32 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
32 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Headline Critique...

by GlenH
24 replies
Hi Guys,

Can I please get some feedback about this headline…

Version 1:

What If I Could Hand You A List Building Building System That
Uses a Unique ‘Covert Squeeze Page’ Technology, and Will Boost Your Optins By 147% to $267%...

What Would You Say?

Version 2:

What If I Handed You a List Building System That
Uses a Unique ‘Covert Squeeze Page’ Technology, Which Blows Away Traditional ‘Squeeze Pages’.....and Boosts Your Optins By 147% to 267%...

What would you Say?


I’m not sure whether asking a question in that way is the right way to go..

Or whether it should be reworded like this..

How Would You Like Me To Hand You The Next Generation List Building System That Uses a Groundbreaking ‘Covert Squeeze Page’ Technology To Boost Your Optins By 147% to $267%?

Any advise is appreciated
#critique #headkine
  • Profile picture of the author BrianMcLeod
    Simplify - you'd be better off with:

    Breakthrough 'Covert Squeeze Page' Technology
    Boosts Optins By 147% to 267%
    Signature
    Brian McLeod
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9616813].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author splitTest
      Originally Posted by BrianMcLeod View Post

      Simplify - you'd be better off with:

      Breakthrough ‘Covert Squeeze Page’ Technology
      Boosts Optins By 147% to 267%
      This is waaay better, but I'd get rid of the "by 147%". Why not just say...

      Breakthrough ‘Covert Squeeze Page’ Technology
      Boosts Optins By 267%

      You could explain the ranges later in the copy if necessary... Yes, I understand the "by 147%" adds specificity, but it trades it for an awkward sentence, and doesn't add anything to the "news" headline, imho.

      Indeed, the shorter headline invites the addition of nice follow-up subhead, like you see with real news headlines...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9628674].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Brent Jones
      Originally Posted by BrianMcLeod View Post

      Simplify - you'd be better off with:

      Breakthrough 'Covert Squeeze Page' Technology
      Boosts Optins By 147% to 267%
      I don't have any real feedback that hasn't already been mentioned here.

      The original headlines were far too long, and they make some pretty bold claims. I hope you have evidence.

      Also, note the spelling of which vs. witch.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9630700].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Pescetti
    I agree with Brian.

    And with numbers like that, you better prove it immediately.
    Signature

    Do you want a 9 figure copywriter and biz owner to Write With You? I'll work with you, on zoom, to help write your copy or client copy... while you learn from one of the few copywriters to legit hit 9 figures in gross sales! Discover More

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9616895].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Raydal
    Brian has gotten rid of all the extraneous words while keeping the
    meaning. The headline was too long. What I would change in Brian's
    headline is "technology" to "list building system" because technology
    is just too general a word. "List-building" says what the technology
    does.

    -Ray Edwards
    Signature
    The most powerful and concentrated copywriting training online today bar none! Autoresponder Writing Email SECRETS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9617037].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ewenmack
      Glen, can you come up with percentages
      of opt-ins achieved to cold traffic?

      Those numbers will become more meaningful
      than what you have.

      Somebody could of started at 10% opt ins and lifted
      them by 147% would still be behind those
      that get 65% to 80% optin rates.

      The market awareness of what is good and isn't good
      optin rates has gotten very spoilt with the likes of LeadPages.

      I don't think you can bypass what people use to measure good or bad
      optin rates, like you have.

      Best,
      Doctor E. Vile
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9617246].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GlenH
        Originally Posted by ewenmack View Post

        Glen, can you come up with percentages
        of opt-ins achieved to cold traffic?

        Those numbers will become more meaningful
        than what you have.

        Somebody could of started at 10% opt ins and lifted
        them by 147% would still be behind those
        that get 65% to 80% optin rates.

        The market awareness of what is good and isn't good
        optin rates has gotten very spoilt with the likes of LeadPages.

        I don't think you can bypass what people use to measure good or bad
        optin rates, like you have.

        Best,
        Doctor E. Vile
        Thank you everyone for your valuable input, (I usually overly complicate things)

        And I also see your point exactly Ewan....

        Reflecting optins as percentage increases distorts the figures and confuses

        I could reflect the optin percentages in the terms of optins achieved, rather than as an optin percentage increase',.

        But I'm not too sure how that could be stated clearly and concisely enough in the headline, without it getting too long
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9617619].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ewenmack
          Originally Posted by GlenH View Post

          Thank you everyone for your valuable input, (I usually overly complicate things)

          And I also see your point exactly Ewan....

          Reflecting optins as percentage increases distorts the figures and confuses

          I could reflect the optin percentages in the terms of optins achieved, rather than as an optin percentage increase',.

          But I'm not too sure how that could be stated clearly and concisely enough in the headline, without it getting too long
          Using a percentage of optins will only work if your's
          are higher than others.

          I don't know anything about your optin forms which
          give it an advantage over others.

          Pointing out the biggest advantage over other optin form
          builders is your starting point, not throwing a bunch of words together
          to create a head-turning headline.

          Best,
          Doctor E. Vile
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9618047].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author GlenH
            Originally Posted by ewenmack View Post

            Pointing out the biggest advantage over other optin form
            builders is your starting point, not throwing a bunch of words together
            to create a head-turning headline.

            Best,
            Doctor E. Vile
            Thanks Ewan.

            Pointing out the advantages of this system over others is all happening as part of the sales letter.

            I put up the headline for comment mainly because I was in two minds about those 'questioning' type headlines.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9618167].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author IDoTheLegWork
    Maybe it's just me but 'covert squeeze page' sets my
    BS meter ringing like Big Ben.
    Signature

    ..and you WILL contribute a verse.
    Indifference is the enemy that must be conquered.
    Appeal to the crowd by addressing the person.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9617942].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dddougal
    It does sound like BS to me unfortunately....It sounds to good to be true so iv already clicked away to find something else....Maybe made a brew or had another beer....Also, why would i bother reading the rest of the copy anyway when you'v already told me exactly what your system offers? You are giving them an easy excuse not to bother reading the rest of your crafted words.

    In my opinion you would be better off wording it as a question that doesn't mention the opt in rates at all or even what you are selling, and then gradually breaking your miracle solution to the reader....

    Is this the easiest way you can get more list subscribers?

    ....Obviously a bit more work needed but you get my point, they would then need to read the rest of the text to find out what you were actually prattling on about, by which time they would be interested and you could spool your lines about the opt-in rates and any other empty promises you could throw in there.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9618911].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Sarlo
    I like #2, there's nothing wrong with a headline being a bit long as long as each word has a meaning.

    #2 is more detailed & straight to the point at the same time. Maybe I'll only change the: What would you Say? They can say (in their head) maybe later, I don't know, or another excuse. They really want answers from you, you're their "hero".

    Instead say: Read every word on this page to find out how... (you want them to stick to you).
    Signature
    Free Guides Reveal How To Make BIG Money In the Info & Affiliate Business!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9627435].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KevinWellsMarketing
    I agree the original drafts are too long.

    Why does it need to be "hand you" or "handed you". Does this mean it's free?

    How about:

    "What If I Told You About A ...."

    But I'd prefer something like:

    "Here's A Breakthrough ‘Covert Squeeze Page’ Technique Which Boosts Optins By Up To 267%"

    or

    Here's A Breakthrough List-Building Technique Which Boosts Optins By Up To 267%

    or

    "This Breakthrough ‘Covert Squeeze Page’ Technique Boosts Optins By Up To 267%"

    I agree about the word "technology". It sounds too technical. When people say "technology" I think of electronics, circuits, engineering. Also it's 4 syllables, whereas technique is just 2 - less of a mouthful.

    ps in the original draft I noticed you had written $267%
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9681941].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alex Cohen
      Present your numbers as integers rather than percentages.

      For example "2X" or "2 Times" is better than "200%".

      The average Jack or Jill knows instantly what "2 Times" means but will have to think what "200%" means.

      Many people's eyes "glaze over" when you start quoting percentages.

      Alex
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9682535].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GlenH
        Originally Posted by Alex Cohen View Post

        Present your numbers as integers rather than percentages.

        For example "2X" or "2 Times" is better than "200%".

        The average Jack or Jill knows instantly what "2 Times" means but will have to think what "200%" means.

        Many people's eyes "glaze over" when you start quoting percentages.

        Alex
        I totally see your point, about the 'average' prospect having to 'think' about percentages.

        But if we're talking about a product going into the the IM niche, aren't marketers more 'numbers' savvy....

        Example...

        ........that will boost your optins 147 times, and make....

        .......that will boost your optins 147X, and make.....

        To me, neither sound right in that context (but that's me)


        Maybe changing the context to something like..

        How To Get 147 Times More Optins Than You do Now......

        Makes more sense.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9682596].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alex Cohen
          Originally Posted by GlenH View Post

          I totally see your point, about the 'average' prospect having to 'think' about percentages.

          But if we're talking about a product going into the the IM niche, aren't marketers more 'numbers' savvy.
          Slightly if at all.

          Serious marketers make up only a small percentage of the buyers for list building products. The rest are "hobbyist" marketers and biz op seekers.

          Don't overestimate the "savvyness" of your market.

          Alex
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9682859].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author GlenH
            Originally Posted by Alex Cohen View Post

            Slightly if at all.

            Serious marketers make up only a small percentage of the buyers for list building products. The rest are "hobbyist" marketers and biz op seekers.

            Don't overestimate the "savvyness" of your market.

            Alex
            Got it. Thanks Alex.

            I'll do some reformatting.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9682910].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author The Copy Nazi
    Banned
    Gotta disagree. 200% is way stronger than "2X" or "Two Times" or "Twice". But what's even stronger is a specific number. Like 247%. And that "7" on the end resonates. That's the magic number. Ted Nicholas used to think so.

    http://www.tednicholas.com/bdms/223/...ng_Secrets.pdf

    Others think it a load of baloney - The Number 7 : Ted Nicholas & Product Pricing Strategy

    BTW there's a lot of good stuff in that Ted Nicholas pdf.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684419].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steve The Copywriter
    Talking about old Ted.

    And his mantra - "headlines should never be more than 17 words"

    The responses I've had during my 28 years in the WWOC (wonderful world of copywriting) have shown this is a top notch formula*


    Steve


    P.S. * excludes the prehead and subhead
    Signature
    http://www.warriorforum.com/warriors...right-now.html
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684573].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GlenH
      Originally Posted by Steve The Copywriter View Post

      Talking about old Ted.

      And his mantra - "headlines should never be more than 17 words"

      The responses I've had during my 28 years in the WWOC (wonderful world of copywriting) have shown this is a top notch formula*


      Steve


      P.S. * excludes the prehead and subhead
      In working through this little exercise here, it's interesting to see how the 'experts' have differing perspectives on what makes a better headline.

      Right from the length of a headline, down to the format of numbers and the way they are used.

      Which I suppose proves there really is no 'right way', so keep testing variations.

      How about the word 'Stealth' compared to 'Covert'.

      Do they both ring the BS meter as someone said.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684611].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steve The Copywriter
    Yes it is an endless debate.

    Ted did sell shedfulls of stuff (make that warehouses full) and never used a headline over 17 words.

    I remember listening to one of Ted's seminars (in those days it was on cassette) and lo and beyond Dan Kennedy who was in the audience asked a few questions.

    Fast forward a few years and at a Kennedy seminar he acknowledged Ted's "17 words or less" and said he had great success with longer headlines.

    This may have spawned the 137 (maybe a slight exaggeration) word monologues that you frequently see today.

    So who is right?

    I guess the answer is "it depends on the product and the market"

    I take the simplistic view - human nature never changes that much.

    And Ted sold far more than Kennedy. And in todays money far more than just about anybody else.

    So I prefer the 17 word epics.

    I've done a lot of testing and at least for me they do work better than longer headlines.

    Again the proviso is - this is for the main headline.

    Not the prehead and subhead (although its best not to make them ramble on and on).


    Steve
    Signature
    http://www.warriorforum.com/warriors...right-now.html
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9684695].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ewenmack
      I'm for specific numbers because they have
      the sound of truth.

      Best,
      Doctor E. Vile
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9685028].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mikesweeney
    Hey Glen,

    A lot of great copywriters have already commented. But wouldn't it give you a little more credibility if you actual had the name of the mechanism in the headline instead of "covert"? Or has this mechanism (or technology) already been used enough in this market that they (IM niche) are already aware of it?

    When I hear the word "covert" it sounds like some of those clickbank "secret software" offers from 2010-2011. That's just my opinion though. I'm not sure how aware or savvy the "IM" niche is at this point. I've stayed away marketing in it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9689419].message }}

Trending Topics