Surely you've seen the spell-checker poem - and appreciated it because you understood too well the way that lovely tool can save your butt, or can it.
There are infinite variations on the spell-check ditty, and seemingly infinite ways we can mess up our communication. Choosing the almost-right word is one way that may lead to late-night chuckles, courtesy of Mr. Leno's headline bloopers - or, if you're not so lucky, can lead to litigation.
The following appeared in Paula Morrow's latest newsletter to her writing brethren. It was written by her business and life partner, Bob Morrow, and I post it here with permission. (Thanks, Paula and Bob.)
Ordnance is bombs and artillery shells.
The first is dropped, the second shot.
An ordinance is local law
And you're supposed to obey it, like it or not.
-----------------------------
I get uptight when people - especially business people - are sloppy in professional communications. And while my clients really appreciate that, they're also well aware I'm not an artist. Fortunately for the art and craft of children's literature, Paula and Bob offer thorough critiques for first time and experienced authors. For more about their services, visit the website http://paulamorrow.com
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Don't Be That Guy
Am I tense about tense and subject agreement? Yep. When I see a headline like:
Check Out an Employee Before You Hire Them
I think, 'fly-by-night company, or just plain sloppy?' Either way, it's not confidence-inspiring.
Business owners/managers, please hear this: your website should direct a reader's attention to the message, not to your grammatical errors. Trust me, I'm not a lone word snob. Those blunders will cost you potential customers. Business. Mooo-lah.
Have a professional writer, proofreader, high school English teacher, or a good high school English student (!) review your site for gaffes like the one above. Especially if you don't see the problem with the example above.
There. I'm done ranting for the day.
Check Out an Employee Before You Hire Them
I think, 'fly-by-night company, or just plain sloppy?' Either way, it's not confidence-inspiring.
Business owners/managers, please hear this: your website should direct a reader's attention to the message, not to your grammatical errors. Trust me, I'm not a lone word snob. Those blunders will cost you potential customers. Business. Mooo-lah.
Have a professional writer, proofreader, high school English teacher, or a good high school English student (!) review your site for gaffes like the one above. Especially if you don't see the problem with the example above.
There. I'm done ranting for the day.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Practical Intro to Using Social Media
Outback Steakhouse is one company that's gotten a bang for its buck using Twitter and Facebook. But scads of companies are wasting their time (and $$) on social media "campaigns" that are just so much cyber-waste.
If you're in marketing/advertising/pr (or advising someone who is) I urge you to read this marketing brief from motivelab, which, before it launches into some very practical advice, acknowledges that social media is just good-old-fashioned word-of-mouth with a much speedier delivery mechanism, thanks to current technology.
Why it's worth the download and some thoughtful consideration: it reminds us how to use the old tried and true marketing theories online, on mobile devices, and such. Clarify your positioning is good advice that will never go out of style; figuring out how to do it (and not muck it up) using social media vehicles is what writers need to know, now.
As the article points out, very wisely, "Ultimately, your most influential audience are human beings, not computers, so don't let your SEO ambitions take the life out of your blog."
Of course, I translate that sentence into "content is still king." (If you've been paying attention, you're not surprised.)
If you've got a solid grounding in advertising or copywriting, do you need to read this? Yes. There are plenty of new twists marcomm writers need to understand.
For example, we still need to leverage the one- or two-percent response to convert good marketing into better sales.
See, the game hasn't changed; social networking is just like the new sharkskin-inspired swimsuit - and we all have to swim a little faster now.
If you're in marketing/advertising/pr (or advising someone who is) I urge you to read this marketing brief from motivelab, which, before it launches into some very practical advice, acknowledges that social media is just good-old-fashioned word-of-mouth with a much speedier delivery mechanism, thanks to current technology.
Why it's worth the download and some thoughtful consideration: it reminds us how to use the old tried and true marketing theories online, on mobile devices, and such. Clarify your positioning is good advice that will never go out of style; figuring out how to do it (and not muck it up) using social media vehicles is what writers need to know, now.
As the article points out, very wisely, "Ultimately, your most influential audience are human beings, not computers, so don't let your SEO ambitions take the life out of your blog."
Of course, I translate that sentence into "content is still king." (If you've been paying attention, you're not surprised.)
If you've got a solid grounding in advertising or copywriting, do you need to read this? Yes. There are plenty of new twists marcomm writers need to understand.
For example, we still need to leverage the one- or two-percent response to convert good marketing into better sales.
See, the game hasn't changed; social networking is just like the new sharkskin-inspired swimsuit - and we all have to swim a little faster now.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Long Arm of Search
If you're ready to write beyond basic SEO strategies, get to know your customer, and start focusing on the reasons behind their searches.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Online Copywriting
I have great faith in words. When used properly, they communicate.
When I hear phrases like "writing for the web" and "online copywriting" I cringe, or roll my eyes, or both. (My anti-wrinkle cream really doesn't stand a chance.)
OK, disclaimer now delivered, today I'm pointing to an article I deem worth reading - even worth printing, but only if you promise to consult it once in a while. Deal? Ok.
Read this: The A-to-Z of online copywriting by Chris Lake.
As is true of almost every piece of formulaic writing, the content is stretched a bit thin here and there in order to suit the formula.
When Lake tells readers "Q is for Quality," I wholeheartedly agree. Attracting quality visitors to your website is crucial; attracting visitors for the sake of visitors only lowers your conversion rate, eg, the percentage of visitors who do what you want them to do (buy/donate/sign up/add a link).
But Lake's "R is for Repetition" needs some serious tempering. Repetition is a very dicey - and largely personal - thing. Too much makes me suspicious, and I'll go elsewhere. I agree with Lake's advice to "ram your message home" but I think if you get your message across the first time (or two) you risk losing sales/visitors when you repeat ad nauseam. I'd substitute "R is for Reach," meaning your writing needs to reach out and touch/grab/wake up your reader. Connect with your readers, and you'll keep 'em.
Quibbles aside, Lake's article is packed with good advice, almost all of which (I feel compelled to mention) applies to all writing, anytime, anywhere. Even writing on the web. There. I'm repeating myself. Got the message?
When I hear phrases like "writing for the web" and "online copywriting" I cringe, or roll my eyes, or both. (My anti-wrinkle cream really doesn't stand a chance.)
OK, disclaimer now delivered, today I'm pointing to an article I deem worth reading - even worth printing, but only if you promise to consult it once in a while. Deal? Ok.
Read this: The A-to-Z of online copywriting by Chris Lake.
As is true of almost every piece of formulaic writing, the content is stretched a bit thin here and there in order to suit the formula.
When Lake tells readers "Q is for Quality," I wholeheartedly agree. Attracting quality visitors to your website is crucial; attracting visitors for the sake of visitors only lowers your conversion rate, eg, the percentage of visitors who do what you want them to do (buy/donate/sign up/add a link).
But Lake's "R is for Repetition" needs some serious tempering. Repetition is a very dicey - and largely personal - thing. Too much makes me suspicious, and I'll go elsewhere. I agree with Lake's advice to "ram your message home" but I think if you get your message across the first time (or two) you risk losing sales/visitors when you repeat ad nauseam. I'd substitute "R is for Reach," meaning your writing needs to reach out and touch/grab/wake up your reader. Connect with your readers, and you'll keep 'em.
Quibbles aside, Lake's article is packed with good advice, almost all of which (I feel compelled to mention) applies to all writing, anytime, anywhere. Even writing on the web. There. I'm repeating myself. Got the message?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Chuck Sambuchino Guides Us
Chuck Sambuchino of the F+W Guide to Literary Agents recently delivered a little gift to 20-plus writers and members of SCBWI (see, you really should join) at Borders in Montrose.
The gift he delivered? Good news, bad news, and laughs to make it all go down a little easier. From my admittedly incomplete notes:
On agents -- you should identify your top five agents and query them, not send out mass queries. And yeah, you can query agents and publishers simultaneously, but that's kind of dumb. (What good agent wants to rep a manuscript that's been turned down by 30 different publishers?)
On agents, 2 -- simultaneous submissions are OK, multiple submissions are not. (eg, don't submit three different manuscripts to the same agent - send your best!)
This surprised me -- we're so often cautioned NOT to call I was surprised to hear CS say it's OK to call a publishing house to say (honestly) "I loved the book [title here], can you tell me who the agent was who represented it?" and then query the agent.
Do your homework -- read blogs! Many agents have them.
Do your homework, 2 -- send your best work, and your best query. See QueryShark.com to sharpen your query.
The 5 versions of your book/manuscript you must develop:
1. Log line (the one-sentence description; include the who/what/where/when/why)
2. Pitch (arguably the most important part - the back-of-the-book description that piques interest in 3-5 sentences but does NOT give away the ending)
3. Short synopsis (1 page, single-spaced or 2 pages, double-spaced)
4. Long synopsis (approximately 1 page for every 45 pages of the book)
5. Manuscript (ms) (always double-spaced)
Why you need both short & long synopsis -- some agents specifically ask for one or the other; if the agent doesn't specify, you should send the better of the two with your query.
About the rules -- There are rules because there are rules. Deal with it. There are always exceptions to the rules but most rule-breakers get to make exceptions because first, they played the game by the rules. The first Harry Potter book in the series wasn't much longer than the average YA novel. Success allows for a lot of latitude, after the first book was out JK Rowling was a proven commodity, an exception who was allowed to break the rules.
Note -- the above rules apply to fiction. For non-fiction works, the rule is to make the BUSINESS CASE for your book.
The gift he delivered? Good news, bad news, and laughs to make it all go down a little easier. From my admittedly incomplete notes:
On agents -- you should identify your top five agents and query them, not send out mass queries. And yeah, you can query agents and publishers simultaneously, but that's kind of dumb. (What good agent wants to rep a manuscript that's been turned down by 30 different publishers?)
On agents, 2 -- simultaneous submissions are OK, multiple submissions are not. (eg, don't submit three different manuscripts to the same agent - send your best!)
This surprised me -- we're so often cautioned NOT to call I was surprised to hear CS say it's OK to call a publishing house to say (honestly) "I loved the book [title here], can you tell me who the agent was who represented it?" and then query the agent.
Do your homework -- read blogs! Many agents have them.
Do your homework, 2 -- send your best work, and your best query. See QueryShark.com to sharpen your query.
The 5 versions of your book/manuscript you must develop:
1. Log line (the one-sentence description; include the who/what/where/when/why)
2. Pitch (arguably the most important part - the back-of-the-book description that piques interest in 3-5 sentences but does NOT give away the ending)
3. Short synopsis (1 page, single-spaced or 2 pages, double-spaced)
4. Long synopsis (approximately 1 page for every 45 pages of the book)
5. Manuscript (ms) (always double-spaced)
Why you need both short & long synopsis -- some agents specifically ask for one or the other; if the agent doesn't specify, you should send the better of the two with your query.
About the rules -- There are rules because there are rules. Deal with it. There are always exceptions to the rules but most rule-breakers get to make exceptions because first, they played the game by the rules. The first Harry Potter book in the series wasn't much longer than the average YA novel. Success allows for a lot of latitude, after the first book was out JK Rowling was a proven commodity, an exception who was allowed to break the rules.
Note -- the above rules apply to fiction. For non-fiction works, the rule is to make the BUSINESS CASE for your book.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Skiing Letter Leaves Me Cold
Ted Ligerty, 2006 Olympic gold medalist, alpine skiing (and 2010 hopeful) needs a new copywriter.
I read his letter seeking donations for one reason: the lead was so bad, I thought it would make a good example of what NOT to do in a direct mail piece. I was right.
The lead was so bad I said - literally, out loud - "WHO CARES?!"
The offensive sentence:
If you had to guess, what would you say the most important time of the year is for a competitive alpine skier like me?
Do I care? no
Is it clever and/or crafty? no
Do I want to read more? no
Even before the letter failed, however, Ligety's list failed to deliver. Why did I get the fundraising plea? It's a mystery.
Am I a skier? no
Have I donated to the Olympic committee (or any related entity)? no
I haven't even entered a contest (that I know of) vaguely related to the Olympics.
Copywriting fails for a lot of reasons. In this case, it wasn't very good and it wasn't sent to the right audience.
Sorry, Ted, 'sno good.
I read his letter seeking donations for one reason: the lead was so bad, I thought it would make a good example of what NOT to do in a direct mail piece. I was right.
The lead was so bad I said - literally, out loud - "WHO CARES?!"
The offensive sentence:
If you had to guess, what would you say the most important time of the year is for a competitive alpine skier like me?
Do I care? no
Is it clever and/or crafty? no
Do I want to read more? no
Even before the letter failed, however, Ligety's list failed to deliver. Why did I get the fundraising plea? It's a mystery.
Am I a skier? no
Have I donated to the Olympic committee (or any related entity)? no
I haven't even entered a contest (that I know of) vaguely related to the Olympics.
Copywriting fails for a lot of reasons. In this case, it wasn't very good and it wasn't sent to the right audience.
Sorry, Ted, 'sno good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)