An open letter to all DR copywriters who persist in believing content writing is not copywriting

Well, if you want to talk semantics, even journalistic articles are "copy"... That's why there's a "copy desk" at newspapers. Do copy editors work exclusively on ad copy? Me thinks not.

There's also the consideration that copywriters in many industries work on lots of projects that aren't classic copywriting, such as press releases, executive bios, annual reports, etc. (including advertorials like the above).

Personally, I'd rather the industry come up with another name for web content writing than "copywriting." There's a big difference in the goals of each (mainly engagement and SEO for one, action for the other)... not to mention the difference in the rates writers charge...

I think what will likely happen instead is copywriters will begin to use other names for what they do.

Well said, Rick. The whole point of content marketing (and I mean real content marketing, not SEO spam) is to create content that compels your reader to take some sort of action. That's often to sign up for more content or buy a product or even just read the next article. Many instances of longform copywriting do exactly the same because they are the same.

I can understand why some copywriters would be so nit-picky about the distinction between the two. Obsession with semantics seems to be a trait many copywriters have (and others need to develop).

Thanks for the share. Merry Christmas/Happy New Year to you, too.

I immediately thought "advertorial" as well, when I read Rick's post. Strictly speaking it's nothing new as a technique that has been used for decades in magazines and newspapers.

I hear what you're saying, it's all content designed to do something, achieve a particular aim.

For myself I agree in part with Alexa where people get irritated when someone asks for a copywriter for a $2 dollar article they don't understand the difference between cheap mill fodder and proper writing then again what I call "Designed writing" (Copywriting). I get irritated too.

I think really part of the difference is "Quality" and "what it is designed to do", two things not all writing does.

I'm not sure about the "links to own site" not thought of it like that, a good point.

For a lot of companies, content is their main driving force.

I personally write a LOT of content - from blogs to native landers.

I know there's a big charge amongst copywriters to separate copy from content, but they've always been a great marriage.

And these days, content is a must, more than ever, if you want to create an effective funnel for cold traffic.

Here's the thing...

Just because they are article and content mills churning stuff out for $4... does NOT mean copywriters need to distance themselves from the skill.

There are also people writing sales letters for $47 and $97.

Do we try to compete with them?

No!

We position ourselves accordingly.

Same with content.

I don't "lower" myself to write content. I love doing it. And again, it's a necessary part of a complete funnel. (Good luck running FB ads without it.)

And man, Rick showed me the newspaper ad a while back. It served as inspiration for me too.

Mark

P.S. "Creative" has always been more than copy.

It's also worth saying that advertorials are different from content. They're paid messages, designed to reach a specific audience in their natural habitat, just like advertising, except a softer sell. Most of them in fact do feature clear calls to action, Rick's example notwithstanding.

Content marketing would be better compared to the articles you see in a "house organ" or customer newsletter -- something published lock, stock and barrel by a company with the purpose of keeping customers engaged (while plying the soft sell). In fact, much of content writing could be lumped in with "public relations" more easily than advertising.

Either way, it's technically "copy." I'd bet there are very few copywriters who'd turn up their nose at that kinda work. Even the great bob bly does content. The lines are blurry as they've always been.

I'm with mal however, in that I get irritated when content writing gets lumped in with copy on copywriting discussion boards. Content is clearly different. The going rate for content is pennies per word, the methods and principles are different, the goal is often different. I think the comparison of copywriting with content writing brings down copywriting.

What do you say to people asking for critiques of their content writing anyway? The "right and wrong" is far less clear, because obviously with content, as long as it's engaging (or promotes SEO), it's all good. What do you do -- correct their grammar? (Yes, there are certain principles at work, but they're far fewer than with real copywriting.)

...So if we're here to talk about copywriting and half the threads with "copywriting" in the title are actually about content writing, I can see how people would get irritated, having wasted time clicking the links.

I think what makes the Merrill Lynch fascinating to me is it doesn't attempt to sell anything. Like an advertorial usually would.

It doesn't promote the company, except for the "tombstone" business card information. It makes no offer. There's no pitch. There is no proof. There's no news about the company. It's devoid of emotional selling.

Just clear, factual information about how to buy and sell stocks and bonds.

----

I also think there's more to this Merril Lynch ad than meets the eye.

First, one has to appreciate when this ad was doing well, stocks and bonds were an investment usually reserved for the affluent. Merrill Lynch however, wanted to crack the growing middle class market.

So the way I've thought about this ad, is as a subtle demonstration of preemptive advertising. Being the first to tell a story only industry insiders know.

In this case, how stocks and bonds are bought and sold.

Kind of like the way Schlitz ads talk about how their beer is made, yet all beer is made the same way.

I suspect at the time, it being the 1940s, after the war and with an economy taking off, this investment information would have been considered new to the middle class.

Which may be why people gobbled it up.

Content writing and copywriting can be two different things.

Copywriters know how to take content writing and make it sell.

Content writers with no knowledge of copywriting usually fail miserably.

The whole debate can go round and round in circles, kinda like the long versus short copy thing.

If as the OP does...takes an advertorial and says "hey look" here's some content that sells...is a moot point. It's taking something written by a trained copywriter and trying to prove content writing works.

Anyone could come up with tons of content writing to show content writing is useless in terms of selling. The deciding factor would always come down to if a copywriter were writing the content with the goal of selling.

The best content writing advertorials that come to my mind are the ones Ogilvy did on how to write great ads etc.

So, my point, if a trained copywriter looks at something and says it simply content writing, they're probably spot on. They can tell the difference between an article writer putting together some content and a copywriter putting together some content. Huge huge difference.

Interesting thread.

By an unusual coincidence I was looking at this ad yesterday, whilst reading Ogilvy on Advertising.

It's a stunning, information-rich advertorial, but it could never have been written by a 'content writer', it was written by a world class copywriter who knew he had to purposefully tone down the level of sophistication for the market that Merrill Lynch were going after.

Today's 'content' isn't content at all - it's FILLER. That's why people are charging $2 for 200 words of junk that's only of use in filling bandwidth, and convincing a site owner that the more 'content' they have on a site, the more chance of getting a higher SEO placing.

The call to action on this ad is embedded in every one of the 6,540 words used - but maybe we don't see it because we're so used to generic phrases like...
Limited stock available
Call by December 31st for an extra special free bonus
But wait, there's more
etc, etc, etc

The whole ad is a call to action for those who wanted to buy stock but were drowned out by the elitism of the stock market and its' brokers.

It could never have been written by a 'content' writer - it was masterfully crafted by a copywriter who knew exactly who he was targeting and gave them the content/information they'd never been given before.

Interestingly, Engel doesn't appear to have honed his skill in either direct response, or with an ad agency. According to this article (Louis Engel: The Man Who Brought Wall Street to Main Street | CRSP - The Center for Research in Security Prices)

From 1930 to 1932, Engel worked as a staff member at the University of Chicago Press.

In 1932, he moved to New York to take a $35.00 a week job writing for the magazine, Advertising and Selling. In 1933, Engel was appointed Managing Editor.

He joined Business Week as a reporter in 1934 and in 1936, at age 27, he was made the Managing Editor.

In 1940, family friend Ted Braun tried to recruit Engel to the newly merged firms of Merrill Lynch and E.A. Pierce. Braun, who worked as a consultant on the Merrill deal, believed that Charlie Merrill would be putting greater emphasis on marketing and advertising in the combined firms and thought Engel to be a good fit. Engel declined Braun's invitation and continued on at Business Week.

In 1946, management changes at Business Week forced Engel to seek new opportunities. That summer, Engel interviewed with Winthrop H. Smith, a founding partner at Merrill, but ultimately decided to pass on the opportunity presented to him. Following that decision, Engel signed on as Editor and correspondent for the newly launched Kiplinger publication - Changing Times. Within weeks of starting his new position, Engel determined that his new role at Kiplinger was not going to work for him. In the fall of 1946, Engel called Win Smith at Merrill to inquire whether the Advertising and Sales Promotion Manager position was still available. During that phone call, Engel accepted an offer from Smith and he joined Merrill on November 15, 1946.

Also worth noting that Merrill Lynch did NOT approve the ad to go straight into the New York Times.

At first, Charlie, Smith, and Magowan were only lukewarm about this questionable marketing concept. At five thousand dollars, the cost of running the full-page ad in the New York Times was extremely high relative to the size of the advertising budget (2 percent of the annual appropriation, to be exact).

Finally, a compromise was reached. The partners agreed to allow Engel to run a trial advertisement in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, where the cost of space was much lower than in New York. If the ad bombed, they could drop the whole idea without wasting another nickel of the advertising budget. When the public response to the Cleveland experiment proved encouraging, Engel received permission to test the ad in the New York Times.

It's one of the most brilliant ads ever written, and as Rick Duris mentions, it's the ad that created Merrill Lynch.

Some great discussion in this thread. If Rick's post is in anyway
related to the distinction made between copywriting and article
writing for the purpose of defining this forum section, then I think that
that definition is an (WF) internal one. The line of distinction
between both becomes blurred when "hidden" persuasion comes
packaged as innocent content. There are no CTAs, hype and
selling. But strictly speaking, we are always selling in our communication.
We can either be doing a good job or a poor one.

But the difference between copywriting and content writing is disappearing
each day with the shift towards social media these days.

-Ray Edwards

Interesting insights.

One of the reasons I think it represents breakthrough thinking is because Engel wasn't copywriter. He came from journalism.

It may account for why there are few copywriting devices. It may account for the originality from a copywriting perspective.

This ad proves there's another way to get the job done. As a few have pointed out, it requires superior writing abilities.

What's clear is Engel understood the stocks and bonds enough to write about them, he understood the market and maybe most importantly, he knew how to write to the market in language they would understand.

Thanks for the pulling the additional research. It was useful.

Best thread in a while Rick.

I remembered when Freelancer took over the WF and changed the copywriting forum into integrating content strategies. Here's a reminder.

HUGE uproar.

I'm curious...

Knowing that most copywriters need to write content these days (or should be,) do you think content DOES have a place in the copywriting forum? And if so, how should it be integrated?

In other words...

What if Freelancer communicated their intentions to integrate content and copy? And did it in a way that more people than not were on-board with? Would it fly?

Because lets face it...

Content will always find its way onto this forum.

Maybe... just maybe... instead of resisting its presence, there's a better way to combine the two strategies?

Bloggers can drive massive sales too (think Bulletproof coffee.)

And Max5ty makes a great point...

Copywriters who also craft content are in many ways ahead of the curve. What's the point of resistance? Or leaving the forum because content threads keep popping up?

Mark

Looks like the Content Borg have arrived! Here is their greeting:


I've always hated the word content. It's the corporate speak version of saying "stuff inside a thing". Charging alot for content is hard without an established name. You can charge alot for a bigger branding strategy which content fits into. But let's be real, any positioning obstacles facing a copywriter are 10X for someone calling themselves a content writer.

Yes, content overlaps with copy at the rare extremes of ability. But content writing, like the word content is an empty vessel. It doesn't have underlying principles oriented toward a particular goal. Is it to inform? Is to relate? Is it sell? All the above? Can all these things be measured reliably?

Which is why I consider this pre-merger to be somewhat irresponsible. The quantity and amount of maneuvering required to make content imitate the effect and efficiency of direct response strikes me as not worth the effort.

Of course, more clients understand "content" than "copy" now, so I understand using the term for communications sake. But among those who know better, they are not and will never be the same thing.

Content done incredibly well looks like copy.

Copy done very poorly looks like content.

The timing of the book I'm reading is pretty interesting... considering this post.

http://www.amazon.com/Epic-Content-Marketing-Diffe...

Content marketing is a powerful tool because with the right structure it not only helps to turn prospects into new customers, it keeps selling clients to new levels of investment in your products and services. It takes a lot of effort to get the right content in place, and you have to keep fine-tuning it with different media (videos, infographics, etc.), but once started it is always there, upselling, cross-selling and building deeper relationships.

To throw another thing out there...

I was looking through some of the magalogs I have collected from Gary Bencivenga, Clayton Makepeace, Carline Anglade-Cole, and a few others.

Those 40 to 80 page magalogs are chock full of great content marketing... I think a lot of those magalogs weave a perfect blend of content that sells and flat out asking for the sale with a more traditional copy format.

I want to make sure my intention is clear.

I'm NOT saying copywriters should jump on the content marketing bandwagon any more than they should jump on the VSL bandwagon, or the branding bandwagon, or the social media bandwagon, or anything else.

If it can work for the campaign better than something else, do it. If it doesn't, don't.

I think the decision to use and/or write content is a strategic one, depending upon many different factors.

In my case, it's often one of necessity.

The social media advertising networks are strongly discouraging links to direct response ads. People "dislike" them.

As a result, I'm frequently requested to write native ads and article lander "interstitials" that are highly engaging, educational/informative which encourage people to click through to the direct response piece using some sort of an integrated or subtle CTA.

If these go viral, that's a HUGE bonus. I've had a few of those. Not many, but a few.

These types of content pieces sound easy to write. They often sound like "good to know" fluff pieces. You think you can just whip them out.

You can. But what makes them difficult to write is they must generate profitable business. There must be a profitable ROI.

There's a lot of pressure.

When writing article landers, I'll normally write three to five articles, sometimes more, knowing full well only one will convert profitably against cold traffic. I never know which one. I like them all, I research the heck out of them all, but I just can't predict.

I do know this: Having clear, informative content is not enough. The message --> market --> media match has to be extremely tight/aligned/relevant to each other.

Otherwise, no matter how good the Client may think the piece is, it's a dud.

Honestly, I've had a lot of duds, trying to figure it all out. A string of winners, but lots of duds. Those who understand know you learn more from the failures than from the successes, so it's all good in the end.

The frustrating part is it seems just when I have a tiger by the tail, they increase the CPC.

And just like that, they're unprofitable.

Wanna know what's even worse?

I'll take on a project on spec to increase conversions 25% or more against cold traffic (meaning I guarantee a 25% boost in conversions before I start getting paid royalities). Then sometimes when I do, the advertising network either changes their terms of service so that my tactics I used are now verboten or they'll ratchet up the CPC to make me go away.

Kind of a bummer. Because now, they've raised the bar and I have to figure it all out again.

That's just my experience.

It's just a small sliver of experience related to content marketing. But it's the most stressful. It's the one I have least control over.

But it's one where I can access massive amounts of leverage and test very quickly. There's incredible upside if you've got the chops. (AND the stomach to deal with the inevitable duds.)

My biggest piece of advice? Try lots of stuff. Don't get attached to one thing.

You just never know what will work.

I created this thread because I believe the Merrill Lynch ad reveals several things which may be helpful as it applies to integrating content with direct response copywriting. I've shared a few things I've learned here.

Obviously, I'm far from the final word on the subject of content marketing. Probably like you, I'm on the hunt for what works.

- Rick Duris

PS: I appreciate everyone's contribution to this thread.