In response to recent “Letters to the Editor” feedback:
As a 35-year-old direct response writer with my fair share of successful controls, I would probably also be considered “out of touch,” as one recent Makeover Maven critic put it. I still believe that detail-rich, benefit-driven ads and mailings tend to beat shorter, gimmicky versions – because I’ve seen the proof in head-to-head testing. One reader commented: “I don’t know anyone who would rather view Collins’ ads over the flashier ads designed by the very demographic that the ads cater to.” Well guess what? It doesn’t matter which ad you would “rather view.” Or which ad your buddy, boss, spouse or kid likes best. All that matters is which one pulls the best response. And testing is the only way to find that out. I’m still amazed at how many times an “outdated” or “ugly” ad/mailing outperforms the newer, flashier versions in split testing. Clever headlines and cool visuals do impress clients and win awards – but they don’t always make the phone ring or the mouse click.
I was always taught that direct response copy is closer to personal salesmanship than general advertising. Can you imagine a sales team coached in our “New Age” philosophy? “Just one or two clever lines, guys…then hit the door! Don’t bore prospects with too many benefits, `cause no one listens anymore. Dazzle them with a clever joke, a few pictures – then get the order!” Short and flashy can sometimes work – but only if the strategy is right for that particular product. Blanket statements that detailed [ads are] always bad and flashier “dot.com styles” are always good show total lack of insight into the direct selling process.
Network
