CopyCopy

Last-minute messaging changes.

Just when you thought everyone had approved the creative, someone puts the brakes on.

"We just heard from a customer/partner/analyst/weblog/sales rep/whoever came out of the woodwork lately that our message has to include 'AQUAMARINE'" (or whatever). So "we have to rework the email/directmail/banner/e-newsletter ad to say AQUAMARINE."

Before you add more delay and expense to your campaign, consider these points:

• Unless you're selling low-cost items involving 30-second sales cycles, your campaign is supposed to be promoting the offer, not necessarily the product. Does AQUAMARINE have anything to do with the offer? And even if it does, will it make the offer more attractive? Really?
  
• Your campaign has been deemed to have a solid offer and message before Aquawhatever came along. Does the fact that Aqua might resonate with SOME audience members mean you need a do-over? Would the added cost of making the change pay for itself in higher response rates?
  
• Even if AQUAMARINE is an ideal message, what will it take to incorporate it in existing creative? Make the change quickly and you could end up with awkward language and flawed logic -- either of which can kill response rates. Or, take a long time, completely redevelop the creative, and ... well, okay, you just decided to start over. Worth it? You decide.

Finally, look carefully at the source of the AQUAMARINE imperative. Focus group? Anecdotal? One-off? How seriously should you even take the idea?

Of course, when the idea comes from the CEO, it may not be possible to say "no." But you can test -- and you should.

Making benefits personal

The other day I was asked to recast a broadcast email campaign (outbound email and landing page), created to target Audience A,  to fit Audience B. For the sake of illustration, let's call Audience A real estate developers and Audience B architects (though that's not who these folks are). And our client sells ... roofs.

Our architects serve in a consulting/advisory role for for our developers, and would likely be making  recommendations to them about what kind of roofs to use The idea behind the copy rework was to let the architects know how they could help the developers by making the "right" recommendation (my client's roofs, of course!).

The copy rework went reasonably well, and the client will get some extra return on its initial creative investment. But doing the work reminded me of a critical direct response maxim: the offer and the benefit must appear to be personally rewarding to the audience.

It wasn't enough to tell architects "You can help the real estate developers.. This free info will show you how." Being helpful is fine, but it as a benefit it's not powerful enough to evoke a click or a BRC. There has to be something "in it" -- and probably more immediately personal and less altruistic -- for the reader.

In this case, we decided to claim that the free information would enable architects to

• Grow their practice by giving great advice and getting more referrals. Still a bit of a stretch.
• Avoid hassles by getting fewer complaints about roofs
• Save time by being armed with tools to quickly and easily recommend the right roof for each client of their customers.

Legitimate benefits? Sure. Compelling? Maybe not but probably the best we can do given no change in offer -- just a change in audience.

Ideally, though, the best offers and messaging will save the audience time, money, grief, hassle, etc. -- or bring fortune, fame, admiration, promotion, or some other wondrous condition -- and will do so quickly and obviously.