A lot of people ask me how I write copy. I don’t mean the content-writing process (such as how I come up with headlines, bullets, offers, etc), but how I tackle the actual task of composing a new salesletter from scratch.
Everyone is different. My writing process is one developed over many years, and many people may adopt or dislike the same techniques. But in the hope that knowing my process may be helpful to some writers, I’d like to share it with you.
Of course, if I were to describe all of the steps, there would be way too much information to squeeze into one article. But for now, I can offer you a basic look at my methodology by giving you a short list of the seven steps I take.
Here they are.
1. Gather Initial Research
For starters, with all projects I ask that my clients take time to answer an initial, 25-point questionnaire. Their answers will provide some background information. I ask several questions from four main categories:
The customer
The product
The business
The offer
The first one is the most important. It’s where I ask questions like demographics and psychographics, and try to build a perfect customer profile or persona. The others include things like features and benefits, stories behind the product, testimonials, actual results, the buying process, etc.
(The questionnaire can be an eye-opener for many clients because it forces them to dig for the answers, and to see where some of the flaws with their current copy are.)
Admittedly, this is just a start. But their answers, which give me some direction as to where to conduct further research, give me at least a basic understanding of their business, the purpose of the copy’s message, and its goals.
Yes, that’s “goals” in the plural.
Of course, there is the main goal, which may be to generate leads or sales. But other, secondary goals may include to dispel rumors, answer questions, build credibility, eliminate misconceptions, differentiate from the competition, etc.
2. Conduct Exploratory Research
Then, I read and study the answers carefully, and I conduct some exploratory research. That is, I try to gather as much information as I can — anything about the business, the product, the offer and, above all, the target audience.
I surf their websites. I research their competitors. I look at some of the trends in that particular product category, market, or industry. I do comparative analyses.
I hang out where their readers hang out. I check out some of the websites they visit. I spend some time in forums in which they’re active. I try to get a grasp of their language, their challenges, their industry, their fears, their goals, etc.
When I come across an important piece of information, I copy it into a document, where I can easily append extra pieces of information, include any corresponding URLs, make additional notes, and more.
I create a new project in my project management software, where I give access to all the key players, and start populating it with the information I gather.
(Aside from being a repository, the software has many features that come in quite handy, such as to-do lists, message board, whiteboard, chat room, file uploads, milestone tracker, and more.)
The idea at first is to gather as much information as possible, including facts, features, data, results, etc. I undiscerningly add whatever information I find into the repository.
3. Pick, Prod And Probe Further
Of course, a lot of it is also irrelevant.
So I go through the information and pull out the important stuff. I compile, clarify, and expand. I cherrypick and highlight what’s relevant, and file or discard the rest.
I might even repeat some of the earlier steps to make sure I’ve covered all the bases. After spending some time studying the information, I may ask for more clarification and dig deeper.
Sometimes, it’s to get a better understanding of the information. Other times, it’s to get additional tidbits where I might uncover hidden gems I can use with the copy.
But most of the time, it’s to be able to later put what my clients tell me into words that specifically meet my client’s audience at their level.
I tend to look at my job as “connecting the dots.” If the product is good and the demand is there, then my job is not to sell the product but to connect the desires and fears of the reader with the solution my client offers.
(Most of my clients are too “married” to their own products or businesses that they tend to be removed from their clients. So what they may feel is great about their product may not be a shared opinion among their target market.)
But here’s my greatest tip…
Some of the best answers I get are in fact obtained while interviewing people. That’s right: actually talking to people, whether it’s the business owner or existing clients. In other words, picking up the phone and asking questions.
(Of course, I record everything and transcribe the interviews. I do this with the help of an online transcription service.)
This allows me to not only catch verbal cues and innuendos, but also to prod and probe further. I sometimes throw in a dangling preposition or conjunction followed by a pause, where the silence compels them to continue.
(For example, once my client answers a question, I’ll say, “And?” “Or?” “But?” “So that…” “That’s for…” “That means…” “Or else?” “In other words?” After that, I shut up. You’d be amazed by the kinds of answers they would give!)
I also try to speak with actual success stories. I interview satisfied clients, not just for the sake of gathering testimonials, and not just to ask a lot of open-ended questions to probe deeper as well, but also, and if I can, to actually get them to sell me on the product themselves.
These interviews are worth a mint! If I managed to get my interviewee excited and passionate about the product, in many cases they practically write the copy for me.
4. Create The Structure
Next, I try to find a storyline, a unique benefit, a certain angle, or a key piece of information. Some call it a “platform.” Others call it a “hook” or “the big idea.” It’s essentially the one element on which the entire copy hinges.
It may be a certain fear, a news story, a “hot button,” a success story, a fascinating factoid, a sensational claim, a major benefit (even an unsought one), a sense of urgency, a “lie dispelled,” a secret, a myth, a hot trend, a controversial topic, an unexpected result, etc.
Once I’ve found it, I then create an outline. Often, I apply my QUEST formula, which is to “qualify” the reader, “understand” their problem, “educate” them on the solution, “stimulate” them on the value, and “transition” them into a buyer.
I don’t write the copy just yet. I simply use the formula to create an outline that will guide me as to where specific pieces of information will be added.
The copy doesn’t necessarily have to follow the exact formula, either. But it does give me some guidance as to what exactly I must cover, and where I must cover it.
Sometimes, I’ll use it to create headers throughout the copy as the outline. These headers are not written in stone. They only give me some initial direction as to what, specifically, I need to cover at certain points in the copy.
Look at these headers as “guideposts,” if you will.
I also try to look at the copy from the perspective of a reader. For example, I’ll ask myself, “What do I want and need to know at this point in the copy?” “What can potentially confuse me?” “What questions or objections might likely come up at that moment?” “What’s going through my mind when I read this?” And so on.
(At this time in the process, I write some notes on the copy, to myself, on what needs to be covered, what key pieces of information I must include, what ideas I want to expand on, etc. And often, I write these notes in point form.)
5. Write The Copy
Next comes the creative part.
>From the platform and the guideposts I’ve set out above, I start writing the copy. I often begin with the headline or the bullet points, whichever is easiest. (It really depends on what comes to mind the fastest.)
Sometimes, a headline idea jumps out at me, particularly after doing the research and coming up with the “hook.” If so, I will start with the headline first.
The headline is not final, either. I sometimes come back and rewrite the headline once I finish the copy, because new and better ideas emerge later on as I write the body copy.
Both the headline and the storyline will give me a good indication of what I can write about, how to say it, as well as what options I have when I write it.
Sometimes, I just start writing and let it flow, and my writing takes a life of its own. When this happens, sometimes I end up ignoring the guideposts I’ ve created. If so, that’s perfectly fine. Remember, they are guides. Not goals.
In terms of actual copy, I start writing and expanding.
I structure a skeletal offer (with premiums);
I create the opening or introductory paragraph;
I tell the story (based on the chosen storyline);
I list the features, advantages and benefits;
I expand on key items for the main body;
I incorporate or expand on story blocks;
I add Johnson boxes, remarks or sidenotes;
I reinforce key benefits and “reasons why;”
I build up the value and expand on the offer;
I form a logical and believable sense of urgency; I inject credibility by adding proof elements;
I infuse testimonials in appropriate locations;
I write the guarantee (or guarantees);
I close with a call-to-action statement;
And I plug some “PS’s” at the end.
(In the P.S., I add an afterthought to restate the benefits of the offer, repeat the topic covered in the headline, emphasize the sense of urgency, or add an extra bonus not yet offered.)
5. Rearrange The Flow
Then, I rearrange the content for flow.
I don’t edit the copy. I simply scan the copy to make sure it all flows nicely, and that the organization of ideas makes the reading pleasant, compelling and easily understandable.
I make sure to integrate headers at every two or three paragraphs. If needed, I also copy, paste and move blocks of text in locations I feel they are more appropriate.
(For example, sometimes it’s better to credentialize the copy early on. Or some testimonials are best located where specific objections may come up. In fact, I use them where the reader might have a specific question that the testimonial answers.)
To help me, I work with multiple, tiled windows (i.e., side by side), all opened at once and each showing a different part of a same document. This is particularly helpful when I’m working with longer copy.
That way, I can easily scan and scroll through each window to rearrange the content from one window to another (i.e., from one section of the copy to another).
>From this cursory look at the copy, I can immediately sense if I need to also add certain elements, whether cosmetic (such as adding a grabber, a picture or a graphic) or tactical (such as adding a sidenote, a proof element or a Johnson box).
I also make sure that the copy follows the AIDA formula (i.e., attention, interest, desire and action).
6. Edit And Expand
Once re-arranged, I then edit the copy. I read it to myself, slowly and sometimes out loud, to make sure it’s easy to read and flows properly. If I stumble at any point or verbally struggle, I know that I need to rewrite that section.
(Whenever I can, I even record myself. It’s amazing how many errors I’ve discovered from listening to myself reading the copy, than from simply reading it.)
I then expand, cut out, tighten up and add more. I add emphasis where needed, rewrite certain sections, and, above all, cut out as much of the extra fat as possible.
In fact, the latter is the most crucial step.
Why? Because when I write, I usually write with abandon. I let it all flow. I write like I speak. I try not to stop myself, or else it will impede my train of thought.
(When I stop writing, it forces me to start thinking critically. I begin to edit myself too early, which blocks the creative flow. When this happens, I lose focus because I spend too much energy on making sure I’ve said things right rather than saying the right things.)
That’s why I wait until after I’m done, and only when I’m done, to go back and excise all the extraneous filler. I try to cut out as much of the unneeded copy as I can. Or, if what I say is indeed important, I try to find ways to say the same thing but in less words.
(Editing is probably one the most important strategies in writing copy, but it’s also the most overlooked because it’s the hardest thing to do for most copywriters. That’s why it’s best to wait until the end.)
Finally, I focus on the cosmetics, since certain visual “triggers” help to increase both readership and response. So I touch up the formatting, typestyles, tables, colors, graphics, pictures, layouts, fonts, and so on.
After that, I’m done.
7. Revise, Revise, Revise!
Before I deliver the copy to my client, I still get my staff to proofread it for me. But I don’t limit them to the grammar or style. I also ask them to signal any part of the copy where they feel confused, lost, or disinterested in the story.
(I also ask them questions about the copy to see if they truly grasped some of its key elements. If their answers are not good enough, I know I need to edit it more.)
This is important, since I often make the same mistakes I made while writing it when reading it back to myself. Also, knowing what the copy is all about can cause me to take what I say (or fail to say) for granted, and accidentally skip over what may be confusing to others.
(Don’t discount having a fresh pair of eyes look at your copy for you. Before handing off the copy to the client, try to get someone else to read it for you.)
After it’s all done, I then upload it to my the project website for my client to read and offer feedback. I revise the copy until the client is satisfied. (In fact, I allow my clients two free revisions.)
There is no way to predict how well my copy will do. For some clients, my work multiplies their response rates like gangbusters. But for others, my copy turns out to be a downright dud.
Maybe it’s because the platform is wrong. Perhaps the headline is the bottleneck. I don’t know. The only way to know is to test.
But in my experience, when my copy failed it was largely because the audience wasn’t targeted, or the offer wasn’t appropriate. And in either case, the copy would have never sold well, no matter how good the copy was.
Failure does happen. It happens to the best of us. But failure is also an opportunity — an opportunity to learn, improve and grow. That’s why I appreciate it when my clients keep me posted on their results.
(I trust a copywriter who failed and succeeded more than I do one who never failed at all.)
In fact, some clients prefer to keep me on a retainer after the initial project, so they can have me rewrite parts of the copy, or offer any suggestions on how to improve it, without contaminating the initial control.
Nevertheless, these are the steps I follow. I don’t necessarily follow them to the letter all of the time. But hopefully, they have given you some fodder on your quest for better response.
IP addresses are hoarded by “developed nations” - if only “less-developed” nations were given more IP addresses, the Internet would grow more/better…
Assertions like this mistakenly conflate the administrative process of requesting and receiving public IP addresses with the economic or commercial act of routing IP addresses - of engaging in what is sometimes called “Internet production.” The former, administrative process involves relatively little in the way of overhead, and confers nothing more than the potential to develop public Internet resources—i.e., to create new Internet users (provide access) and/or Internet uses (provide content and other online services).
Actually achieving that potential takes much more than IP addresses. At minimum, it also takes equipment, engineering staff, a physical medium through which the new Internet resource can be delivered to end users, and a strategy for putting all of these pieces together so that they are worth more then the sum of their parts—in other words, a strategy for creating value for users. This rule holds—or should hold—whether or not those users happen to be called customers, coworkers, community members, or citizens.
True, an institution that possesses all of these features but lacks public IP addresses cannot easily create new, globally visible Internet resources, so addresses do indeed represent a kind of bottleneck to “Internet production.” However, the only requirement for getting (or more precisely, for securing conditional exclusive beneficial control of) public IP addresses is, in fact, to possess those exact features, or means to secure them through external suppliers. The process through which independent network operators request new IP addresses from the Regional Internet Registries involves nothing more than demonstrating that one has the minimum prerequisites needed to engage in actual Internet production, and a plan for producing specific new Internet resources. Once this potential is credibly demonstrated, a new “allocation” is made, conferring upon the applicant beneficial control over a quantity of IP addresses that matches the demonstrated need. Viewed in this light, each public IP address request is like a promise undertaken by a network operator to produce a specific quantity of Internet resources within a fixed period of time. Each actual IP address allocation represents a promise of Internet production that has been validated. By the best measure currently available, an estimated 90% of networks that enter into such arrangements start delivering on those promises within 75 days of receiving their public IP allocations.*
So, no public Internet production without public IP addresses—but more importantly no public IP addresses without Internet production, or at least the promise of near-term Internet production. What happens if this production doesn’t materialize? In that case, no further IP allocations will be made to the non-producing institution. This closed loop arrangement represents the best possible system for balancing the interests of current and future Internet participants, both “Internet producers” and end users. Current Internet beneficiaries know that they won’t face any local, artificial scarcity; one day everyone may have to transition to a new addressing scheme, but this requirement won’t be imposed arbitrarily or asymmetrically because of “hoarding.” Meanwhile, those on the less fortunate side of the digital divide can be assured that public IP addresses will always remain available to them—and/or to any other institution that aspires to facilitate their incorporation into the global information economy—for as long, and to the same degree, as they are available to everyone else.
Although this description captures the essence of the public IP allocation process, it is true that the process and requirements for securing IP addresses have not always been the same for all Internet participants at every point in history. The above description is based primarily on the current process used by multihomed “Internet producers” (i.e., those with external links to at least two other networks) to secure IP addresses directly from the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). This admission points to two distinct dimensions of variance, one historical the other related to network scale and topology. In the past, each of these variables has been used in different contexts by different parties to support claims that the system, or perhaps the results of the system, are unfair. Occasionally each reason is also used to explain or obscure the other.
Recently, for example, representatives from some information economy latecomers—mostly PSTN-dominated developing countries—have sharply criticized older networks—mostly based in developed economies with competitive telecom/Internet markets—because the latter received IP address allocations under earlier, more relaxed terms, when Internet production technology was much less efficient than it is today. Such critics would prefer to lay the blame for the current digital divide on this “historical unfairness,” rather than to consider whether and how their own current domestic circumstances—which often include monopoly telco control over basic Internet inputs—adversely affects their own Internet production possibilities. In some cases, this control extends beyond essential telecommunications infrastructure (especially “last mile” access), to encompass public IP addresses themselves, sometimes through the vehicle of a National Internet Registry (NIR), or more commonly through exploitive but unregulated commercial practices of a local service provider, or LIR.
On the other side of the argument, representatives of the old, well-established networks—many having grown far beyond the confines of their original host economies—are often quick to point out the relationship between provider diversity and public IP addresses. They note, quite correctly, that countries that play host to more independent network operators tend to make more public IP allocation requests, which ultimately result in more public IP address allocations. This empirically verifiable fact would seem to suggest a clear path forward for aggrieved developing countries—use domestic policy mechanisms to encourage the formation of more local providers. Arguably, such a suggestion glosses over substantial variations in the real cost and availability of critical Internet inputs, and thus obscures any role that established, globe-spanning networks have in influencing those costs at the international level. And yet a variety of domestic levers for empowering local Internet production are available to every country, ranging from regulatory changes that would widen access to telecom infrastructure and other critical inputs, to the establishment of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), where local Internet producers can trade access to new Internet resources with each other directly, without the mediation of national PSTN or foreign network operators.
It is possible that a strategy for fostering national network provider diversity could be pursued in bad faith by a powerful incumbent, simply in order to secure administrative control over more public IP addresses for their own sake. However, so long as each public IP request is reviewed objectively, on the same terms developed through international consensus and executed at the regional/global level, the expected result would extend beyond the merely administrative, beyond the simple transfer of inert public IP addresses; they would represent the same kind of credible and verifiable promise to produce real Internet resources—new users, new usage, new content and other uses—that has to date paid off so handsomely throughout the global information economy.
For these reasons, national-level experiments with address allocation policy should be strongly discouraged, just as nonconforming IP address assignment policies at the enterprise level are strongly discouraged today. Better for all if the rules linking public IP addresses with real Internet production continue to be defined and administered outside of the equally competitive commercial and national/political spheres, and that these rules continue to be treated as transitive features, applicable and enforceable over every actor and every transaction involved in the distribution of public IP addresses. That is the best way to make the Internet grow more/better, for now…