9 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
9 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Thought Experiment: Which Approach Will Get Better Results?

by CopyAcolyte
8 replies
I want to pose this hypothetical copywriting dilemma to the warriors here:

If you space for only one of these approaches, which would you apply?

Assumption: There is a one nagging flaw in your product or service that you must overcome. Otherwise everything else is solid.

Would you..

A) Omit any mention of this flaw and instead sell extravagantly on the product or service's awesome benefits and make a killer offering (best deal you can afford).

or

B) Concede to the flaw, address it and then trivialize it, and then sell based on a combination of your brave honesty coupled with a more mellow presentation of benefits and milder offer.

Everything else held constant, which option would produce greater results? This is just a hypothetical, so I welcome both speculation and cited facts.
#approach #experiment #results #thought
  • Profile picture of the author scrofford
    Originally Posted by CopyAcolyte View Post

    I want to pose this hypothetical copywriting dilemma to the warriors here:

    If you space for only one of these approaches, which would you apply?

    Assumption: There is a one nagging flaw in your product or service that you must overcome. Otherwise everything else is solid.

    Would you..

    A) Omit any mention of this flaw and instead sell extravagantly on the product or service's awesome benefits and make a killer offering (best deal you can afford).

    or

    B) Concede to the flaw, address it and then trivialize it, and then sell based on a combination of your brave honesty coupled with a more mellow presentation of benefits and milder offer.

    Everything else held constant, which option would produce greater results? This is just a hypothetical, so I welcome both speculation and cited facts.
    C) Concede to the flaw, address it honestly and show how the flaw could possibly be used in the prospective customer's favor.

    I wouldn't trivialize it because then the prospective customer may have an issue with it later. I wouldn't omit it either because then they may feel lied to because you didn't mention it. It's best to be honest about the flaw and address it IMHO.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3856014].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RickDuris
      I say flaunt the flaws.

      I was watching an infomercial early this morning. A product known as the Banjo Minnow fishing lure was on one of the channels.

      The premise behind the Banjo Minnow (and I don't know if it's true or not) but they say it uses the fish's genetic, hard-wired instinct to the fisherman's advantage.

      In the case of the Banjo Minnow, the lure looks and acts like a crippled, dying minnow, ready to be snapped up. (See any parallels?)

      Supposedly, it's irresistible to fish.

      We shall see. (Yeah, I bought.)

      - Rick Duris
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3856437].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Pusateri
      Yes, acknowledge the flaw. It will up your credibility score in the reader's mind.

      People know there's no such thing as a perfect product and are always looking for the catch. Don't minimize it, but explain how the user can minimize its impact on his experience with the product.

      Example: "The smlerf is hard to toggle by hand, but if you keep a chicken bone handy its no problem. If you can't live with that you should probably consider our competitors. But you will be missing out on (benefits conveyed by unique features of your product.)"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3856468].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BrianMcLeod
    The "Damaging Admission" as Dan Kennedy calls it disarms a prospect's natural wall of resistance by providing a sense of transparency, engendering a sense of trust.

    It's not a miracle cure for a glaring problem with the product, but it absolutely can mitigate wild assumptions that some will draw from a flaw.

    Think of it this way... better to CONTROL the objection than leave it to the imagination of the prospect.

    Brian
    Signature
    Brian McLeod
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3856757].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author A790
      Originally Posted by BrianMcLeod View Post

      The "Damaging Admission" as Dan Kennedy calls it disarms a prospect's natural wall of resistance by providing a sense of transparency, engendering a sense of trust.

      It's not a miracle cure for a glaring problem with the product, but it absolutely can mitigate wild assumptions that some will draw from a flaw.

      Think of it this way... better to CONTROL the objection than leave it to the imagination of the prospect.

      Brian
      Very good post, and absolutely correct.

      Setting the right expectations will do wonders for both increasing conversions and reducing returns. Informing your potential customers of the flaw in the product in advance, in a non-threatening manner (of course), is also a great way to get rid of the "miracle cure" stigma that many new products are scrutinized for by their target market.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3869134].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rezbi
    Originally Posted by CopyAcolyte View Post

    Assumption: There is a one nagging flaw in your product or service that you must overcome. Otherwise everything else is solid.
    If it's a nagging flaw I would assume it must be quite prominent.

    Imagine you buy something thinking it's perfect. You know it's perfect because the ad. doesn't mention any problems with it.

    How would you feel when you find it's not perfect - would you want your money back?

    By admitting the flaw upfront you reduce possible refund requests.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3869275].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author chris_f
    Context is a big variable, in my opinion. In direct mail, "direct" being it's nature, you may omit and get to the glorious point before they shred your letter.

    But if you're online, somewhat active in social media by blog or some other 3rd party app, I think people are more prone to respond to humility and transparency. So you may go with the second option

    Thanks for the thought provoker
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3871858].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DougHughes
    I'm going to take the unpopular position and say...it depends.

    Depends on the flaw, the market, context, etc...

    After testing some letters with this exact question for consumer product campaigns we've had mixed results but...

    In most of the ones we've tested omission worked better.

    Like the old saying goes, "out of sight, out of mind."

    Think about this.

    If you had the choice of marrying a stunning princess with a pleasing disposition who would develop leprosy in 5 years.

    Or

    ...the choice of marrying a stunning princess with a pleasing disposition.

    Who would you choose?

    Would pointing out she's going to develop leprosy in a few years make you more prone to marrying her?

    Fortunately we're just talking about getting a sale and nothing so serious but...

    I would be more likely to marry the princess without the flaw.

    Again, it depends.

    If you told me an item was 10 times costlier than the competition but that owning it would give me prestige and have a positive influence on other aspects of my life compared to the competing product then yes, I would probably pay more.

    But, in a market with bargain hunters who don't understand that concept it may be better to go with "out of sight, out of mind."
    Signature

    I write copy. Learn More.>>

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3873754].message }}

Trending Topics