My basic philosophy on this eternal question is threefold: first, copy should be as long as it needs to be to get the job done; second, it is somewhat medium dependent; third, it needs to be tested perhaps on a segmented basis using age and other demographics.
In regard to medium dependency, for example, email, copy should be shorter in the message itself, with a call to action that may be used to drive readers to a longer form appeal.
Having just participated in a webinar about millennials and Generation Z (the next generation after millennial who are basically 13 at the oldest as I understand it) probably had a lot to do with my call for generational segmentation.
I got some pushback on that, which was valid. Claims are made that the average attention span of the youth of America has declined from 12 minutes to five or less, Harry Potter novels still get read. Nonetheless, I still think that in this day and age it makes sense to test the most concise copy possible.
I must share the latest comment in the fairly active discussion by Michael Gama
"I read an article years ago, written by an early DM copywriter (Caples?) who promised a friend (just call him John Smith) "I can write a full page ad for the NYT, total copy, with no photographs, and I guarantee you'll read every word of it." Mystified, Smith asked him how he could be so confident. The DM copywriter answered, "Because the huge headline will say, 'The Truth About John Smith.'" The point here is fairly obvious, and is still worth remembering today, I suspect. So, long vs. short copy is really, arguably, while not unimportant, still a secondary concern behind others such as proper targeting and showcasing benefits."
So the ancient debate goes on. The answer, as usual in direct marketing, is test and see what works best for you.
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment