An honest apology is a wonderful thing. It is also rare. Whether the fesser-upper is a private citizen, public figure or corporate entity, you almost never hear "I blew it, I'm sorry, and here's what I'm doing to make amends." More often you hear something passively self-excusing, like, "…if mistakes were made, we are truly sorry," or something that, in the guise of an apology, attempts to shift blame, like, "We're sorry people reacted in that way."

So I prepared to cheer when a new Toyota TV spot opened with a statement about their having learned a valuable lesson. But the cheer died on my lips when, instead of admitting faults and enumerating how Toyota would set things right, the spot told viewers to visit their local dealer to learn more. 

Visit a dealer to see how sorry they are? Come on. When I make a mistake—an activity with which I am not unacquainted—I don't send a message saying, "To see how I've changed, come see me." I show up, in person, on bended knee, and disclose.
 
For Toyota to ask the market to make a trip to their turf and offer to listen while they plead their case is a foolish display of unconscionable arrogance. 

—Steve Cuno
 
 
Want customers to take immediate action? Offer something free.  

Today I received a B2B email from DataPartners offering me a free $15 Starbucks gift card if I would take their survey. I have ignored other emails from them. Not this one. I took the survey. 

Of course, to receive my gift card, I had to give up my address. I was in their database before but, having responded to this offer, now I'm really in it. Fully aware of that consequence, I acted anyway. 

And, funny thing. Completing the survey led me to think a little deeper about our data needs and how DataPartners could help us. So now there’s a chance I'll do business with them.

The old "act now and get this free gift" strategy still works. Don't try telling me that your customers are "too sophisticated to fall for that." The higher your customer registers on the education-income continuum, the better free offers work. This hasn't changed in over 100 years.
 
 (If you’re a viable prospect for data services and you want to hear from DataPartners, you can take the survey by clicking here. Please don’t take advantage of their offer if you’re not a viable prospect and you just want the coffee.)
 
—Steve Cuno
 
 
This letter from author Simon Singh appears in Swift, the newsletter of the James Randi Educational Foundation. Singh, one of my favorite science writers, is being sued for libel by a British chiropractic association for having referred to their trade as “bogus.” For the moment please set aside your feelings about so-called alternative medicine and instead consider the implications of the UK’s maniacal libel laws. No matter what country you live in, they have the power to affect you. Then, please click here (or on the link in the text) and sign the petition.—Steve Cuno

From Simon Singh

Dear Friends, Rationalists, Bloggers, 
Journalists, Medics, Skeptics & Scientists:

As you may know, I am currently being sued for libel. My own case is largely irrelevant, because the bigger issue is libel reform so that scientists can discuss ideas openly, fairly and robustly, without fear that they might end up in court. There are currently three ongoing cases involving libel and science/medicine.

This is a very English problem, but it has a chilling effect on debate around the world because English law can have a global jurisdiction. Hence, I am asking for support from around the world.

One way to help achieve libel reform is for 100,000 people to sign the petition for libel reform before the political parties write their manifestos for the upcoming General Election. We already have 29,000 signatures, but we really need 100,000, and we need your help to get there.

If you have not yet signed, then please click here.

To find out why we need to reform English libel law, then please read on. (Read the rest of this article by clicking here now.)

 
 
Here are some thoughts I shared with a company that recently approached us about rewriting their law firm client's website. It's sound advice for any professional services firm. 

Thanks for your email. I actually enjoy writing law firm copy. Other than that, I assure you that I am for the most part sane.

I agree with your assessment of your client's site. It's typical law firm copy that covers the usual bases while utterly failing to engage. It is to your client's credit that they have requested a writer to produce copy that they wouldn't produce on their own.

My experience has been that, the larger the law firm, the more the attorneys seem to obsess on "positioning" themselves as "the professionals." While we certainly don't want to be unprofessional, "the professionals" is no position at all. For one thing, it's redundant: attorneys are professionals by definition. For another, positioning has to do with setting yourself apart. If all law firms are "the professionals," not one of them has a position.

A better approach is to write from the standpoint of what connects with the prospective client. When I recommend my business attorney, I do not say, "He's such a professional. He has great suits, dimples his tie and never speaks with contractions." Here's what I do say: "He's a bulldog. He bites my opponent on the leg and doesn't let go until I get my way." Invariably, the person I'm talking to says, "That's the guy I want," and calls him.

Leg-biting is, of course, over the top for a website. (Or is it?) But if we expect people to read, we must at least engage them, and that means not writing the same old stuff they've seen on other sites. Otherwise, they will only skip-read, if even that.

As I'm sure you know, the more attorneys who have approval/editing power, the weaker the copy will turn out. If the law firm's principals can discipline themselves to (1) limit review to one or two principals only and (2) resist the urge to rewrite and instead provide feedback, they will increase their odds of finishing with compelling copy.

Steve Cuno
 
 
Picture
Amelia and 'friends'
I just found a great example of powerful direct response copywriting. It was a scrap of paper taped to my doorknob. I assume the writer is seven or eight years old, since she identifies herself as a Girl Scout Brownie. Here is the text in its entirety:

Hi! My name is Amelia, and I'm a Brownie selling Girl Scout cookies. I was wondering if you would like some cookies. Do you think you would? The money I get I will use for Girl Scout camp and other fun activities. If you would like some, I'd appreciate it. And if you don't want to eat G.S. cookies, you can buy them, then our troop will give them to a family homeless shelter. Each box costs $3.50. Please call me if you would like to buy some. The cookies should be delivered in early March. Thanks! [Hand-signed:] Amelia

Great copywriting. Its strongest attributes are its clarity; its outright, soul-baring honesty; and its strong, easy-to-follow call to action. Sure, these should be basics. But sometimes we so-called professionals get so caught up with being clever that we overlook them.

How could I resist? I sent Amelia a check with a request that my cookies go to the homeless. I urge you to contribute as well. Contact Amelia by clicking here now: zaui@yahoo.com. Amelia can deliver cookies in Utah's Sandy-Draper area only, but if you want to donate your cookies to the homeless, you can contribute no matter where you live. PLEASE RESPOND NO LATER THAN JANUARY 29.

Who knows… not too many years hence, Amelia might be making a living as a copywriter.

Steve Cuno
 
Lying for Zicam 01/06/2010
 
Some people assume that a career in advertising means lying for a living. Until more of us learn to say NO to products that don't work, our profession will have a hard time taking umbrage at such accusations. To wit: The makers of Zicam just awarded their advertising account to the Cramer-Krasselt agency in Phoenix. I wish Cramer-Krasselt had turned them down flat. I wish all other agencies would, too.  

Why? Something about lying to make a buck. And, in this case, selling something harmful. Call me a pollyanna, but these don't sit well with me.

How Zicam is medically harmful. Please read this excellent post by Steven Novella, MD, a leader in science-based medicine. Just the opening paragraph is harrowing: "On June 16th the FDA issued a warning advising consumers not to use Zicam Nasal Gel or Nasal Swabs because of reports that it can damage the sense of smell, a condition called anosmia. This event highlights some problems with current regulations of health products." 

Now, back to lying for Zicam. Consider this blurb, taken verbatim from the Zicam website: "Zicam Cold Remedy is an over-the-counter homeopathic medicine that actually reduces the duration and severity of the common cold when taken at the first sign of cold symptoms." 

How does this mislead thee? Let me count the ways. Astute readers will surely point out more. 

1. Zicam is not a "remedy," in that it cures nothing. 

2. Homeopathic preparations are "medicines" only in the loosest sense. No scientifically valid test has ever shown homeopathy to have any effect. (Unless you count the placebo effect. But a placebo effect does not constitute healing or recovery. It simply indicates that the patient imagines lessened symptoms.) 

3. Zicam does not reduce the duration of a cold. No remedy on earth has been shown to do that.  

4. "When taken at the first sign of cold symptoms" is a weasel. It provides a convenient out for Zicam when it fails to perform, which is every time. ("You must have started too late. Your fault, not Zicam's.") 

Four big lies from just one FAQ. If you visit the site, you'll find oodles more. Especially odious are the testimonials from people who mistakenly (and, let's hope, innocently) believe that Zicam worked for them. As a direct marketer, I know that testimonials convince. But testimonials are not evidence. Moreover, those who share them can be and often are mistaken. 

I am aware that the Zicam site features "studies." There are studies, and there are studies. I can do a study that shows that hiring the RESPONSE Agency reduces your risk of dying from lung cancer. 

If you would like to know what does help you beat a cold, the answer is: time. People who use Zicam and other preparations recover neither faster nor more slowly than those who use nothing at all. Save your money.

Let's be honest. Some agencies know darn well when they're spinning falsehoods. But many don't. Few agency people are scientists, making it easy for us to be duped by client-paid PhDs. I regret to say that I have thrice fallen into that trap myself. Twice I learned about the misrepresentations only after the account relationship had ended. The one time I that learned about it in-process, I resigned the business.  

Either way, agencies, show some balls. Turn down prospective products that don't work, and resign any that you may have already taken on. As one who doesn't believe in karma, I won't promise you rewards from the Universe. But, tomorrow morning, you might have a little more respect for the person staring back at you from the bathroom mirror. 

Steve Cuno
 
 
When I was the advertising manager of a decent-sized hospital chain, we used direct mail to invite people to tour our newly opened urgent care facility. Knowing that an incentive offer is the Number 2 strategic peg in successful direct mail (extra points for readers who can name Numbers 1 and 3), we promised each visitor a certificate for a free Baskin Robbins ice cream cone.

Within a few days, I received a note from an outraged consumer. He felt it was deplorable that “…a health care organization would encourage people to ingest ice cream.”

(Let me state here and now that I had no idea people were actually ingesting the stuff. We thought they would merely eat it.)

The outraged consumer’s helpful letter concluded with a suggestion that we offer bran muffins instead.

I’m not making this up.

The urgent care center was mobbed with visitors, and the nearest Baskin Robbins ran out of its most popular flavor. Clearly the promotion did its job. Bran muffins might have been healthier, but no one would have come to our party.

Steve Cuno
 
 
One day a friend in the direct mail business opened an industry magazine and pointed out to me a photo of its editor. She happened to be youngish-looking and attractive. "This," he said, "is why this magazine has no credibility." How could a publisher expect readers to take this "girl" seriously?

My friend would have taken umbrage had you suggested that he was sexist. He was merely being "real." Much like a vendor, no longer welcome in our offices, who took umbrage when I told him that calling a female employee "voluptuous" constituted sexual harassment and had better stop. He was merely "complimenting" her. Much like the past associate who took umbrage when I changed his use of "weatherman" in copy to "weather caster." He was merely avoiding taking "this politically correct crap" too far.

Being free from prejudice, and from harmful language and actions, takes conscious effort and painfully honest self-scrutiny. I have blown it myself from time to time. I suspect we all do. But if we remain willing to listen and grow, there's still hope.

Steve Cuno
 
 
According to a new Adweek survey, 50% of respondents say that advertising "rarely" motivates them to switch brands, 11% say that advertising "never" influences their brand choices, and people 18-34 say they are most likely to be "swayed by ads." 

I suspect there may be some truth in Adweek's conclusions. But, if so, their methodology doesn't establish it.  

The worst way to learn what influences people is to ask them. People don't know what they do, why they do it, or what makes them do it. But they sure think they know! So, when you ask, they'll give you an answer, and most likely they will mean what they say. Trouble is, they are often mistaken. 

For a valid, reliable way to learn what influences people, put them in a real situation. Do not let them know that a test is afoot or that anyone is watching. Then note what they do. 

Our firm recently conducted such a test for the parent company of two national brands that you have heard of. They wanted to know which of the two brands was stronger. We divided their market into three segments. All three received identical offers; the only difference was whether the offers came from National Brand A, National Brand B, or Unknown Brand C. Then, we counted orders. All segments bought at the same rate. We repeated the test and obtained the same results. Post analysis showed that the brand made no difference; only the offer did.  

I might add that no one in the parent company was pleased. Some had championed one brand, some the other. The finding that neither brand had power offended both camps. Getting to the truth doesn't always make an agency popular. 

I should also add that this test in no way proved that brands are powerless in general. This was but one case. But it certainly suggests that you should challenge whether your brand has as much power as you'd like to believe.

Back to the research. Since I suspect Adweek was on to something, you might ask, why quibble over the methodology? The reason is that I can't be sure of a conclusion, even one that sounds reasonable, that is attained by faulty methodology. When I was in grade school, I heard that mixing yellow and blue paint makes green paint. I verified it by stealing my older brother's water color set (don't tell him—he still doesn't know) and mixing up some green for myself. I could have flipped a coin. Heads, yellow and blue make green; tails, they don't. I might have gotten the correct answer. But there would have been a 50% chance of getting the wrong one. 

I deal with the science behind fallacious versus reliable research in chapters 8 and 9 of my book Prove It Before You Promote It, so I'll stop here in deference to those who have read the book, and to try and influence those who haven't to buy copies for themselves and all of their friends. Right now, if you please.

Steve Cuno
 
 
A popular marketing blog recently listed 100 ways to measure social media. But before you get excited, I should warn you. The author seems to be liberal in his use of the word “measure.”

A sampling of his “measures,” drawn at random, includes: “volume of consumer-created buzz for a brand based on number of posts,” “shift in buzz over time,” “sentiment by volume of posts,” “number of chat room participants,” and “Wiki contributors.”

Help me out here. Exactly where on the P&L statement should the accounting firm list buzz, sentiment, chat participants and Wiki contributors?

Call me a stickler, but nowhere on the list did I find “units sold.” This strikes me as a major oversight. Rave about buzz all you like, but buzz ain’t sales.

I associate “measure” with empirical stuff. “The board is 10 feet long.” That’s empirical. But by the blogger’s standard, I suppose I could infer that the board must be the right length based on how many people talked about seeing it leaning against the shed.

To be fair, there have been documented cases of cold, hard sales attributable to social media campaigns. Moreover, I’m sure that direct marketers (alas, not branders) will unlock secrets for making the social media pay on a reliable, measurable, consistent basis.

But so far, most of the buzz about buzz is nothing but buzz.

Getting worked up over non-measures isn’t new. Ad agencies have been doing it for decades by ballyhooing recall and awareness scores. The ad industry loves to argue that when awareness or buzz is up, sales follow. Which is fine, unless you care about things like facts. Think back to the biggest nerd in your high school. He had high awareness and generated lots of buzz. Yet no one asked him to the Sadie Hawkins Dance.

Steve Cuno