World Copywriting Blog

When 'Cute' and 'Clever' Really Work In Copy -- And Why They Do

Behold the newspaper ad. It may be an endangered species, although to look at this week's print edition of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, you wouldn't think so.

A lot of idiotic cuteness and cleverness has been wasted on newspaper advertising. No, let me correct myself. Advertisers have wasted a lot of money on cute and clever ads... that ad agencies and publishers have cheerfully encouraged, as they happily line their respective pockets with that wasted money.

Here is an ad (at left) where the cuteness and cleverness sell. It's a very good use of advertising dollars.

Why?

Because the dollars spent on this ad will bring in many, many more dollars to the restaurant.

What's different about this ad than, say, the dozens of self-indulgent money-pit ads I saw yesterday on TV while watching college football on ESPN?

For one thing, the humor is focused good naturedly on the prospect (carrying the implicit message: "look how cool you are") instead of on the advertiser (implying: "look how entertaining we are.")

With cleverly-named specials like

• BROKE-ASS COLLEGE NIGHT - $1 per, free shot with college student id
• SO HAPPY HOUR - $5 cocktails, $3 drafts
• HUMP DAY SPECIAL - 1/2 off selected appetizers

If you want to take this to an extreme, you could say there's a benefit to the consumer in each bit of humor.

Another thing that's different is that the humor is not the main event in the ad -- it's complementary to the main event, which is this exotic restaurant itself, Mazu, featuring "pan-Asian cuisine."

Again, flowing from the fact that the humor's purpose is not to reflect back on the exquisite cleverness and cuteness of the business, but rather focus on what's in it for the customer.

Flaw in the ad?  One that I see.  It's damned hard to read!

The scan you see above is a pretty faithful representation of what it looks like in the paper, the Bay Guardian.

The reverse type (white letters, and scrawny white letters at that, on red and black backgrounds) are where the graphic designer's desire to be über-hip took over the desire of the business to sell.

David Garfinkel
Publisher, World Copywriting Newsletter

An Updated 'My Life in Advertising' by a Modern Copywriting Master -- Availalble FREE

Richard Armstrong is one of those whimsical enigmas. He's one of the greatest living copywriters, but unlike many heavy hitters, he doesn't seem to harbor the secret belief that his carved image should be placed on Mount Rushmore.

He's probably a better "writer" writer than any of the rest of us. Really, he is. And while he doesn't really wear it on his sleeve, he's not shy about admitting it, either. After all, he does sport a quote on his Web site from the late legend Gene Schwartz: “Richard Armstrong’s prose rises to the level of poetry!"

"Writer" writer or direct mail writer?  He can't decide! He's the only guy I know of who wrote a bona fide direct-mail novel (God Doesn't Shoot Craps: A Divine Comedy).

Richard Armstrong was once interviewed by Advertising Age, and the news-seeking reporter was very disappointed by how un-innovative he was -- and deemed him boring in her lukeworm feature article about him.

(Side note: wildly Innovative, exciting direct mail copywriters make a lot more news than sales, almost all of the time.)

Yes, he's a whimsical enigma.  All the more so because...

Richard Armstrong's got the mind of a direct response copywriter, the heart of a political conservative, and the soul of a Tom Robbins-grade novelist -- minus the countercultural flights of fancy.

And he's got something else that is reaching the status of an endangered species:

He has a terrific sense of humor!

Now, do I have a point here?  I mean, why should you care about this unlikely combination of characteristics that make up Richard Armstrong?

Because I think understanding them will help you see how unusual and valuable a collection of his best projects ("samples") would be, along with some considered commentary explaining why he did what he did... what worked... and why.

This is the kind of stuff other copywriters charge hundreds, even thousands, of dollars for.

And not entirely without good reason.

So why is he giving it away at www.freesamplebook.com -- which you should definitely check out?

Beats me.  Seriously.  I haven't a clue.

But, like I said, I'm not supposed to be able to figure him out.  He's a whimsical enigma.

Disclosure: Richard Armstrong is a friend. He did not compensate me to write this review. In fact, he mischaracterized me in the sample book by calling me a "young whippersnapper." While I love having created that perception about myself in his fertile mind, fact is I'm only one year younger than he is. Bluntly: He ain't that young himself. And although there is no monetary relationship between Richard Armstrong and myself here or in any other way, it should be disclosed that he did ask me to mention the book in my blog.I liked it and thought it valuable enough to write this review. However, if I had thought it was a piece of crap, I would have politely declined.

David Garfinkel
Publisher, World Copywriting Newsletter

How Not To Pitch In An Email - Sage Advice From A Master Of The Craft

Today was a good day for many reasons.  High among them: My copy of Target Marketing magazine arrived in the mail.

I always turn to the last page first.  There, direct marketing virtuoso Denny Hatch holds forth on some topic or another.  It's always informative, entertaining, and instructional.

This month's column, entitled "Dismal e-Pitches," was particularly good.

Denny, in both his roles as consumer and editor, reprints three fairly awful pitches he received by email -- and tears each one them to shreds.  Plus, he tells you what mistakes the writer of each pitch made.

You know, sometimes knowing what to do that works starts with knowing what NOT to do.

David Garfinkel
Publisher, World Copywriting Newsletter

Here it comes: the first FTC regulation on blogs

You know that blogging has arrived when the U.S. Federal Government formally announces fines for blogging they don't approve of.

It happened.

Yesterday.

On Monday, October 5, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced that bloggers who endorse products or services and don't disclose the payment they have received for those endorsements can be fined up to $11,000.

 In The Washington Post, Cecilia Kang reported:

"The new guidelines also affect how advertisers use studies by research institutes they help fund."

In fact, she added, "Any financial ties must now be disclosed when companies cite the findings of a research organization they fund."

How will this affect you?

Hard to know. The practical ability of the FTC to monitor endorsements (including affiliate promotions) and corresponding financial disclosures is limited, since as of last year there were 133 million blogs on the Internet, according to Technorati -- and there are likely a lot more now.

As for the FTC, an estimate of 2,000 employees in total would be generous, based on some quick Web research I did on the subject.

Yet I know some people personally, and about a few more people not so many degrees of separation away from me, who would be glad to tell you that you don't want to run afoul of FTC rules.

Because life gets really, really uncomfortable.

And that's before they start going after your money.

So, a word to the wise. Be painfully honest.

And keep your eyes open. The Feds have planted a new flag on the Web. 

And yeah, that's right. There's more ahead.

David Garfinkel
Publisher, World Copywriting Newsletter