels and information sources that really matter.

And since technology is partially responsible for the problem, perhaps it can help with the solution. I found and briefly tested two potential "Web 2.0" browsers, and while both offer some hope to overstretched information junkies, they do so in very different manners.

eCorral: A Power Tool

eCorral by Big Horizon Software represents a sizable departure from the mainstream web browsers; I’d suggest it’s a tool that will delight researchers and power users.

Key features include a tabbed browser, tabbed RSS reader, the ability to create “corrals” (groups of Web pages), and “custom” pages.

The “corrals” struck me as particularly useful; researching projects online often means I end the day with a dozen or more Web pages staring at me. Saving them all via Google Notebook isn’t wholly easy, but with a single command, eCorral will save the addresses in a corral, and reopen all the pages in that corral when you resume your research.

You can create as many corrals as you want, and share those corrals with others (which sounds handy for work groups).

eCorral’s “Custom” pages let you stitch together local files, Web pages, RSS feeds, applications – basically, whatever you can find — on a single page. A power user could really go to town with this feature, though I haven’t used the software enough to build many pages.

eCorral is a commercial product, so after a 30 day free trial, the software costs you $19.95.

Nowadays, people expect everything to be free, but many users should find eCorral well worth the minimal cost. The corral feature along adds a great deal value if you do much in the way of online research.

Interestingly, eCorral is available in a “branded” version; an organization could purchase a license to modify and distribute the software to employees, stakeholders, franchisees, etc.

This product speaks to commercial entities rather than individual users, but I find its long-term implications interesting; a company could put a custom version of eCorral on employee/dealer/franchisee desktops, pushing information to them via custom RSS feeds, custom pages, corrals, etc.

Flock: The Social Browser

Flock is less of a departure from “standard” Web tools than eCorral; it’s simply a derivative of the hugely popular Firefox/Mozilla browser, but with “social network” features added.

In fact, Flock dubs itself the “Social Web Browser.”

A sidebar toggles between your social network accounts, people, RSS feeds and other useful toys. It even offers a photo uploader and blog post editor.

The blog editor’s pretty basic, and in fact, it’s geared towards posts created from online elements, and seemingly lacks the ability to upload images.

My overall impression is one of a work in progress. Social network fanatics will likely find a lot of useful features right now, though its connectivity to social sites is limited (it recognizes sites like Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, etc, but doesn’t recognize sites I use like LinkedIn, Goodreads, Gather, etc).

On the plus side, some of the features are pretty handy, though if you use too many of them, a resource-hungry Flock could bring your computer to its knees.

Installation is a snap; it even imports your existing Firefox bookmarks, though sadly, not the extensions. Simply put, it’s very easy to install and try.

It’s likely Flock will find a home with social network users, though I’d love to hear comments from hardcore Facebookers and others (I’m not a hardcore social networker).

It’s essentially a tarted-up Firefox, and it’s an interesting step in an interesting direction.

Are We There Yet?

I haven’t used either product long enough to vouch for anything but their simplest features and most basic reliability.

Frankly, the power features of eCorral are seductive, and its corrals promise much to online researchers. Whether the strength of its features can overcome its different-from-IE-and-
Firefox interface and slight cost remains to be seen.

Flock is less impressive on an innovation front, though perhaps no less seductive to social media types.

Will Browser 2.0 (and 3.0, and 4.0) represent a departure from the norm, or will we all end up staring at the same two browser windows for years to come?

Is the once-monolithic browser market set to fragment into niche products targeted at specific users?