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 The client has directed me towards out-of-date sources.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?

Earlier today, Stephen Fry (@stephenfry) ‘gave up’ Twitter after his Tweets were described as ‘boring’ by another user (@brumplum). Apparently the criticism came at a bad time, and he felt he’d had enough. But which of us hasn’t felt this way about Twitter at one point or another?

After all, it encourages so many unhealthy mental habits. Follower envy, and the compulsive craving for more followers. A tendency to be always ‘elsewhere’ in our minds, Tweeting strangers instead of listening to – and caring for – the people in our real-world circle. But that’s just in our own heads. What about the social problems of social media?

The Twitter pummelling received by Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, was both inevitable and vociferous. Trending for several days, the stream of overwhelmingly negative comment gave the impression of thousands of individuals venting a fierce dislike of Griffin and his values.

Yet how many of those Tweeters were expressing original sentiments, and how many were – quite literally – following the trend? Twitter makes it so easy to endorse or amplify views on subjects you might never have considered that deeply before. Even if you’d never heard of Carter-Ruck or Trafigura, you could get involved in a ‘social media movement’. With just a click, you can add your voice to the braying of the mob.

Nobody was that bothered about Griffin’s treatment, since so many people detest his views. But the criticism piled upon poor @brumplum for his ‘boring’ comment was a different matter. People created lists of people they disliked, just so they could include him. It shocked @brumplum himself and embarrassed Fry, prompting both to try and lay the issue to rest.

It’s always been possible to criticise people with impunity online, but nothing puts your insult in their face quite like Twitter. And it’s so easy and quick to do. At least in Lord of the Flies, the boys had to gang up and physically push a rock to kill Piggy. Now, we just push a mouse button, all alone. And since we’ll never meet the people we’re criticising, why not make it incredibly harsh? Maybe get a few more followers that way.

We’re probably not going to stop using social media – not even Stephen Fry. But many of us might need to start thinking about where it’s taking us, or what it’s turning us into.

Positive beliefs are very important. As Henry Ford said, ‘if you think you can, or if you think you can’t, you’re right’. While optimism and belief aren’t everything we need in order to achieve, we’re unlikely to achieve much without them.

No-one who uses Twitter much can be unaware of these ideas. Maybe it’s because of the followers I’ve chosen, or the typical profile of many Twitter users (sole traders, freelancers, consultants, coaches, trainers, marketers), but positivity is very much the order of the day. Most days, my Twitter feed is crammed full of inspiring quotes, motivational sentiments and success stories.

And that’s fine. Better that than doom and gloom. But is this relentlessly upbeat worldview really representative and balanced? Is it true?

From time to time, I’ve noted that some opinions expressed on Twitter are at odds with what I know those Twitterers really think. Clearly, they felt they had to put a positive shine on their sentiments for the world at large. Why?

Into each life some rain must fall

For Buddhists, transience (or ‘impermanence’) is the defining characteristic of our experience. Nothing is permanent or fixed; everything is shifting and changing. The seasons revolve around us; the weather changes from day to day; our moods and perceptions are constantly changing. Our lives are shaped by comings and goings – people, relationships, homes, jobs and situations all come and go as we move through life.

Transience is usually the product of movement or tension between polar opposites: day and night, rising and falling, happiness and sadness, hope and fear, growth and decline, life and death. We label ‘rising’ and ‘growing’ events as ‘good’, while ‘falling’ or ‘declining’ events are ‘bad’. We have a very strong preference for the ‘good’ side, so we try to bring more ‘good’ things into our lives, or hang on to them, and avoid the ‘bad’.

However, if we’re honest, we know both sides of transience are inevitable and, in their different ways, essential. We need rain as well as sun. We can’t be growing, profiting and succeeding every minute of every day. Even death is a part of life; decline or decay prepares the way for renewal.

So we shouldn’t be afraid of acknowledging our doubts, fears and failures in our social-media lives. In my view, it would make the Twittersphere a much richer, more balanced and fulfilling place to be – one that reflects every side of us, not just the parts we think are ‘good’.

Dependent origination in the Buddhist cycle of life

Freelance copywriting (or any freelance work) can be a lonely business. Obviously, you write alone. But you also do your marketing, your finances and your planning alone. Not to mention your worrying – over deadlines, volume of work and pricing. And, of course, nobody understands. No-one else knows what it’s like to deal with criticism, non-payment, timewasting, mind-changing and downright rudeness – alone.

But social media has changed all that. Whereas before I might have known of one or two other copywriters – the ones I’d met through my salaried positions – I now ‘know’ many more, all around the world. I put ‘know’ in quotes because knowing someone through Twitter or a blog is not the same as knowing them for real. But it still feels enough like friendship to dispel much of the loneliness of the long-distance freelancer.

On the face of it, these other freelance copywriters are the competition. And this is true to the extent that freelance work is a zero-sum game (if I win, you lose, and vice versa). There is only one BP annual report, and only one writer can write it. There are only ten positions on page one of Google. There is, perhaps, only so much work and so much money to go round.

But this rather reductive viewpoint is just one way to make sense of the chaos that is the freelance marketplace. And, because we always remember that the map is not the territory, we are free to choose another way of seeing it.

For example, we could choose to believe in abundance: there is plenty to go around, and we can all share it. In this view, everything we do brings something new and unique into the world, with the power to create value and wealth. Work (or life) is not a race or a competition, but a collaborative creation – a never-endng play with an infinite number of actors. (Buddhists will note the parallel with the doctrine of paticcasamuppada, or dependent origination).

Web 2.0 enables us to share so much more – ideas, opportunities, resources and support. Ultimately, perhaps, it can even facilitate ‘co-opetition’, where nominally competing businesses or individuals realise they have more to gain from working together (at least in some areas), consciously shaping their industry rather than letting it emerge as the result of an unbridled, Darwinian free-for-all. This opens the door for achievements such as industry standards, best practice and (sometimes) a tacitly accepted approach to pricing that effectively freezes out undercutters. I wonder how far down that road our use of Twitter might take us.

Twitter certainly has its drawbacks. In some ways, it’s a reputational Ponzi scheme, with followers as the currency. It’s compulsive and addictive, perhaps unhealthily so. It fragments awareness and scatters mindfulness. It’s got delusions of grandeur (e.g. over Iran). It’s an informational Ouroboros, eating its own tail through endless retweets. And it’s awash with banality.

But I still use it. A lot. Over time, I’ve realised that it’s a powerful tool when used wisely, and that, in a sense, its limitations are its strengths. So instead of dwelling on the negatives, I thought I’d use them as a starting point for considering what a fully-grown social media might look like…

• It will be real-time. For better or worse, this is what we now demand. In the future, we’ll see Twitter’s incredible ‘nowness’ combined with Google’s power to discriminate and filter information, giving us a window into shared thoughts that’s (hopefully) unpolluted by spam. But, at the same time…


What might this rudimentary bird evolve into?

• It will be persistent. Twitter trends come and go, but their residue is a bit chaotic. In the future, collaborative trains of thought will be captured, preserved and refined. We’ll be able to create and control our own social-media hubs, and enhance them by adding supporting resources. Google Wave will probably be the first manifestation of this, and Kosmix is a parallel in the world of web search. And as a consequence…
• It will be integrated. The ‘walls’ between Twitter, Facebook and future SM services will be softened or erased. A powerful, simple front end will bring everything together elegantly and hide the ‘workings’ from the user. Once we taste it, we’ll never want to go back to joining individual, isolated communities. And that will mean…
• It will be friendly. Through this new front end, some kind of semantic search will let casual users get involved without knowing what a hashtag is. Images, sound and movies will be seamlessly integrated. The whole social-media experience will be smoother and easier. My money’s on Apple to get this right first, just as they have done with music and phones. Which highlights the fact that…
• It will be more corporate. Just as they make it their business to own generic search terms through affiliates and brand-bidding, big brands will dominate social media. They have to, or they won’t be big any more. But know-how is always for sale, and they’ve got the brand assets, so they’re in pole position. They’ll make sure they guide the casual or novice user to their front door, regardless of channel. (They’ll also monitor our content so they know about every relevant conversation.) Dell is a trailblazer in this area. And after a while…
• It will be nothing special. In the end, every brand will have a softer, less formal tone of voice in social media. Big corporates will find and exploit the optimum balance between control and individual expression. And small firms and individuals will always be able to offer a different experience – just as they can in any other area. But at the same time…
• Credibility will out. The number of ‘expert’ SEOs, affiliate marketers, social media consultants and, yes, copywriters on Twitter is just ludicrous. It’s so easy to build a presence, and followers come cheap, making everyone look authoritative. But in the future, the cream will rise to the top, just as it did in web design and e-commerce following the internet boom. As in search, Google (or someone) will help us separate the wheat from the chaff. And after a while…
• Things will settle down again. Just as everyone sells online, everyone will do social media. It will be just another channel. The buzz over Twitter as a customer-service medium boils down to a simple truth: customers want prompt, individual attention. And that’s not news. There are new ways to reach customers now, but they won’t always be new. They will be understood, analysed, documented, and best practice will be established.

So what should we do? I say ‘do it, but don’t sweat it’. There’s much to be said for being a fast follower instead of a leader – not least, you can learn from others’ mistakes. So relax, get Tweeting and just enjoy the ride.

Does your marketing sell? When did you last ask the question?

Sometimes, those involved in marketing campaigns (both buyers and providers) get lost in a sort of creative love-in, congratulating themselves on a great job and forgetting the core aim.

It’s only natural – it’s great to feel like an expert. But there’s no harm in throwing in some really basic, almost stupid questions, such as ‘why will this ad touch customers?’, ‘why will it sell?’ or even ‘why are we doing this?’

In reality, this rarely happens in the modern business setting

You should ask these simple questions whether you’re working with a major agency or a freelance copywriter. Don’t worry about looking stupid. It’s better to look stupid in the meeting room, when you’re appraising your new ad campaign, than in the CEO’s office when the sales figures come in.

Or maybe it’s not about sales. A very distinguished professor of marketing once told me that the success of marketing should never be measured by looking at sales. He was making the point that marketing’s most direct results are increases in brand recognition, goodwill and so on, which only indirectly affect sales (along with a host of other factors).

Nevertheless, revenue will probably be the key indicator of marketing success for most businesses, but you may also need to look at enquiries received, website registrations, average order value, market share, brand recognition and so on. And whatever you’re aiming for, your marketing needs to be oriented towards the goal.

You may be aiming for something that isn’t measurable. Scott Monty, Ford’s new Head of Social Media, noted that ‘Ford isn’t on Twitter and Facebook to sell cars’. They are, of course, but they’re doing it by building up their public profile, which indirectly leads to more sales but is hard to measure in itself. Maybe your marketing also has goals that can only be measured subjectively – just make sure you go into the campaign with your eyes open, knowing what you want and how you’ll know when you’ve got it.

This is particularly important in areas such as social media, where the current buzz can hustle you into doing something for its own sake. There should always be a reason. So fire off those ‘stupid’ questions and make sure your marketing is doing something that needs to be done.