Posts tagged as:

Marketing

Writing is acting

by Bill on March 10, 2010

Comedy and tragedy masks.I’m not big on rules or posts that say “do this” and “do that,” so this post is to simply describe how I approach writing. It might be better to say it describes what writing feels like to me.

What is that approach?

Exactly what the title says: writing is acting. This isn’t an idea I picked up in a book, or in a class, or found online, though there may be people out there who have professed or do profess this approach. It is simply something I found myself doing as I wrote.

What I mean by “acting”

When I refer to writing as being acting I mean every word is delivered by a particular character, or “voice,” even if it is a third person omniscient narrator. It could be the voice found in a business letter, some web copy, a newsletter or poem – anything that involves writing. No matter how objective and dry the text may want to be, it is still a character delivering it – in some cases a very objective and dry one. It always has a voice. The question is, who is that voice?

I’m not talking about going into some great psychological-emotional examination of character as if you were an actor getting into a role (unless what you are writing is fiction and you’re developing a character). For the most part, it’s a kind of variation on the kid’s game, “let’s pretend.”

For whatever you are writing, you put on some kind of persona. I suppose we all do it in our daily lives behaving one way at work, another in a meeting with a client, another at home, another at a party. But it’s the persona that gives you the voice and the voice dictates the style – even the language. And for me, it all becomes much more easy when I’m “in character.”

Mimicry

I think what lies behind it is mimicry. As with many, if not most, writers, I began as a reader. Once started, soon I was reading just about everything I could find – old novels, new novels, science fiction, crime, mysteries, classic literature, books in translation and on and on. Also, when I turned on the radio or watched television, I listened. I also listened to the world around me — immediate family, relatives, friends, neighbours and on and on.

What I heard was a myriad of voices, some with puzzling syntax, unexpected contractions, emphases put in places that were strange (to me).

When I started writing, almost all of it was mimicry, a channeling and regurgitation of all these voices found in words on the page or heard spoken.

Of course, all of the writing I did was utterly wretched. But I was learning and, even better, I was having fun. The best learning is about discovery and the more you discover the more curious you become.

I kept doing it because, for me, it was fun and after a while it ceased to be mimicry. Somehow, it had become mine. I couldn’t tell you how but all of those styles I had come across, all the characters I had found and all the voices I had heard were mysteriously filed away so they could be called upon as persona templates, in a sense. They were starting places, if nothing else.

When I write something like a business letter I become a businessman with his own or her own voice. I write in a business-like fashion less because there are certain expectations and styles associated with a business letter than because that is how the character I become would write – a business person would write in a business-like way.

When I did editing work on some legal documents, I became a lawyer. I was anything but an actual lawyer but I employed his or her voice and his or her way of looking at text because in a sense I was playing a lawyer as an actor would. I was also trying to approximate how a lawyer might think as he or she looked at the text.

In fiction, if I‘m telling a story in the third person I might become my grandfather. He was great at telling stories. He was a natural raconteur (of course, he was Irish). Or I might assume another persona. But all writing comes from someone and I have to become that someone in order to write.

You might say, “Why not be yourself?” The answer is I do. But I emerge from the totality of the writing, the sum and not the parts. To take an example from fiction, ask yourself if you think the narrative voice found in the novels of Cormac McCarthy is the same voice of he uses in the world, the one you would hear him use in a casual conversation or while in a grocery store. His narrative voice comes, I believe, from a persona or character he assumes as he writes. It is both him and not him.

It’s just “let’s pretend”

All writing is acting. Even a narrator is a character – even if he or she is passively objective. A classified ad requires writing and that means it, too, requires a persona/character. For your wallet’s sake, that character will practice brevity. Business writing requires a business person’s approach and their language, unless they are speaking to customers when what they need is a customer’s voice and point of view.

You don’t need to go to acting school. You just have to remember what it was to be a child and playing “let’s pretend.” You need to be the voice you’re using.

A question often asked in marketing about companies, products and services is, “What’s your story?” The other question you need to ask is, “Who’s telling my story?” This second question is often taken to mean whether the teller is you, your customers or your competition. The other way to look at it is, if the answer is that you are telling your story, who are you and do you sound like who you think you are?

It may be that, if there is any trick to writing, it’s in not writing like a writer. That may be the one persona you can’t put on. Unless, I suppose, you’re writing for other writers. But that would be kind of boring, don’t you think?

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

A follow-up bonus writing rule

by Bill on February 23, 2010

Columbo - "Just one more thing ..."I had a bonus rule, number #11, included in yesterday’s post, Ten off-the-cuff writing rules. I deleted it because I started trying to explain my meaning and realized it should be a separate post.

Here is that rule:

#11 For marketing purposes, you may wish to refer to yourself as a business writer, a fiction writer, a web writer, SEO writer, technical writer and so on. There are many kinds of writer you can choose to be. However, that is just marketing. Writers write. Everything. You only describe yourself as a particular kind of writer because that is what someone willing to pay you wants to hear. When that person wants a copywriter, you’re a copywriter. When they want a web writer, you’re a web writer. But you are a writer. Period.

To clarify: Don’t confuse interest and knowledge with writing. You may have no interest in technical writing (it can be pretty dull). You may feel ill-qualified to write it because the subject matter is one you know little of (though keep in mind, there are subject matter experts with whom you consult). A certain kind of writing may have certain requirements and constraints that you need to keep in mind while writing, but writing is still writing.

For a certain job you may need to describe yourself as a “kind” of writer – technical, copy, web and so on. But writing is writing. You are a writer.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Keywords and subject lines

by Bill on February 14, 2010

Gmail inbox sample (admira.wordpress.com)Search engines aren’t the only ones looking for keywords. We are too. In a sense, we are search engines as we look for what we’re trying to find or we meander over the web hoping to stumble on something interesting.

When we look, we look for words and phrases.

I‘m thinking of email newsletter subject lines in particular. From what I see coming into my inbox, the majority die on the vine because they have poorly composed, poorly thought through subject lines. In other words, they likely go straight to the trash folder without ever being opened.

The point of a subject line is to get someone to open the newsletter. If most people are like me, and I believe they are, they get loads of emails, including spam, and therefore just glance at what is unread in their inbox. They only see a few keywords, usually those at the very beginning – the first three, maybe five. And what do they see?

  • Now available at …
  • Great ways to save…
  • What’s New this week…
  • Company Name newsletter for…

None of these would get me to open an email. They are all so generic it’s unlikely I would continue on to see if the subject line redeemed itself with something interesting. The last one really makes me crazy.

Anyone that gets email knows the From field comes first and it clearly displays your name.

If I was to send out a newsletter, or any email, people would see Writelife in the From field. Why on earth would I then begin a subject line with, “Writelife presents a unique …?” Why include the name at all? The shorter a subject line, the better. Every word counts. This is one case where repetition is definitely not a good idea.

How should a subject line read?

I would try to get the important words right at the start. For example, “Fix your PC…” or, “Secure your documents…” or, “Download Olympic performances …” I would also try to make my subject line as short as possible (although, admittedly, I often fail at this).

Keep in mind that many people get their email on their iPhone, Blackberry or other mobile device. In most cases, they’ll only see the first two or three words. “Great ways to …” isn’t going to get the job done.

In the case of a newsletter, the content and the audience determine the subject line. In many of the newsletters I’ve worked on (usually guided by marketing departments), the emphasis is on what they want people to read rather than on what their customers want to read. And it usually shows in the open rate.

You have to look at the newsletter content and find what would most interest your audience and determine how to best present that in a subject line. The subject line doesn’t sell; the subject line gets people into the store, so to speak. It encourages them to open the newsletter.

Let’s say I’m doing a newsletter based on my last few Writelife posts (not the best example because I’m not really selling anything). I might have a subject line like:

(Note: obviously, subject lines don’t have links. These are included for anyone curious about see the actual posts.)

The line is short and in many cases the second part won’t be seen on a handheld device. But it does have keywords near the front. However, we could make it better if we look at the keywords, which are: respect, work, Seth Godin. Of those, which would garner the greatest interest? The subject line should be:

  • What’s Seth Godin do?; respect and work

If you insist on including your company name (which I disagree with) at least have the good sense to put it at the end – after the important terms:

  • What’s Seth Godin do?; respect and work | Writelife

Of course, this version risks having people think the second part relates to the first. These kinds of subject lines are a result of trying to do too much, say too much, reach too many people. You can’t be everything to everyone, so make some choices. To me, the best version of this reads this way:

  • What’s Seth Godin do?

I’m not basing this on any data I have at hand. I’m sure there is data out there that either supports or refutes this approach. But my intuitive sense says this is the way to go. It’s definitely based on how I personally view emails and newsletters.

It should be noted that while I’ve been writing about email and subject lines the majority of this is applicable to blog post headlines, tweets on Twitter and most things web related. (And I’m guilty in not practicing what I preach.)

What do you think?

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

The yin and yang of communications

by Bill on February 8, 2010

Communications is made up of two halves, something like yin and yang. I call them the positive side and the negative side. In using a word like “negative” we immediately think it is something bad. But it isn’t. Both sides can be done well or poorly so the positive side, done wrong, can be very bad. The negative side, done very well, can be very good. Let’s see if I can explain what I mean.

What I call the positive side is essentially the message we want to get across. Sometimes this is referred to as marketing “happy talk” but that isn’t what it is unless it is done badly. Happy talk is empty. It lacks substance. It’s the kind of communication that tells potential customers your product is “cool” or “awesome” or “great” without ever saying why. In other words, it doesn’t explain the benefits – why a customer would want it. It’s actually negative communication because it’s characterized my absence.

Negative communication is a bit dodgy but it can be summed up this way: it’s all the material we don’t provide because it isn’t overtly about promoting the product or service. In terms of the positive side, it’s all the material that would have made the marketing communications you did substantive – it’s the material that would have explained why something was “awesome.”

Put another way, everything is communications – sometimes good, sometimes bad. Even no communication is a kind of communication. It tells customers you don’t care, or don’t know, or don’t have the courage to say, or that you are so slap-dash you forgot.

A good question to ask is, “What am I not saying?” One of the hardest things to figure out is what is missing in our communications. Are all the I’s dotted, the T’s crossed?

I came across an example the other day where a TV ad for a site made reference to something very specific (amongst several specifics). When I went to the site, however, I couldn’t find it, despite my searching. Eventually I found it – using Google. What do you imagine my impression of the company was?

This is what I mean by negative communication. It’s everything we neglect or choose not to say.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

What does Seth Godin do?

by Bill on February 5, 2010

Seth GodinI’ve been following Seth Godin’s blog for years. I’ve been reading his books for years. (I think I started with Permission Marketing.) However, as he himself describes in a different context, we often experience a dip and so, as with anything that goes on over a long period of time, it waxes and wanes. Thus I read his blog almost daily for a while then other things get my attention or I get too busy and I go through a period of not following his posts, or seeing them only occasionally.

And then my interest renews and I start following daily again. I get past my “dip.”

Why do I read I him? I asked myself this question today while drinking coffee and freezing my butt off as I paced around my deck. (The pacing was about keeping warm; being outside was about waking myself up.)

I think I know the answer. Although often referred to as a “marketing guru,” and strictly speaking I suppose that is what he is, I don’t think that is what he is or does. What he does is observe and describe human behaviour – and that’s why I find him interesting.

You could probably say all marketing is about this, as well as using what we learn from it to create interest in products or services and ultimately stimulate sales. But it’s often at a distance, as if we’re speaking of something that is “other,” of which we aren’t a part.

From what I’ve seen, when the various aspects of marketing are discussed there is a degree of detachment. Maybe it’s the way we speak of it, maybe it’s because there is a heavy focus on numbers and charts. It’s a cerebral way of seeing it.

With Seth Godin, I sense the visceral. While the head may agree or disagree, it is the agreement or disagreement in the gut that is strongest. I’ll read something that he is describing, such as The Dip, and I know it’s true because I’ve experienced it or seen it in others. Often, he’ll describe something we’re already aware of, if only intuitively, but we’ve yet to formulate or articulate it. But there is an element of recognition we experience in what he says.

I came across one of his posts today, Random rules for ideas worth spreading, and it was the same thing. There is a list and much of it might be called common sense, even obvious in some cases, but each item resonates in one way or another with what we observe either in ourselves, in others or both. My favourite was this one: “Are you a serial idea-starting person? If so, what can you change to end that cycle? The goal is to be an idea-shipping person.” Yes, I know that one.

In his books Seth speaks of being remarkable, of tribes and now, in his latest book, of being a linchpin (Linchpin: Are You Indispensable?). Regardless of the words used, each term (and the ideas contained in the books in which they’re found) are born out of the observation and understanding of human behaviour, something we recognize as true in our guts.

I think that is the key to his success and, while I don’t know this to be true, I’d suggest at the core of what he does is a love of and fascination with people. I suppose someone could achieve success without this but I can’t help feeling that to do so would require so much more effort.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Social media and passing fancies

by Bill on January 27, 2010

iPhone apps (cbc.ca)I began thinking today about social media and all the tools we see. There is something of a digital cornucopia of “stuff”: Facebook, Twitter, iPhone apps, Twitter apps, aggregators and on and on. New ones pop up everyday.

Accompanying all of these is the hype. There is the marketing from the companies that bring them out, the reviews from the various “spheres” and the conversations we carry on about them, online and off. “You can do this with it.” “You can do that.” “You can also do these things too.”

It all sounds marvelous unless you are hearing from the contrarian perspective in which case the tools and apps are frivolous or any number of other negative descriptives.

What I was wondering about, however, was how we actually use them. Are we using them just because everyone else is and they are the distraction of the month? Are we using them to a productive end? How are we using them … or more to the point, I suppose, why? What, if anything, do we get from them?

I’m also thinking less about the business aspect and more about the general population that uses them. There are a number of ways we use them as far as business goes, some effective, some not so much. But how and why do people use them, that big consumer base that gets talked about so much? I’m sure there are a number of answers to this but I also wonder if they all don’t dovetail into one or two general answers, a theme that shows how those different hows and whys all relate.

Despite all the things that can be done with social media tools, from sending messages to playing games and grabbing weather information quickly, I think all the whys can be summed into a single word: people.

There are supportive words that follow from that one word: connection, communication and information.

Regardless of all the flim flam with video, audio, Flash and games, for people to find the Internet (and social media) to be of any relevance for them, those four words need to be considered essential: people, connection, communication and information.

Even a silly video involves those words since it is pointless without connection to other people which, when that occurs, communicates and even passes along information, at least to the extent that it says something about you. (Just as it says something about those who respond to it.)

Everything else, while amusing and entertaining, is just a passing fancy. In the world of social media, I suspect that if you don’t keep those four words paramount in your mind you run the risk of becoming quickly forgettable.

***

I should add that I don’t think I’m saying anything new here or something I haven’t either said or alluded to before. I’m probably repeating myself with this post. But repetition is not a bad thing since it is often through repetition that we best remember.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Puzzled by web design and services

by Bill on January 22, 2010

I’ve been looking at a few sites offering web design and related services and I find myself puzzled, even a bit alarmed. This is not due to what I found (though in some cases it was) but by what I did not find.

I have seen absolutely no reference to content. Do the sites magically populate themselves? If not, who does it? If the client does, is there no consultative service to advise them on what and how to put the content in or maintaining it? If the client doesn’t handle the content, who does? If the web design company does, who handles the research, the writing, the editing? Have they a background in it? Are they good?

There were no references to social media other than “Follow us on Twitter” and/or something similar for Facebook. If a company is moving to or revamping an online presence, isn’t this a crucial aspect? Where do they get help, direction or advice on this?

I found a few web design/web services companies with URLs that required the www preface. Personally, I never use it anymore. I just type in something like writelife.net. No http. No www. I suspect many people are like me. If so, there are a lot of people going to a “page not found” message when they type in the web company’s address. I can’t believe that builds a lot of confidence in a web design company’s awareness of how the web works.

I also found quite a few companies using dated language. In the world of business, marketing and technology, terminology changes almost daily and if you rely on today’s clichés you become tomorrow’s anachronism. Surely “offering solutions” is at least ten years old. I believe current terminology should be avoided at all costs but I do realize it is often unavoidable. But this puts the onus on you to continually assess your site and see where and how it requires revamping. In the online world, static means death.

None of the above is true of all web design sites. Hopefully, I just stumbled on a few that skewed my perception. It is worrying though. On the other hand, from my perspective, maybe it holds the promise of some work. :-)

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Fifteen social media observations

by Bill on October 2, 2009

I’ve been meaning to do this for a while. So here goes:

1 - No one cares about your brand.

2 – Given number 1, you need to find something people do care about.

3 - No one cares about your company.

4 - Given number 3, you need to represent your company with a human face which means a style, an interest, a tone and hopefully a name – Bob, Mary, Fred, Susan – along with a last name and, somewhere, what their relationship to your company is (CEO, VP Marketing, janitor, whatever).

5 - Don’t post on Twitter, Facebook or your blog too frequently. And don’t post too infrequently. How do you tell? Have people in your company following you and get their opinions. Better yet, ask the people who are following your Twitter feed, Facebook feed, blog feed. People like being asked their opinion. It gives them a sense of involvement.

6 - It’s not only okay to discuss things in your feeds that are unrelated to your company, products and services, it’s probably a good idea. See numbers 1 and 3.

7 - If you are only posting you are wasting your time.

8 - Given number 7, get off your butt and start following and commenting and forwarding other feeds.

9 - Using social media is cheap only if you consider it in dollar terms.

10 - The cost of social media is time. See numbers 5, 6 and 8.

11 - Some social media campaigns have worked (I’ve heard) but these are usually clever, gimmicky campaigns.

12 - The problem with number 11 is that they wear thin fast and, without something substantive behind them, they die (as do you) on the vine.

13 - Do not trust anyone describing him or herself as a social media expert.

14 - There are no social media experts (see number 13). Everyone is making it up as they go along.

15 - Pontificating grandly is the favourite social media pastime. This post is a very good example.

And there they are. Feel free to add your own in the comments. :-)

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Everyday people always entertaining

by Bill on September 20, 2009

I’ve recently started a project that requires a certain amount of reclamation work. By that I mean my memory is pretty awful so I’m doing some work to reclaim my memory by going through my various blog archives. It’s been something of a revelation.

I have three blogs: this one, another devoted to movies and a personal blog that is currently on an extended hiatus as I decide what to do with it. Writelife (ostensibly about writing, social media and so on) and the movie blog both have a specific focus (and sometimes not so specific). To some degree, they are self-censored in that career-related people, companies and whoever else can see them and I don’t want to come across as too much of a raving blog lunatic. (I’m not always successful in that regard.)

The third, the personal one, is pretty much me uncensored. In fact, it’s on hiatus right now as I consider the wisdom of this, consider the wisdom of trying to manage three blogs and I try to figure out what to do with the blog name, which is a stupid one I dreamed up at the spur of the moment a few years ago. But all that’s an aside …

Here’s the thing: Of the three, the most interesting is hands-down the personal one. It is the one where, when I’m on my game, I have the best writing. It’s easily the funniest. And when I use the word “censor” in connection with it I’m not suggesting there is anything that needs censoring. I use the f-word more frequently there, in the older posts, more so than I would now. But other than that, it’s largely tame stuff. The censor business was simply considering how I appeared to others online, at least in the first impressions sense. From a career perspective, was it a good idea?

Going through the archives (and those of the other blogs) I see certain themes recurring. (That is my diplomatic way of saying I’m repetitive.) And I see that there is one thing in particular I’m interested in above anything else: people.

Why is the personal one more interesting than the other two? Because it is specifically about people: me as a people (obviously) and others as people. That’s also why it’s funny, at least to me.

The other two blogs come at the subject of people sideways. Here, on this blog, by discussing marketing, social media, marketing, communication and so on. On the other blog, via movies which, when they are good movies, are always good because they are good stories and good stories are always about people.

I found it interesting that among the posts in the personal blog archive there were a few that sounded very similar to recent ones posted here. The critiques of social media today are very similar to the critiques of blogs from several years ago, prior to the proliferation of social media tools and when personal blogs were either at their height or beginning to fall from that height.

What is most interesting to me, however, is the writing (to me) is so much better. I don’t think it relates to the writing as writing but to what the writing was about and how it went about it. Posts about events and topics that, on the surface, were utterly trivial, were actually the most engaging.

So once again, as often happens for me, I’m rethinking what I rethought a while ago.

As for the project I referred to above, my fingers are crossed that I have the tenacity to complete it. That is always the hardest part.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Twitter, statistics and speculation

by Bill on August 31, 2009

Allow me to inebriate some sober numbers … When we talk about Facebook and Twitter, cars and bikes, business and the arts, we are always self-referential. We think a certain way, we use something in a certain way, we believe this may occur in a certain way … and we forget that the world doesn’t always think like us. It’s a cliché, but everybody is different and just because we see something one way or use something in a particular manner, it doesn’t necessarily follow that every one else will.

I was thinking about this when I read the post, 10 Sobering Twitter Statistics. Some people see Twitter as a marketing tool, some as a tool for news, some as way to enhance their real estate business (yes, another marketing view but perhaps also organizational). And there are some who use it for non-commercial reasons and some who just use it for silliness. The tool itself has no inherent purpose beyond what each of us brings to it. For many, there is no purpose.

I was also thinking about statistics and surveys and all the data we collect. Often, maybe more often than not, the information they best provide concerns how much more we need to learn. They highlight what we don’t know. And they are usually interpreted from a particular point of view, at least at street level.

I saw a tweet, followed by a retweet, for that posting titled, 10 Sobering Twitter Statistics. Use of the word “sobering” suggests there is something not very good in these numbers. But I thought, what if there were? What if there were other ways of seeing these? So I’ve put together an alternative — 10 other ways of seeing sobering Twitter stats:

  • 94% of Twitter users have under 100 followers (which may suggest quality has more meaning than quantity)
  • 90% of tweeting is done by 10% of Twitter users (Which is very much like the real world: 90% don’t call radio stations, 90% don’t write letters to the editor, most don’t speak out at town halls, etc. Also, some people don’t speak because they are listening.)
  • 60% of new Twitter users fail to return the following month (But since we don’t know who they were we have no idea whether they would have brought anything of value to the Twitter streams nor do we know why they didn’t return.)
  • 50% of Twitter accounts are inactive (Haven’t tweeted in the past week) (See the previous item)
  • 40% of tweets are “pointless babble” (As opposed to … TV? Blogs? The street? Boardrooms? Sounds like it reflects the real world.)
  • 35% of Twitter users have 10 or fewer followers (Personally, though I have loads of acquaintances, that is about how many really close friends I have. Maybe I’m tweeting for reasons other than to pitch something?)
  • 21% of Twitter accounts are empty placeholders (And what would the percentage of domain names as placeholders be? Have these accounts been abandoned? Are they in place to reserve for a future presence as a company stream, a person’s stream, a campaign stream or to prevent others from getting a name that might have an impact on theirs? Do we have any idea? For all we know it could be one obsessive compulsive guy trying over and over to open one account that is “just right.”)
  • 11% of Twitter users interact with brands on Twitter (The world, unfortunately, will always have a certain percentage of really stupid people. As I’ve written before, we don’t follow brands. We follow people. If you find a brand with a lot of followers I would hazard a guess that they aren’t interacting with it but with each other.)
  • 9% of Twitter users don’t follow anyone at all (Maybe they have lives beyond the Internet? Maybe they have no interest – just took the name because its theirs and they didn’t want someone else to have it? Maybe they haven’t found anyone worth following? Maybe they don’t know how?)
  • 3% of followers click on links tweeted (Does this include retweets? More to the point, how many links do we come across in a day – on web pages, in emails, on Facebook and so on? How many of those do we click? Is 3% about average? High? Low?)

And that’s it. Accurate assessments? Probably not. But you never know! But it’s worthwhile questioning the assumptions we bring to topics like these.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }