The 5-Minute Copywriting Challenge - Do You Know Which Ad Is Better?

Were the images the same apart from the fourth one?

You know, the fourth one could of having something weird
like Dracula wearing one!

Images can be the biggest determiner of response
in some situations, not the copy.

As it stands, we don't have enough to make
a realistic judgement call.

Best,
Doctor E. Vile

Without committing to one...

...here's a few thoughts.

Cunning as a Chipmunk...Sly as a Fox?

Does a woman want to be cunning?

Bunny Rabbits? - Do girls want to be popping out "kids" every two weeks?

Heavenly to Whip? - all too sexual in my mind.

Second headline has Numbers - 14

Numbers can grab attention

but...

"For 14 kinds of girls"....very NON specific so would it be more responsive if it was for...

"Single Mums"

"Plus Size Girls who struggle to find comfortable night ware"

The 250% plus improvement for one...well that could be if one sold "One Unit" and the otter ad sold "Four"

If we are talking about thousands of sales and there is a 250% improvement then there is significant data....

...otherwise...

"Make you look cunning as a chipmunk"? Chipmunks are cunning? And why is looking cunning a benefit for a housecoat? "Fascinating fabrics"? (For a housecoat?) "Flattery" for your "type of figure"?

Not sure why they would run either of these as is. Kinda hard to judge because neither are great.

And the brief descrips that you say accompany your copy will also weigh on the sales... (as well as the pics, layout, placement, timing, venue, etc.)... So there's no way to accurately judge which ad pulled better.

... But being SplitTest the Brave -- if I had to guess, I would say #2. It has a more intriguing headline and invites more reader involvement. Readers might want to check out which kind of housecoat matches the kind of girl they are, and which matches their figure -- a lot like those quizzes ("What's your personality type" or whatever) that you see in women's magazines...

Ad #1 misses the mark by having a bland headline and blah benefits. At least #2 draws readers in... and having a number in the headline doesn't hurt...

Most people here will dance around the question.

Don't want to damage their egos or the "bigtime copywriter" image they've built on the forum being wrong on this little quiz.

Just curious -- where'd you get the figures?

"The challenge is this: which copy do you think was more effective and why?"

That wasn't the challenge. The challenge was determining which copy sucks worse.

I believe Copy#2 is the winner. It's much simpler and to the point. The first copy is too stuffed with adjectives and metaphors; it made me lose interest by the second line. The second copy is much more practical and alluring. I don't like the number repetition in the tile, though...

Best,
Typing Pandas

How can I make a decision when I'm still cringing at both versions?

Seems my earlier comment was modded out, so let me explain the chipmunk deal.

Agree with others here. Since when have chipmunks been cunning? And which girls aspire to become either chipmunks OR cunning? Or even bunnies? There's a whole load of bad stuff going on here from the female perspective! Even the whips.

So my guess is, 2 won out (insofar as either of these are winners). Offers itself up less easily for a slapping.

But you raise an interesting point.

With fewer words to play with, succinctness swings the deal. I guess that's why taglines pay such big bucks, especially those pre-empting Googlewhacks.

With my very fresh and limited knowlege of human psychology and behaviour, I say that the Copy #1 performed better.
Why? Because, as you read it, it creates a clear, crisp image in your mind of having the housecoat, touching it, FEELING it. It is already YOURS and you FEEL its soft cuddly touch.

So much feedback on this thread I thought I'd look up the original full text.

Hope you don't mind...it gives a little more insight into the test.

From "How To Write Advertising That Sells" page 435

__________________________________________________ ______________________

Here are two pieces of copy. Read them. What do you think. of them? Would you rate one as much better than the other? Let's check them.

Soft, cuddly
HOUSECOATS
Downy, deep-piled fabrics that will keep you warm as a bunny rabbit . . . and make you look cunning as a chipmunk. Delightfully luxurious to lounge in . . . heavenly to whip around you when you bounce from bed on an icy morning.

14 alluring cotton stay-at-homes
for 14 kinds of girls
Look glamorous in your private life! Actually you're also being oh, so
practical! Pick from this col􀀇lecti􀀈on of enchanting colors and fascinating fabrics, flattery for your type of figure.

The copy on the left was illustrated with four cuts, all descr􀀗ibe, in 570 lines of space, and was run seasonably. The following is typical of its four individual descriptions: "Only at Doe's. Suede-finish rayon-and-silk knitted fabric, beguilingly shirred. Shoulder Royal blue, wine, aqua, French blue, red. 12 to 20. $12.95."

The copy at the right was illustrated with three cuts in 425 lines
of space. It was accompanied by the names of the fourteen garments
and very brief descriptions, such as: "Directoire Heroine"
(sketched) in wide-wale dotted pique, $12.95-"Marie Antoinette"
floral chintz, $12.95-and "Practicality" monotone pique, $3.95.

A consideration of appeals and your list of stratagems will convince
you the copy on the right is far more powerful than that on
the left. The copy at the left is better than most newspaper copy
run by department stores. But it doesn't happen to be so loaded
with stratagems, nor is the appeal fundamentally so strong.

Women are more anxious to appear glamorous and alluring than
to look like chipmunks. The names of the 14 coats helped sell them.
The inference that there are different types of coats for different
types of women-just the right coat for your type-is good.

What do names do for these housecoats? They give them prestige
and importance. They are not simply pieces of sewn cloth with
trimmings. They are garments with identity. Incidentally, it is
remarkable, but not unusual, that retail stores will use an idea or
device very successfully and immediately forget about it and fail
to continue cashing in on it. That is because they work from day
to day, each day's work being more or less shut off in one cell or
compartment from all other days. It is hard to learn to approach
tasks methodically and appraisingly, and to work to standards. A
store usually discovers an idea was good, exactly one year later,
when the good day's figures come up to be "beaten."

The copy at the right above in a three days' period produced in
volume about two and a half times as much per dollar of cost as
the ad at the left. It also caused a heavier increase in the department
as a whole because it brought in so many women.

Incidentally, the excellent heading on the successful copy was
a direct suggestion of a buyer. That simply goes to prove that
buyers sometimes want headings that sell merchandise instead of
themselves. Such buyers deserve and ought to get better advertising
than their compatriots do. Sometimes buyers learn the SELLING
STRATAGEMS. Then they contribute greatly to better advertising.