Comments on: Long copy vs. short copy. Who is right?

By: Asian Tv

Asian Tv — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 06:39:03 +0000

It depends on the type of cutomer you are targeting I suppose… book lovers, those interested in reading news may prefer a bit extra informative text. But if you are targeting those interested in nascar racing you may want to keep it brief and fast and to the point.

By: They Laughed When I Sat Down at the Piano But When I Started to Play! | Write Speak Sell

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:02:45 +0000

[...] is another recent point of view from Direct Creative Blog. I liked this a lot: “You should be interested in that part of the market who are interested [...]

By: Jodi Kaplan

Jodi Kaplan — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:47:58 +0000

Copy is like Abraham Lincoln’s legs. When asked how long they were, he said, “Long enough to touch the ground.”

The copy should be long enough to do its job.
.-= Jodi Kaplan’s last blog … Get Rid of Bad Powerpoint Once and For All =-.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 03:36:56 +0000

Excellent, great post.

I run into the short vs long argument all the time in regards to webpage content.

And I think all the points you make apply just as well to the online world.

Research continually shows that people use the web to research products and find information. In many cases it is their primary research gathering tool.

If this is the case then surely it makes sense to give them more info not less.

As you so rightly point out, it’s about communicating with the people who are interested in your product rather than worrying about the people who aren’t.

By: Dean Rieck

Dean Rieck — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:50:07 +0000

Fox,
I mean too many people make decisions about copy length based on personal preference or assumptions rather than testing. Also, it’s better to start long and test into short than vice versa. People can always skim long copy if they don’t want to read all of it, but if you shortchange people on information, you can lose a sale.

By: Fox

Fox — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:36:38 +0000

Dean,
What do you mean by misusing short copy? Trying to save on postage, ad space, etc. or something else?
.-= Fox’s last blog … Testing Your Marketing: When Is As Important As What =-.

By: Dean Rieck

Dean Rieck — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:10:03 +0000

Fox,
In my line of work I see more people misusing short copy than long copy. In other words, long copy is less likely to hurt you than short copy. But you’re right about testing. I remember one direct mail package where I used an 8-page letter and it performed well. Then we removed 2 pages from the middle and tested the resulting 6-page letter, discovering that the response was the same.

By: Fox

Fox — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:59:59 +0000

Dean,
Great article. While there are many “rules” in marketing the ultimate answer is test. In most direct mail campaigns we run, I send letters of different lengths to test (longer generally pulled better but I will always test). We can do the same online. And, it’s so much easier and faster.

I think there’s an argument for short copy because we discard and ignore so much long copy. We remember all the crap we see but forget about the few items we buy from long copy (or hours spent researching to find the right product we want to buy).

I believe in “the more you tell the more you sell” philosophy. However, I always keep in mind, marketing is two things: Psychology and math (testing). While my math has always demonstrated longer copy is better, I’ll still test.
.-= Fox’s last blog … Testing Your Marketing: When Is As Important As What =-.

By: Dean Rieck

Dean Rieck — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:51:05 +0000

Chris,
I think you’re talking about a couple different things here. First there’s the preference for printed vs. online information. That’s largely a generational thing. Younger people tend to favor online while older people tend to favor print, though I’ve seen statistics that show it’s really more about your interest level. If you’re truly interested in something, you’ll take information from wherever you can get it. And print tends to be a more trusted source of information. Things like direct mail are far more accepted than consumers will admit.

The other issue here is the sales process. Is it one-step or two-step, meaning are you trying to sell instantly or are you trying to sell in multiple steps? More expensive things can often be sold more easily using multi-step sales. EX: You get a short email leading you to a site with a video that leads you to download a report and sign up for a series of emails that offer a free trial and so on.

It all depends on what you’re selling, how expensive it is, and how well you can target your solicitation. It’s not about one or another approach being right or wrong universally.

By: Chris G

Chris G — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:22:21 +0000

You’ve touched on this a bit already, but I’d like to get some additional thoughts on the value of directing someone to long copy online through short(ish) copy in print vs. the value of long copy in print.

I’m more likely to visit and browse information on a website than I am to work my way through the same amount of copy, or even less, in print. Is this typical? If it is, pointing someone to good copy online could be more beneficial, but it also requires an additional step to make the sale.

Any thoughts on whether the benefit (if this is a benefit) of reading the information online outweighs, or is outweighed by, the extra step the prospect must take? Do any situations come to mind in which one might be more effective than the other?