Sometimes it IS the copy

Perhaps you’re familiar with my 40/40/20 rule, which isn’t actually my rule but rather a rule of direct response marketing. I don’t know who actually created the rule - or if anyone even gets credit for it.

If’n you forget, it’s pretty zynple:

40% of success comes from the list.

Another 40% comes from the offer.

And the last 20% comes from the copy.

Pretty obvious that copy is the least important variable in this equation.

However, it’s a mistake to downplay the importance even a meager 20% plays.

For example:

One of my client’s personal friends has a business where he connects third-world freelancers to businesses. And he has meddled his way into my client’s business for a whole host of various tasks. Now, I don’t want to speak of the job they do in other parts of my client’s business - there’s a reason he continues to use them after all.

But one “branch” of this team are so-called copywriters. They mostly do social media stuff, which, in the few times I’ve seen their posts on my social feeds have been ab-so-lute gar-bage. Think irrelevant platitudes dressed up in girlboss corporate wellness vibes.

The few times I’ve seen these posts, I’ve wondered to myself what the point is. They’re lucky to get a single like. And no action as far as I can see (not that the girlbossy platitudes are even after action in the first place).

But… besides the little bit of social media “copywriting” they do, they’re also supposed to help me with a specific type of email that we send once a week.

Here’s the problem:

Their corporate girlboss HR vibes are repulsive.

I almost puke each time I open up the doc that they created because the copy is insulting.

It’s insulting to our customers - which means I completely rewrite it every week.

It’s insulting to my client - because he’s an absolute expert, and the platitude drivel they peddle out each week makes it obvious to anyone with an above 100 IQ that they don’t know a damn thing about what they write about.

And it’s insulting to the entire copywriting profession as a whole.

I do not understand why they aren’t using AI.

Yes, AI-written copy, while it may be as insulting to our customers and my client, would be LEAGUES better than what they cook up each week.

It’s not just not persuasive.

It’s actively anti-persuasive.

More:

It’s disingenuous, patronizing, derivative, and hollow.

It doesn’t even TRY to follow our brand voice. (Since I treat our customers with respect and assume they’re not complete morons, sometimes emails I write are well over 1,000 words—and these emails tend to do well with the audience that I’ve been curating and honing with my copy for years at this point.)

And perhaps worst of all?

It lacks any kind of conviction.

It’s pure fluff.

No substance.

No emotions.

No conviction.

There’s no anything.

In fact, when I sit down to rewrite the copy each week (it’s far past the point of editing), I almost never even use a sentence or idea from the original version. I often have to do my own research, come up with my own problems, and think of an honest way to position the potential solutions. 

It’s just atrocious in every way you could imagine.

And I don’t think there would be a quicker way to murder the trust I’ve built with my client’s audience than sending out their version without my complete rewrite.

Yes, I’m inspired by direct response.

But even more important than direct response is the relationship with your list.

Once the “trust light” flicks off it’s almost impossible to flick it back on.

And the generic and meaningless, platitude-filled, corporate girlboss schtick would flick that light off faster than Diddy at one of his freak off parties.

Moral of the story?

While copy is only 20% of the battle, it’s still important. Especially when you consider how terrible copy “floats upwards,” infects the list (40% of the battle), and flicks off their trust light. For good.

The good news is - you’re one reply away from avoiding this mistake forever.

Hit reply - and let’s chat.

John