Entries Tagged 'copywriting' ↓

Something has occurred to me recently that has really changed my perspective on communicating with my freelance writing clients.

Before I tell you what it is, though, Let me start off by telling you a story.

When I was a younger man, I was horribly shy.

No, strike that. Shy isn’t the right way to say it. I had plenty of friends, and was pretty outgoing in most social situations. I was very involved in student groups, even taking leadership roles.

My problem was that I couldn’t seem to talk to a pretty girl to save my life. I’d get all nervous, tongue tied. I’d be scared to death that I’d say something stupid, embarrassing or awkward.

And then I would say something stupid, embarrassing or awkward.

It was 1994, and the Internet was still a young pup (at least, the public side of the Internet was). Everyone that was on the Internet was on AOL or, like me, Prodigy. The web was still fairly new and something of a novelty; online services were where it was at.

Now, today we take for granted the online dating services. Match.com, eHarmony and all the others hit us with TV and radio ads. Back then, however, the best you could find was a sort of “classified ad” section on your online service.

And I did find it. And I used it. You see, I discovered that I could write to pretty girls all day long. I never had to worry about getting tongue tied, or that my shirt would be buttoned wrong. To make a long story short, that’s how I met my wife. If I’d have had to meet her in person first, chances are I’d have chickened out and we would never have met.

(And, yes, I know the whole “we met online” thing is old hat today. But, in 1994 it was still a bit of a novelty. It was fun to watch, as the years went by, the changing reactions people would have to us “meeting online.” In the early days it was a confused “huh?” After a while it became “ooh, that’s interesting. How do I do that?” Eventually it was “I have a friend who met her husband that same way.” Finally, today it’s “You got lucky. She could have been an ax murderer!”)

At any rate, here’s my point: I’m much better at writing than I am speaking. When I write, I can carefully craft what I want to say into a cohesive whole. I’m much more likely to close a deal in writing than I am in person or on the phone.

What does that have to do with clients? Plenty.

You see, most of my writing clients aren’t writers themselves. I realize that’s pretty obvious in itself, but hear me out.

At times, it’s easy to become frustrated with clients. Communicating with them about specs, project details and even costs can be challenging via e-mail. So, some clients prefer to talk on the phone or meet face-to-face.

I don’t mind face-to-face meetings or phone calls, especially when they result in more business. But I also know that my strengths aren’t in those situations. My strength is in writing - which is why they’re hiring me in the first place.

So, I naturally prefer to negotiate on my terms - in writing. But I realize that this, in many cases, puts my clients at a severe disadvantage. So anytime a client requests a phone call or meeting, I try to accomodate it.

And these days, I try to be more understanding of those requests. After all, some clients probably feel about written communication the way I used to about verbal. They’re not sure what to write, and when they do write it comes out awkward. In other cases, they’re just playing to their strengths, and I can’t begrudge them that.

So, what do you think? I know freelancers on both sides of this issue. There are some who will not - under any circumstances - take calls or meetings. Others prefer it. How about you?
photo credit: Foxtongue

One of the biggest problems I had in grad school was the ethics involved in writing research papers.

Now, I’m not talking about plagiarism or anything like that. This was much more subtle.

We were expected, when writing papers, to have a thesis and support it. That’s pretty standard, I think, for most types of non-fiction writing. Build your argument, provide evidence, that sort of thing. But, there was something we weren’t allowed to do: point out potential weaknesses in our arguments. You leave that to others in the field who will, no doubt, offer up critical thought on your work. Only after they raise objections do you address potential problems with your thesis.

In other words, you can’t tell it like it really is.

To me, this seemed irresponsible. Why? For several reasons:

1. Others can completely miss a weakness that you’ve readily identified. Your argument, then, stands not on its own merit but on the lack of insight on the part of your critics.
2. Failure to point out potential problems with your argument prevents others from finding solutions to that problem. You eliminate your cheering section and defenders.
3. This approach only provides a singular view of the topic. The paper exists in a vacuum, speaking only to itself and, in many ways, only being heard by like-minded folks.
4. Leaving out important information in this context is, in my mind, akin to deception.

In some ways, copywriting is a lot like writing graduate research papers. When you’re writing copy, you write about the positive points of a product or service - its features or benefits. You don’t write about potential problems with the product or about how another product might function in a similar way. You restrict the flow of information and leave it to the consumer to discover the counter-arguments or problems on their own. If you don’t, your copy doesn’t convert.

Is this good or bad? Do the ethics of academic research apply to the ethics of copywriting? Should academic research take the same approach as copywriting? Is it possible to tell it like it really is when writing copy and still make sales?

photo credit: Symic