What typically pulls best? Long or short copy?

Written By Ted Grigg

What have you found in your experiences with short and long copy in direct marketing communications? Does copy need to shorten to remain effective today?

I run into all kinds of marketers in many industries in my consulting business. The projects include newspaper subscription promotions, B2B lead generation, B2C insurance lead generation, retail store traffic building, B2C catalog sales … the list goes on from there. The question I often get from both experienced and inexperienced direct marketers deals with copy length. Most copy length comments involve direct mail letters that go over one page.

The common statement is: “Well, I would never read all of that.” Then I simply reply that testing in multiple media and various industries show that better results come from saying what you need to say to get the prospect to act.

That is why it is so important to make the copy skimmable with easy to read type, short paragraphs and paragraph headings.

There really is no answer to the question except that the copy length in successful campaigns will exceed what you are comfortable with if you have to ask the question.

Making a sale off the page in ANY medium requires more copy than lead generation copy. When getting a lead, you are building interest in the product, but your primary goal is to sell the appointment. Leave some selling ammunition for the sales person to close the deal.

Selling a product, however, requires anticipating and answering all of the objections. Furthermore, the copy translates the product features into benefits. That approach takes more copy and time than simply positioning the product for branding purposes.

Two-minute spots typically get better ROI than 30 second DRTV spots. Longer emails that must get orders off the page take far more copy than simply trying to generate a click through to your web site. Two and even four-page letters remain controls for years in direct mail.

There are always exceptions, but if you are competing with a selling message that does not answer all of the objections, then go for longer copy to beat your control.

The counter argument I get is that people are too busy today. Buyers don’t read any more. Just stick with the facts before they loose interest. And the list goes on.

The answer to all of these comments is simple.

We can hypothesize why something should or should not work, but in the world of direct response, only the customer’s vote counts. If you test your hypothesis, and it doesn’t work, then the answer is that the hypothesis was wrong. Otherwise, go with what works based on true A/B split testing.

Does this sound counterintuitive to you? Have you found through A/B split testing that shorter copy out pulled your long copy control by a significant margin (that is at least by 15% cost per sale or cost per lead)? What are your thoughts on the subject?

Ted Grigg

Ted Grigg is a direct response strategist who helps growth-focused companies reduce risk by identifying weak assumptions before they become costly mistakes.

Over the course of his career, Ted has evaluated several hundred million dollars in direct response testing across direct mail, digital, print, television, telephone, and other channels. His work combines direct response strategy, acquisition economics, customer analysis, creative evaluation, offer development, and disciplined testing.

Ted has worked on both the client and agency sides of the business. That experience gives him a practical understanding of the pressures facing executives, marketing teams, agencies, and service providers—and of the problems that arise when activity, media volume, or creative preference replaces a clear economic objective.

His consulting work helps organizations examine such questions as:

  • Are acquisition goals economically realistic?

  • Is the allowable Cost Per Sale supported by customer value?

  • Are targeting, offers, creative, media, and response paths working together?

  • Are tests structured to produce reliable business decisions?

  • Are unproven assumptions being treated as facts?

  • Is the organization measuring sales outcomes rather than convenient proxies?

Ted’s experience includes the development of direct mail and multichannel acquisition programs for insurance, healthcare, financial services, technology, nonprofit, manufacturing, retail, transportation, communications, government, and business-to-business organizations.

For a national direct-to-consumer insurance company, he developed a direct mail format that defeated established controls and helped expand the productive use of compiled prospect lists from less than 10 percent to more than 30 percent of total direct mail circulation within one year. He also planned Medicare lead-generation programs for more than 60 regional and national HMO and PPO organizations, with some programs exceeding sales projections by as much as 60 percent.

Ted founded Wyse Direct, a direct marketing division of Wyse Advertising in Cleveland, where he developed acquisition programs and helped launch a new technology product for Seiko Instruments by generating a predictable flow of qualified sales leads for its national sales organization. As vice president of new business development for the Grizzard Agency, he helped broaden the agency’s strategic capabilities and pursue new commercial and fundraising opportunities.

He is the author of The HMO/PPO Marketing Plan—A Step-by-Step Guide, published by Executive Enterprises, and has written numerous articles and conducted webinars on direct response strategy, testing, creative development, and marketing economics.

Ted earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Abilene Christian University and completed two years of graduate study at Texas Tech University. He is the founder of DMCG, LLC.

http://www.dmcgresults.com
Previous

DM Talent Scarcer than Ever
Next

Beating controls --- Should you focus on the What or the Why?