From my blog

Copify: What copywriting clients won’t get from content mills

Yesterday, I was approached by startup content mill Copify and invited to register as a copywriter. I decided not to, since the rates being offered (2p–4p per word) didn’t really stack up for someone with my experience (15 years).

Out of interest, I sought the opinions of my copywriter friends on Twitter, including @Mr603, @turnerink, @NoSloppyCopy, @shelovestowrite, @PenHire, @sarahcopywriter and others. Turned out a heated debate was already raging, with copywriters’ opinions ranging from the doubtful to the derisive, and many focusing on the fees.

Of course, we can’t really argue that any price agreed in a free market is ‘too low’ or ‘too high’. If both parties agree to make a deal, a deal is made. However, we can question whether the transaction represents good value – for buyer as well as seller.

I have no axe to grind with Copify or the other (mainly US) content mills out there, such as Examiner, Suite101, Associated Content, eHow, and DemandStudio. They’ve seen a gap in the market and they’re filling it. Good luck to them. However, I feel I should point out exactly what copywriting clients won’t be getting when they go down this road…

1.    Ability. Sounds painfully obvious, but there’s such a thing as writing skill, and people have varying levels of it. If you’re a UK white-collar professional using a content mill, you could be delegating your copywriting to someone with abilities only as good as (or worse than) your own. So what have you really gained?

2.    Experience. 2p a word does not stretch to a seasoned copywriter. But why should you pay for experience? All I can say is that the ‘broad but shallow’ knowledge picked up during my career has served my clients very well. Ideas from clients in other industries. Print techniques that work online, and vice versa. Ideas on ecommerce, SEO, social media and more. Ideas on improving value propositions. Ways to save time – and money. It all adds up – and you get a professional manner, calm demeanour and sense of humour thrown in.

3.    The right price. If you need to spend more, you should spend it. If my plasterer discovers rising damp, I want him to tell me, not just cover it up. Let’s say I’m working on a fixed-price job for a content mill. The client has directed me towards out-of-date sources. Halfway through, I realise this, but have no incentive to raise it since there’s no way to renegotiate the fee. So I just cut and run, having fulfilled the letter of the contract. The content is inaccurate, and some valuable learning is lost.

4.    Enough time. Closely allied to cost is the need for adequate time. Many copywriting projects throw up unforeseen issues. ‘The subject is more complicated than we thought.’ ‘There’s more to say.’ ‘Our structure needs work.’ ‘We need to rethink terminology.’ ‘Our industry jargon won’t work for SEO.’ ‘We’ve identified a new market segment.’ The professional copywriter works with the client to address these problems – with a time implication, yes, but what’s the point in rushing to the wrong destination?

5.    Reassurance. So you’ve chosen to use a content mill. Presumably you’re completely confident about factual accuracy, grammar and spelling, copyright and fair use, trade marks, US/UK language conventions, Google penalties, duplicate content and the legal implications of publication. If not, why not work with a professional whose reputation is on the line with every single job?

6.    Flexibility. Inspired by The E-Myth Revisited, I once dreamt of creating a one-size-fits-all ‘system’ for handling writing and design projects. I soon gave up. No one needed it, or wanted it. Marketing should be a bespoke suit, not a T-shirt from Asda. Savvy clients appreciate that service and expertise pay for themselves.

7.    Rapport. Clients who tender copywriting job by job never realise the benefits of working long-term with a copywriter who truly understands them. For them, every step is the first – every piece slightly off the mark, lacking sparkle, bringing nothing extra. They’ll never feel the thrill of receiving text from their regular copywriter that absolutely nails everything they wanted to say, and more – first time. (For a regular client, I recently wrote the president’s introduction to a brochure with no brief. He approved it without change.)

8.    Creativity. The fixed-price deal actively discourages discussion, consideration and indeed active thought. The copywriter’s only hope is to bang that copy out quickly and pray she doesn’t get RSI. She certainly has absolutely no incentive to put forward anything creative, inventive or alternative, even if it could help the client. The risk is just too great that it will be rejected – leading to a rewrite, obliterated profits and aching wrists.

9.    Intelligent SEO. Even basic SEO copywriting is an art – hitting keyword density targets for multiple terms without grammar and sense collapsing completely. But competent SEO copywriters take it to the next level, offering content that actually appeals to humans too. In other words, a landing page that isn’t a bouncing page.

10. Motivation. When prospects ask what I’d charge for ‘an hour’s graft writing fresh copy’ (a genuine quote), they are perhaps puzzled as to why their enquiry fails to excite my interest. The reason is that I prefer to strike a civilised, mutually beneficial deal in an atmosphere of respect, friendship and dignity. With that in place, I’m motivated to give my very best to the project. Without it, you’ll get ‘good enough’, but no more.  

 

Now, the most likely objection to all this is that it’s completely irrelevant to article marketing, or the creation of banks of SEO pages. I beg to differ. For articles posted at Ezine Articles and similar sites, your best chances of republication (propagating backlinks across multiple domains) come with a compelling, high-quality article. Better to have one killer piece than five embarrassing duds. And for SEO, as I’ve argued, you need your landing pages to convert the reader, not just attract traffic.

I also feel there’s a big cloud hanging over the in-vogue strategy of gaming the search engines by posting huge amounts of nominally relevant content, hoping to boost link velocity and backlink numbers. Google’s business model depends on search results that are relevant and deliver genuine value to users. Historically, it’s never failed to weed out any attempt to reduce quality to a formula, or mere gruntwork. Would you bet against it now?

Related Posts

Comments (75)

  1. Excellent post – as expected!

    I agree with everything you say on the Copify debate, but there’s one bit sneaking into that final paragraph that really needs highlighting.

    You’d be surprised how many people don’t understand that extremely simple notion: Google’s business model DEPENDS on search results that deliver GENUINE VALUE.

    If people could understand that, maybe there’d be less guff clogging up the interwebs.

  2. I think you make some great arguments in favor of utilizing higher quality providers. However, there are times when it makes sense of people to utilize low-cost producers (potential warts and all) for certain projects.

    At least that’s the case right now…

    Your last paragraph is, in my estimation, the most important thing to understand about the content mill trend. It’s not going to last. Either Google will adjust to screen out the lower-grade bulk material or people will continue to work with methods that do a better job of gatekeeping search results (i.e. developing folksonomic alternatives in the social media/web 2.0 sphere).

    I don’t think there’s a problem with people investing in the cheaper work if it meets their current needs and they believe they can experience good ROI–I just hope (for their sake’s) that they’re making earnings projects based on a one- to two-year window, exlcusiveliy. I don’t see things working as well much past that point.

  3. @Andrew – thanks for the kind words.

    @Carson – like Andrew, you’ve picked up on the key point: the likely evolutionary trajectory of search over the next few years.

    Right now, I think the saddest thing is that clients aren’t nearly as search-literate as you give them credit for.

    Rather than using bulk content in an informed, tactical way, as just one weapon in their SEM armoury, they’re being encouraged to use it as a panacea by search agencies who are looking to deliver quick results off link velocity and then move on to the next client.

    Regarding your 1-2 year window, I think it’s very unlikely in this scenario that there will be any discussion of changing indexing algorithms, competitor activity or any other factor that could wreck your SEM efforts over time.

  4. Great post. The one thing I would add is client empathy. As a Copywriter, I generally want the client’s site to succeed and will often do a little extra work to ensure that their copy is of the best possible standard to help them achieve their goals.

    If you pass on your copy requirements to somebody who is paid by the word, they will be far more interested in stretching it out as much as possible and moving on to the next project. Without that personal involvement, I think the content of a site or article will invariably suffer.

    Of course it is a cheaper alternative for those with limited resources, but of course you tend to get what you pay for. The human element of copywriting is essential, it adds personality and engagement for your visitors. The search engines want quality content, not just quickly scrawled words and as such you are unlikely to get the full benefit you would with a well-considered, researched piece of copy.

    That’s my two cents anyway, thanks again for an interesting read.

  6. Hi ABC, your mention “Experience. 2p a word does not stretch to a seasoned copywriter.” seems to lack understanding of how the site works.

    If the client does not need a “premium” or “seasoned” copywriter then they select “Standard” when they add the job. Any freelance copywriter can accept these jobs.

    My suggestion would be to the experienced copywriters like yourself, is to ignore these jobs and leave them to the newbie/less experienced guys who want to gain a bit of experience and are happy to earn a few quid in the process.

    If the client wants the very best, then THEY can select a higher price, which the veteran copywriters (and only them) can then accept.

    Take it or leave it. But until we see what your made of…its 2p per word. Sorry, but thats how it works.

    If copywriters want to get in touch with the application team then they may decide you can go for the higher paid “pro” jobs (or the new “Premium” jobs at 8p per word) but Copify will not let you write for our clients unless we know you can deliver – don’t take that to heart or be insulted, we don’t know you from Adam so were not going to let you do jobs for the big boys just yet.

    All the best,

    Rob
    rob.mcvey@mjrweb.co.uk

  10. Great post Tom.

    Remember when Primark opened up on Oxford Street? I didn’t see Selfridges going out of business. Because there will always be people who are happy to pay for quality. (And those that just want a new top for the weekend which they can chuck away at the end of the month.)

    If there are clients out there who are willing to pay £6 for a 300 word web page – let them. These are the kind of clients that will buy a web package for £150. And that might be right for their business. But no creative agency or high quality company or ‘big boy’ I know, and work for, would ever go down this route.

    They know that when they employ a copywriter like you Tom, or me, or any of the guys we know on Twitter, they’re getting more than a word writer. They’re getting someone who’s experienced across many industries; who has extensive marketing expertise; and who understands brand values. Most clients are more than happy to pay a premium for someone who they see as a partner in their marketing efforts; rather than paying someone the minimum wage who will try and knock the words out as quickly as possible.

  11. All this ‘not knowing you from Adam’ nonsense is hardly likely to woo veterans to do work for the big boys. In this day and age you can find out pretty quickly via people’s own website, linkedin and twitter etc. about someone’s reputation. Within a day in fact. Indeed I checked out the person who would be reviewing my worth and found that they themselves have less than three years’ writing experience. Not being funny but being told I was a tuppence a word monkey would hurt coming from God, let alone a relative newbie writer touting silly rates about.

  12. This is starting to get some heat. Ben Locker just posted this at his blog, http://is.gd/80QVj

    Maybe if enough people get upset Copify will change some things … but probably it’ll be business as usual. They’ll find people to write for them.

    Thanks for dropping by my site Tom.

  14. Thanks for this post and for continuing the discussion on a subject near and dear to all marketing copywriters.

    I agree with Sarah. Some clients are satisfied with listless filler copy for their digital–and increasingly, print–marketing tools.

    Others want strong, tight, relevant copy that builds relationships, drives conversion and returns investment.

    I want to focus on the latter clients. I believe it’s a waste of time trying to “educate” or “convince” clients who make price point their first priority. My time is better spent finding like-minded clients who can afford my services.

  15. I couldn’t agree more, I get clients all the time giving price quotes from people who will spin an article 1000’s of times and claim it is original content. I think that copywriting is a wysiwyg industry.

  16. A minor point, but Demand Studios is actually a supplier for eHow. eHow mostly just takes free content from its contributors, but they also “source” out some of their articles to Demand Studios. Lance Armstrong’s LiveStrong site does the same thing, sourcing content from Demand.

    I agree with all your points, though. It’s not worth it for writers OR readers, and whenever these mills pop up in my searches, I avoid clicking their links. I consider it a boycott, having tried writing for most of these companies in the early days and found them completely lacking in judgment (not to mention payment).

  19. Hi, back, and yes – excellent post. My only quibble, Tom, is that I don’t believe substandard copywriting can ever be “right for someone’s business” unless their customer base is made up of people who wouldn’t feel the difference anyway. That group would be people with low literacy, who will not expect to get much out of written communications. And they would get a lot more out of reading copy that is clear, easy, well-punctuated and correctly spelled.

    Rob’s grammar is terrible, too. 8p a word is not much at all.

    Sarah, I’m not sure it really is like Primark; after all, the same customers go to both Primark and Selfridges, for different purposes. I’m not sure there is a purpose for which badly-written copy is BETTER than well-written copy! I could say the apocryphal cafe menu, but I saw “bernaze sauce” recently on one. I think if a client needs the kind of copy the ‘Selfridges’ copywriter can provide, they need it in all their communications. That’s their brand; going all Primark on some smaller document will undermine it.

  20. It seems a lot of the professional copywriters are assuming copy produced on copyify is automatically going to be “bad-copy” or “filler-copy”. What if a company took on a copywriter because they needed cheap copy and found a brilliant writer and decided to stick with them?

    I do understand and agree with a lot of points on here but assuming writers from copify are just going to produce filler copy is a little unfair. People interested in the industry have to start somewhere, just like you did.

  21. Hi Clair

    Thanks for commenting and providing the perspective of someone starting out in the industry.

    It’s certainly not my intention to criticise writers who want to work this way, and I’m not saying they are not good writers, although it’s true that many are likely to be beginners. I’m critical of the pricing model used by Copify because it doesn’t incentivise the writer to produce high-quality work.

    If you put in enough time researching and polishing your text to make it brilliant, your hourly rate from Copify would be very low indeed. Some might argue that Copify are then exploiting your professional pride or commitment as a writer.

    If a Copify end client decides to stick with you because they love your work, you are likely to be locked into the same pricing structure for future assignments, unable to negotiate a fee that reflects that value you offer to the client. That’s unless you find a way to deal with the client directly, which Copify does not presently allow.

    You might want to do some high-quality work for Copify to build up a portfolio, but do bear in mind that Copify content is unlikely to be used in high-profile or prestigious channels.

    When we talk about ‘filler’ copy, it’s not really a value judgement. We’re referring to articles, online PR, blog posts and web pages produced primarily to generate natural search traffic and elicit backlinks. There is little or no user value in this content, since human readership is not the aim. It’s often produced by rehashing similar content from an online source. Anyone honest associated with online marketing will freely admit these points. If you work through Copify, you may well be asked to produce a lot of this type of content.

    I wish you the best of luck with your writing career.

  22. As Tom says, copywriting is a market – and as long as you have a buyer and a seller, you have a deal. So in a sense, I don’t understand where all the heat is coming from. The fees do seem on the low side though…

    I reckon I could turn out 300 words of good copy – an email say, or a web page – that I’d be proud enough of to send to a client, in a day or so. I won’t assume Copify would pay me their premium rate so I’ll flatter myself I might command 4p a word. That yields me £12. Or £1.50 an hour.

    My advice to Clair, on starting out, would be to avoid content mills and focus on building a portfolio of work for agencies or clients directly. There are easier ways to make £1.50 an hour than writing copy.

  23. This is an interesting debate, especially as I started out in copywriting a year ago and I’ve posted my fair share of content on Helium, Suite101 and similar sites to get going.

    But I’d like to take issue with the statement “If you’re a UK white-collar professional using a content mill, you could be delegating your copywriting to someone with abilities only as good as (or worse than) your own. So what have you really gained?”

    I’ve re-written a huge number of CVs for professionals in the last year – accountants, project managers and the like – and I’ve seen plenty of poor writing in the versions they submitted to me. I’ve been turned 5-6 pages into 2 and received plenty of positive feedback. No, I don’t reduce the font size; I often increase it!

    I’ve recently been sent some copy to proof read, written by some IT professionals. I had to re-write considerable chunks because it simply wasn’t going to do the job they wanted it to. They were so pleased with the result that I’ve been invited to do more.

    There are plenty of well-educated professionals who can’t write well. They’ve got stacks of skills that I don’t have, but writing is not one of them. I’d hope that by using a service such as Copify they would get a result better than they could produce themselves.

    That said, I agree with many of the other points made here about quality and I’m a huge believer in ‘you get what you pay for’.

  24. Hi Andrew

    Thanks for your comments. You’re quite right – many professionals need help with their writing, and see big benefits from relatively small interventions.

    However, I didn’t say that professionals didn’t need copywriters. I said that if they used a *content mill* (as opposed to a copywriter), their work *could* be handled by someone with skills far inferior to theirs. It’s all a bit of a lottery. Instead of going to the market in an informed, discerning way, they’re restricting themselves to the providers willing to bid at the prices available. Those providers might include some very able writers – or they might not.

    For my money, your points make a strong argument in favour of using a copywriter, which I endorse, but not in favour of using a content mill, where you’re ordering a commodity in a deliberately anonymised way, rather than striking up a working relationship with a professional.

  25. I don’t feel angry or threatened by Copify (nice name, by the way). It is an open market. But I think I spent 2.3 seconds aboard it as the rate stopped me in my tracks. I remember spending some time on eLance back in the day to no avail. I can only see it as copyfilla, used to pad out pages for Google ad businesses. But whatever.

    What is a little sad, however, is that when you start out, you really need some feedback on your work, like clients fuming or enthusing or tips from a good designer or marketing professional. I can’t see much of that happening on a platform like this.

  27. Well done – a very comprehensive and measured response to the debate, and I fully agree with your response to Clair. There certainly is a market for companies such as Copify, and that is with the filler copy that you mention – it’s just trying to make people aware that that kind of service is not what all copywriting is about, and is merely the most basic service we can offer.

  31. Hi
    This not directly related to your post, but it’s a story about fees and copywriting. I did a job for a client last month – re-writing their entire web content. I did the job to the best of my ability – and naturally expected some edits. The client came back and said, …”excellent, I love it, I don’t need to change anything!” So I put in my invoice for the agreed price. Three days later he came back and said, “…since you didn’t need to spend any time doing edits, I think I should have a discount.” I was floored – am we to be penalised for doing a good job? I negotiated a small discount in exchange for instant payment – but was I wrong to feel disgruntled by this?
    Jackie

  32. Hi Jackie

    Thanks for commenting. This is a tricky situation, and one I’ve faced myself.

    There are really two issues here: asking for a reduction on the grounds of no amends being done, and renegotiating the deal after the fact.

    If you imagine how ridiculous it would be to ask for a reduction on these grounds before you began work, you can see how opportunistic this tactic is. In a way, they are taking advantage of your professionalism.

    My position on amends is that they’re an optional service element included for the client’s benefit – if that makes sense. If I stay in a hotel but don’t use the swimming pool, I can’t ask for my bill to be reduced. If I order the set lunch menu but I’m too full for dessert, I still pay the flat rate. It’s the same with copywriting – amends are covered if the client needs them.

    To avoid any discussion along the lines of ‘this took you less time than you estimated’, keep your prices as simple fees for completing the work, with amends as necessary – not related to the time taken.

    On the issue of renegotiation, I think you are wrong to feel disgruntled – but not because the client is right. It’s because I think freelances should keep emotion out of their business as far as possible.

    Instead, you should try to do the best you can for your business, viewing it with your most dispassionate, managerial head on. Will this client be a regular? Will they put a lot of work your way? Is it worth letting them have this concession just once, on the understanding that you’ll tighten up the arrangement next time?

    You just have to decide, case by case, how to deal with the situation. Yes, it’s ‘unreasonable’, but the question is how you can turn it to your advantage – and whether the payoff is worth the effort. If it’s not, just insist on payment as agreed.

    Hope that helps!

  34. Hi guys,

    I think that this is a great debate – I’ve only been working as a full-time copywriter since last November, but with very little professional experience under my belt, (just a degree in Creative Writing), I find it hard to get work that doesn’t pay a low-end price. And, what makes it worse for me, is that although clients aren’t willing to pay more than £4 for something that has taken me a fair amount of time to complete (research, writing etc), they become incredibly demanding. But, despite their demands and high-standards, they are certainly not willing to pay more.

    I would love to be earning larger amounts, but whenever I receive queries asking for quotes I have two options:

    1. Go cheap, and get hired for being the cheaper option (been there, done that and it feels incredibly degrading!)

    2. Go for the price I’m actually worth (which is still relatively low, since I’m still new!), and never hear from the potential client ever again!

    So, I feel like I am permanently going to be stuck in the lower priced bracket.

    Kat

  35. Hi Kat

    Thanks for commenting. I sympathise with your frustration, and let me assure you that it’s not only beginners who have to deal with this mindset. All you can do it set your sights on identifying and winning clients who appreciate what you offer. This has to be a conscious decision, taken in the belief that you can control what happens to you – you’re not just a passenger. Freelancers need this mindset when they’re starting out, although they need flexibility too.

    Remember that each completed project is giving you more experience, and therefore more bargaining power. That’s not to say you should accept everything, just to point out that you are always moving forward step by step.

    Also, bear in mind how easy it is for clients to get prices from a range of suppliers. I receive many emails that, from their format, are clearly being sent to several copywriters at a time. I probably won’t be the cheapest, and even if we all had the same price, my chances of success are fairly low. So don’t feel bad about missing out – at least you’re being asked!

    The other thing I’d suggest is to build up specialisations. Versatility is great, but if you’re the expert n a client’s field you stand a better chance of being hired. You’ve obviously got good knowledge of the beauty industry – could that become a central part of your offer?

    You might think that being a ‘beauty copywriter’ would limit your appeal. In fact, it reduces your scope, but intensifies your suitability to a subset of clients. In the early days, when you badly need to close those deals and get experience, that’s no bad thing.

    Good luck!

  37. Part of the problem is that many people in need of SEO text are just looking for a quick cheap article that includes a stack of keywords. This rarely tends to translate in to big budgets and if people can be found to write cheaply that tends to win out.

    Agencies should instead be looking for interesting and engaging content written by professionals, rather than just a run of low quality articles written just to gain links.

  38. Copify just looks like its a niche part of Freelancer. All these article services have been on there for umpteen years.

  40. “But until we see what your made of…its 2p per word. ”

    I missed this first time round. For 4p a word I presume we’d have got ‘you’re’?

  41. Very true, Alconalcia. Some good points still being made on a post created in 2010. Until they see what we’re made of? A bit of a nerve, considering the application process involves a CV and details of experience.

  42. Oh, how I wish I had read this before ‘freelancing’ for these people (if you can call it that). Copify are quite easily the rudest, most unprofessional people I’ve ever had the displeasure of working with. They take a LOT more of a cut than they let on too (90% of the time it’s 1p a word for standard and 2p a word for professional – it is only more for direct orders or confusing-looking jobs no one wants to pick up). Their attitude towards their writers stinks. Thanks for providing an informative post that serves as a warning to others like me. I fail to see how any business gets any value out of the cheap filler copy requested on this site (usually with a meagre brief and no chance to build a rapport). More fool those businesses I guess.

  44. Paragraph 1: I feel there should be the article ‘the’ before ‘startup content mill’, which, incidentally, ought to be ‘start-up’. In your second sentence the word ‘being’ is quite redundant.

    Paragraph 2: ‘copywriters’ opinions should range from the doubtful to the derisive’ – here, both articles are quite confusing, and it should have been written ‘copywriter’s opinions range from doubtful to derisive’, seeing as you were talking about their opinions and not the people themselves. Also, in that second paragraph, ‘… and many focusing on the fees’ ought to have been written as ‘… with many focusing on the fees’.

    Paragraph 3: I feel the point you’re trying to make is a contradiction in terms – if one can question the value of the transaction, then they can similarly argue that the agreed price is too low or too high. I understand your point, but the wording is vague and ambiguous.

    Paragraph 4: do you really think the cliché ‘axe to grind’ is an eloquent use of language in that context? Also, using the definite article ‘the’ [content mills] before ‘such as’ [and your list of examples] is wrong; you should have omitted ‘the’.

    Paragraph (Experience): ‘2p a word does not stretch to a seasoned copywriter’ – that’s a vaguely incomprehensible notion, grammatically and logically – wouldn’t ‘2p a word wouldn’t interest/reach to a seasoned copywriter’ be a far better way to articulate that idea?

    Paragraph (The right price): ‘… have no incentive to raise it…’ should be ‘… have no incentive to raise the problem…’ – it’s grammatically clumsy, otherwise.

    Paragraph (Enough time): every sentence you placed within inverted commas had the full stop within said inverted commas. This is an Americanism and considered to be a grammatical mistake in standard English (I assume you’re British).

    Paragraph (Reassurance): the word ‘completely’ is quite redundant in that context – either one is confident or not.

    Paragraph (Flexibility): the whole paragraph is… just fine, it fits like a bespoke glove from Asda.

    Paragraph (Rapport): there’s nothing ‘wrong’ here, but did we need that inundation of clichés?

    Paragraph (Creativity): isn’t the usage of ‘she’ a tad feminist? You could’ve used ‘they’ in that context without trying hard to be politically correct.

    Paragraph (Intelligent SEO): Your first sentence isn’t a sentence. Also, after ‘humans’ there should be a comma or a semicolon.

    Penultimate paragraph: it should read ‘… to all of this…’

    Last paragraph: ‘in vogue’ shouldn’t be hyphenated.

    Just saying 🙂

  45. Paragraph 1: I feel there should be the article ‘the’ before ‘startup content mill’, which, incidentally, ought to be ‘start-up’. In your second sentence the word ‘being’ is quite redundant.

    Paragraph 2: ‘copywriters’ opinions should range from the doubtful to the derisive’ – here, both articles are quite confusing, and it should have been written ‘copywriter’s opinions range from doubtful to derisive’, seeing as you were talking about their opinions and not the people themselves. Also, in that second paragraph, ‘… and many focusing on the fees’ ought to have been written as ‘… with many focusing on the fees’.

    Paragraph 3: I feel the point you’re trying to make is a contradiction in terms – if one can question the value of the transaction, then they can similarly argue that the agreed price is too low or too high. I understand your point, but the wording is vague and ambiguous.

    Paragraph 4: do you really think the cliché ‘axe to grind’ is an eloquent use of language in that context? Also, using the definite article ‘the’ [content mills] before ‘such as’ [and your list of examples] is wrong; you should have omitted ‘the’.

    Paragraph (Experience): ‘2p a word does not stretch to a seasoned copywriter’ – that’s a vaguely incomprehensible notion, grammatically and logically – wouldn’t ‘2p a word wouldn’t interest/reach to a seasoned copywriter’ be a far better way to articulate that idea?

    Paragraph (The right price): ‘… have no incentive to raise it…’ should be ‘… have no incentive to raise the problem…’ – it’s grammatically clumsy, otherwise.

    Paragraph (Enough time): every sentence you placed within inverted commas had the full stop within said inverted commas. This is an Americanism and considered to be a grammatical mistake in standard English (I assume you’re British).

    Paragraph (Reassurance): the word ‘completely’ is quite redundant in that context – either one is confident or not.

    Paragraph (Flexibility): the whole paragraph is… just fine, it fits like a bespoke glove from Asda.

    Paragraph (Rapport): there’s nothing ‘wrong’ here, but did we need that inundation of clichés?

    Paragraph (Creativity): isn’t the usage of ‘she’ a tad feminist? You could’ve used ‘they’ in that context without trying hard to be politically correct.

    Paragraph (Intelligent SEO): Your first sentence isn’t a sentence. Also, there should be a comma or semicolon after ‘humans’ .

    Penultimate paragraph: it should read ‘… to all of this…’

    Last paragraph: ‘in vogue’ shouldn’t be hyphenated.

    Just saying 🙂

  53. Hi Paul.

    People who scream “censorship” because they believe privately-owned websites owe them a platform don’t get invited to parties.

    That’s a shame, because parties are fun.

    Also, I’m not sure that alluding to the existence of women is actually a feminist statement.

    Seems like a fucking obvious observation to me.

  55. In case any potential clients are reading this, please note that there are many inaccuracies and debatable points in this ‘correction’, but I am too busy with actual work to write a full rebuttal.

    Regarding ‘censorship’, I have to manually approve some comments, and they don’t appear until I do so, which may have caused confusion. I have approved all replies to Paul’s original comment, including his own, and I will continue to do so, if this ancient post continues to attract such interest. I don’t have a problem with on-topic comments or criticism of my writing. If a thread is off-topic I delete all of it, not selected comments.

    Regarding feminism, I am happy to admit my guilt.

    I look forward to enjoying some of Paul’s writing when he is kind enough to share a link with us.

  56. Your example is of the American English style, as also evident from the double inverted commas which begin and end each quoted section. Allow me to make this easier for you – here’s a longer excerpt from the OED link I sent you:

    In this case, in American English, single or double quotation marks are acceptable but it’s important to stick to one way or the other throughout a piece of writing. Any punctuation associated with the word or phrase in question should come before the closing quotation mark or marks:

    He called this phenomenon “the memory of water.”

    Next, a hollow spout, known as a “feeder tube,” is placed in the hole.

    In British English, the usual style is to use single quotation marks, while any associated punctuation is placed outside the closing quotation mark:

    Their new single is called ‘Curtain Falls’.

  58. Hello Andy,

    Initially, all my comments and replies were published immediately, then all of a sudden they were ‘awaiting approval’, which is why I added that postscript to the original critique. Apparently, he has to ‘manually approve some comments’. Yep, that must explain it.

    I was suggesting that there was a way to avoid using such an unpleasant (to my mind) politically correct overcompensation – that nasty, appeasing fashion of positive discrimination – by using the gender-neutral ‘they’ in that context (which also happens to be more grammatically correct).

    I thought that was ‘fucking obvious’.

    I’m sure your parties are a blast.

  60. Hang on. The word “she” is an unpleasant, politically correct overcompensation?

    Did you read this article when you went on your rant, or did you just scan the words for errors?

    ” I sought the opinions of my copywriter friends on Twitter, including @Mr603, @turnerink, @NoSloppyCopy, @shelovestowrite, @PenHire, @sarahcopywriter and others.”

    @turnerink. Woman.
    @shelovestowrite. Woman.
    @penhire. Woman

    That’s half the named opinions sought here. Let’s give it a 50/50 chance that the opinion on creativity was inspired by one of the women Tom talked to. That gives us a 50% chance of you talking out your bumhole just on the balance of probabilities.

    But that gives you too much credit. On what planet is using she instead of he when discussing a profession that’s packed with women anything other than sensible or balanced? Scared of the women getting in your safe space with their nasty periods and terrifying feminazi demands for equal pay?

    My parties are mint, by the way.

  61. Yes, it is, in that context. It’s not a sexist opinion, just a ‘fair’ one. In legal documents, for example, they used to avoid such prejudice by using ‘he/she’, but later adopted the far less clumsy ‘they’ in such instances. However, whenever I see a male writer’s using the painfully deliberate ‘she’, it makes me cringe to imagine how patronising such a sentiment must seem to the female readers, but also it smacks of sycophancy and appeasement at the expense of grammatical conformity. It would be quite normal to use ‘she’ for an overwhelmingly female-dominated profession, such as midwifery or air hostessing, but otherwise I feel it’s a misuse of language.

    I assume, as a professional copywriter, you must have made a typo when writing ‘privately-owned’ – it’s unthinkable that someone of your supposed stature would make a schoolboy error as to hyphenate such an adverb thus;)

    ‘Mint’, lol.

  62. If any of your potential clients are reading this, do you not feel you owe them some kind of a rebuttal, especially considering how many ‘inaccuracies and debatable points’ lie therein?

    Okay, fair enough; I’m glad to hear that.

    As far as the ‘feminism’ point is concerned, I’ll reiterate the point I made to Andy Nattan:
    It’s not a sexist opinion, just a ‘fair’ one. In legal documents, for example, they used to avoid prejudice by using ‘he/she’, but later adopted the far less clumsy ‘they’ in such instances. However, whenever I see a male writer’s using the painfully deliberate ‘she’, it makes me cringe to imagine how patronising such a sentiment must seem to the female readers, but also it smacks of sycophancy and appeasement at the expense of grammatical conformity. It would be quite normal to use ‘she’ for an overwhelmingly female-dominated profession, such as midwifery or air hostessing, but otherwise I feel it’s a misuse of language.

  63. As a woman, I can confirm it’s quite nice when men use ‘she’, and not at all patronising. The fact that you found it a jarring experience indicates WHY people need to do this. Until it’s the norm, it must be done.

  68. lol you definitely weren’t arguing for equality. ‘It would be quite normal to use ‘she’ for an overwhelmingly female-dominated profession, such as midwifery or air hostessing, but otherwise I feel it’s a misuse of language.’

    Why is it only acceptable to use she in overwhelmingly female-dominated professions? What if we make up 50% of the profession? Is it acceptable then?

    also no one gives a shit what you think is a misuse of language

  69. I didn’t say it was acceptable to say ‘he’ or ‘she’, I suggested ‘they’. Please, if you can’t contribute intelligently, it might be better to abstain.

  73. I fear I’d have to unlearn much of what I know about the use of English, adopt a series of nasty writing habits and shamelessly litter my work with nauseating clichés and grammatical inconsistencies in order to join the ranks of your profession, Andy, judging from the standards of literacy and diction amongst the copywriters contributing to this debate.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top
Search