Long, scrolling salesletters are dying. It’s a fact. There are two main reasons for this. Remember, I said an evolution and a revolution are currently taking place. And both of these are contributing to the death of the salesletter.
The evolution is this: users are demanding for better quality, more content, more proof, less hassles and greater interactivity. New technologies therefore help to enable that experience. And really, that’s what it’s all about:
It’s about the experience.
As more and more people enter the web, get broadband, and gain access to groups of people who they can connect and interact with, as well as with the preponderance of applications that fight for that person’s attention and interaction, the long-scrolling salesletter no longer works as effectively as it used to.
Recent research and split-tests show this to be true. It’s not that less copy will sell more (although that may be the case). It is how that copy is delivered.
The web is not like radio, TV or direct mail. It’s all of them combined, with the added element of interactivity that other media don’t have, which is what makes the Internet so unique.
So it’s only natural that the web, which initially started out as a digital form of direct mail, is evolving into a multifaceted, interactive, multimedia experience.
But that evolution is happening not just because it was a natural, unfettered progression of the medium. (It is, but only in part.) It’s also brought on because, like it or not, people are slowly getting fed up.
You see, there’s a quiet revolution going on.
The web is literally crammed with poorly-written, long-scrolling salesletters that swipe each other in incestuous markets that are becoming more and more bombarded by, and tired and leery of, these red-headlined, hard-hitting, salesy, hype-filled, multicolored, stock-graphic-donned web pages.
The snowball has just begun rolling downhill. More and more people who hit online salesletters are going to be turned off by them, and there’s no end in sight — unless, of course, your salesletter is:
- For a product launch that has created wide appeal, delivered quality content and generated massive anticipation beforehand (think of the multitude of product launches using social proof, buzz and joint ventures);
- For an existing, highly targeted market that has an existing relationship with the author, and established a certain level of trust and credibility with them already (think of targeted email lists); or,
- For pre-sold markets, often through existing relationships (think of joint ventures or affiliates notifying their lists about the salesletter, and recommending the product to them).
But even in these cases, I submit that salesletters are falling out of favor as well. Lately, we’ve been bombarded with product launches. We’ve been hit with opt-in pages. And our inboxes have been inundated with long, template-based, copied-and-pasted emails promoting the “next best thing.”
Add to the mix the constantly increasing number of spams, scams and snake oils, as well as their salesletters that look as if they were put together by preschoolers, it’s no wonder that people are demanding more credibility.
However, if and when they do work, I also submit that many people do not read them from tip to toe. (This is not just a wild guess. Tracking studies as well as market research have proven this to be true.)
Some of these launches, like the salesletter I wrote for TrafficSecrets.com for example, are so anticipated — and the market so targeted, primed and pumped — that, even if the salesletter uses well-written long copy, a great percentage of the people will simply skip it and look for the “buy now” button.
Now, are salesletters still important during product launches? Absolutely.
While it’s important to be sensible and realize that the copy isn’t the predominant factor behind the success of a well-executed product launch, I think it’s just as important to understand that the salesletter is indeed crucial, and that it’s not the purpose of the salesletter but its presence that makes it so.
I did a call with Sterling Valentine and Mike Morgan about the whole salesletter-for-product-launch phenomena, and posted the recording on my blog at Supportibles.com. In it, we offered proof that salesletters during an anticipated launch can outsell a short or poorly written one.
But my thinking is that the market wanted a salesletter as a way to answer specific questions they had (and used the salesletter more as a reference tool than a persuasion tool), and to feel more secure about their buying decision.
Granted, some people will read the salesletter. But many will only read certain sections, and most won’t even read it at all. I do this myself: I skip the bulk of it, scan for specific pieces of information I need, or just look for the order link.
(If I can find a simple review elsewhere, whether it’s an email, a blog post, a video or even a demo, that’s even better — of course, that’s if I didn’t get one before hitting the salesletter in the first place. It saves me time from having to wade through a mass of copy to finally get to the information I really want.)
Nevertheless, here’s what I mean when I say that the mere existence of the salesletter is part of the marketing process. I call it “UPA,” or an unconscious paralleled assumption. That is, people unconsciously assume there’s a parallel between one part and its whole.
For example, if a retailer has dusty shelves, people will be turned off and likely never buy from it — even if, unbeknownst to them, the product and customer service are great. Why? It’s because people will tend to conclude, “If they can’t take care of themselves, how in the world are they going to take care of me?”
The reason is, people want to feel secure in their purchasing decision. Similarly, the salesletter makes the prospect feel comfortable about buying from it, whether they actually read the letter or not at all.
Look at it as a sort of “safety net,” if you will.
They can go back to the salesletter at a later time, they can use it as a backup, or they can skim it for pertinent bits, even after they make the purchase. They also think that, “If the author took great care in selling the product (or in this case, took the time to write a salesletter), then they will take great care of me.”
On a call several weeks ago dedicated to “online predictions” by top marketers, five of the most well-known marketers joined in to prognosticate about the future of the Internet in 2007. One of them was my friend John Reese. John threw in his “death of” spin by calling his prediction “the death of ugly websites.”
Long-scrolling copy that’s poorly written and poorly designed is pushing people away. Why? It’s because they are communicating a lot more to your audience than just the words — albeit unconsciously.
In this case, the prevailing UPA is that the salesletter, if it looks as if it was put together hastily, poorly and clumsily, with no care given to its quality or presentation, then the product must be just as shoddy.
Add to all that the fact that there are so many shoddy-looking salesletters out there, particularly those selling scams and downright poor-quality products, a well-written salesletter that’s pithier, properly formatted, and professionally designed will stand out from the crowd almost instantly.
But I’m getting ahead of myself.
The point being, long-copy salesletters are just not as appealing anymore. But don’t just blame the copy or the copywriter. Let’s not forget the reader, too. In today’s fax-email-microwave world, our time is becoming fast-paced, overburdened, and significantly scarcer.
Bombarded by marketing messages and applications all competing for our attention, we’re under an enormous amount of pressure. Even with all the new technologies that are supposed to help us organize our time more effectively, it’s only getting worse and not better. (Remember the “ping factor?”)
Let me ask you a question: how many salesletters have you read, word for word, from beginning to end? Answer that question honestly, now, even with salesletters from which you’ve actually bought.
Not many, if any, I’m sure.
Granted, a reason may be the fact that the salesletter may have been poorly written, untargeted or uninteresting. But even when they’re not, with so much taxing our time nowadays, reading it all is just too labor-intense.
When you’re faced with a 5,000, 3,000 or even a 1,000-word salesletter, reading anything that long, particularly if it looks anything like a salesletter, seems incredibly daunting — even just scanning through it can be exhausting.
Shorter salesletters are more effective. That is, pithy, brief, to-the-point copy is showing better results in split-tests than the converse. But be careful, here. When I say “shorter” copy, I don’t mean less copy.
What I mean is, less textual copy.
Salesletters offering even more content but delivered in other ways are actually outpulling long-copy salesletters with endlessly scrolling text.
Here’s an example: you may have a 3,000-word salesletter on one hand, and on the other you may deliver that same message but with 800 words of text, a 200-word sound bite, and a 2,000-word video (which could very well end up in delivering even more copy when all these formats are combined).
Long-copy salesletters don’t have to be shorter. I’m a big believer in long copy and will continue to be. However, long-scrolling copy is being replaced by a sales message that delivers the same if not more copy but in different ways.
Why? Again, it’s because the Internet is different than other media. A web page no longer has to mimic a direct mail piece. It doesn’t need to.
As a matter of fact, because of all the options the Internet offers, you now have the ability to deliver even more copy than you would, say, in a dense-copy display ad, a direct mail piece or a TV infomercial. Plus, the Internet has grown in popularity precisely because it offers so many different options.
(Remember all the talk a few years ago about “convergence?” The buzz may have died, but we’re definitely seeing media converging right now. Just look at all the music stations you can now “listen to” on satellite TV, or all the TV shows you can now watch on your computer, on the Internet.)
Look at the evolution: you can only read print. Radio is a step up from print, as you can listen to it. Television is another step up, as you can watch it, too. But the Internet is yet another step up, above and beyond all of those things, because you can read, hear, watch and interact with it, as well.
Some people learn better by watching… others, by listening… and others, by doing. The Internet therefore communicates more effectively because it allows people to respond to information in the way they feel most comfortable with.
So why not give it to them?
(This is important, so let’s look at this more closely.)