Roger Ebert Doesn’t Get It . . .

Hey Chris
Just finished your great post about Roger Ebert. He should read this and you should send it to him.
Here’s how.
He now works at home because of his illness and inability to speak without the aid of a computer generated voice.

He works for the Sun Times News Paper- City desk.
Their phone number is 312-321-3000. Just ask for Roger Ebert and you
will get his assistant if you are lucky.

You can email him this post at feedback@rogerebert.com

You might gain a client, and if you need a liason, I live in Chicago.
Roger Ebert is only a phone call away from me.

Great job and analysis. You just proved once again all the opportunity
that’s out there for a well trained PLM.

Regards,

Cheers! I’m a big Roger Ebert fan. He’s the only movie critic I listen to and if you read his writings… he is VERY smart. (Even though I think his political commentary is 100% backwards.)

I saw this plea for money as well. Looked very unattractive, even to a huge fan. Glad you took the time to help him out, and hopefully he’ll listen.

Spot on!

Moneyfingers Blog Reader Benefit #1: gain understanding of Chris’ process! Thanks, Chris.

Great post once again Chris! You’re a PRO.

Stunning job done there, Haddad! And you’ve demonstrated again that not only do you do this stuff supremely well, you can teach it too.

As Joel says, some high-calibre kudos and more is just a phone call away…

Eugenie

Laurie, Chris is awesome like that.

Chris that was amazing. Roger Ebert seems deathly afraid of “offending” any of his current visitors. Why he cares I don’t know. They not only make him no money, they cost him money.

Your sales letter keeps the same feel of not being a salesman, but gives benefits rather than what, and RSS feed that I can get for free?

What kind of a benefit is that?

I realize he is a movie critic and not a marketer but you’d think he had to be used to marketing himself to get viewers…

nice job, moneyfingers! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. Hope Mr. Ebert reads it and SPLIT TESTS it (as opposed to having his pride hurt)… you were kinda hard on him (or whoever wrote it).

I would definitely pay $5 for a year just to see the results of a real split test. hell, i’d pay $10!

BTW, when you coming to visit me & lovitch as a speaker at our InternetMarketing party?

Thanks for the comments, folks. I actually sent an email to Mr. Ebert’s feedback address (per Joel.) Who knows, maybe he’ll take a look.

@Marshall Wayne . . Yup. Didn’t want to go “hypetastic” on this since it’s not his audience and I don’t think Roger would respond well to that.

@David Gonzalez . . . DUDE! I have GOT to get down to Austin. I’m taking April off from travel but maybe in May or June I’ll pop down for a couple days and hang with you guys. You going to Yanik’s this year?

Just to go on record, I’m also a big fan of Roger’s writing and criticism (and admire how he’s dealt with his health problems over the last few years.) I think Marshall is spot on in saying that Mr. Ebert since to be afraid of offending his readership. But as those of us in the DM world know, the ones you offend are the ones who will never pay you anyway.

Chris,

Great job! It is amazing to me how much “market speak” is rarely written from the buyers perspective. Do you think thats a consequence of the “its all about me” generation?”

Robert

This is a great post – first time visiting through Marshall’s FB.

People are so afraid of asking for the sale but the ironic thing is that his post seems like he’s just asking for money instead of offering something of value for sale.

Chris…this was awesome! I read every word twice with a biting anticipation to get to the next word. This alone was worth a few thousand.

Unquestionably better, Chris. The value prop still feels a bit weak to me (but I’m not a big fan). Still seems as though I can get 80 percent or more of his content for free.

I’m with you there, Joe. I comment a couple times in the post that I think he needs to take a step back and rethink the offer. But given what was there that’s what I could come up with.

So how come you are giving away for free all this great advice to someone who cold well afford to pay big bucks for it?

Uhhh . . . cuz it’s good blog content (duh.)

And because even though Ebert probably *could* pay for it, it wouldn’t be worth it to build the value for him. I got stuff to do.

Chris,
My brother! You’re on point with your criticism of Ebert’s pitch. Look, man, there’s ONLY ONE ROGER EBERT!
There ain’t no other, and he’s got some raving fans of his who would rush the stage if Roger were to appear live somewhere. He really blew it here. He coulda made a mint!
But while I applaud your criticism of his pitch, I’ve got a comment about yours, too.
Specifically, I don’t see a reason in the world why anyone’s got to know, or would even care, about Ebert’s expenses. Why bring it up at all. It’s nobody’s business but his.
I think the right pitch is more like this:
“I’ve got tons of great content on my website for people who really like and love movies. Well, I have a confession. I’ve been holding out on you. I’ve got some insider info that I’ve been collecting for the last 25 years. My family, and my closest friends and colleagues have seen what I’ve got, and when they visit my home, we go through bits and pieces of it, never quite able to make a dent in the vast collection. They often can’t believe what they see, or what they hear about the stories behind it all. Well, for a very limited number of my best fans, I’m going to tell all, and let you into my secret closet of film memorabilia, history, and insider information.”
Now THAT is something real movie nuts would pay to get access too. And frankly, those should be his target market.
A few other points, that I won’t elaborate on too much:
* The more exclusive you make the club, the more people will pay to be in this private circle. He could be charging over $100 a year, EASY if he wanted to.
* The name needs to be changed to something a LOT more compelling than the Ebert Club.
* And the contents of the club? Well I’ll agree with you that they pretty much suck.
I think a huge part of the craft of developing new products is to first identify WHO the product is for, then WHAT would really turn them on, and finally give it an appealing NAME. When you do that, the offer itself — which is the collection of all of these elements — pretty much writes itself.
It seems like Ebert instead just talked to his techie web people in deciding what would go into this club. What a loss!
He turned a potential million dollar idea into a breakeven venture at best, and a money-loser more likely.
–Mark
http://www.TrafficAndConversion.com

Awesome post dude, you just gave Robert a free critique probably worth at least a thousand bucks

(And all of us the same )

I agree with the above comments – definitely get in touch with him and let him know the CORRECT way to write…

Jeremy Reeves
http://www.ControlBeatingCopy.com

Chris,

Thanks for sharing this great breakdown! Seeing how you approach the rewrite in a step-by-step fashion was tremendously valuable. This one is bookmarked for sure!

Solid post Chris! I appreciate it when you do critiques like this.

Hey Mark,

Fair points. I think when I wrote it I was thinking we could use the cost of the website as a decent “reason why” for him to create the club in the first place. Sort of like the old “tax sale” Jeff Walker used in one of his original launches (and that furniture companies around the world have used for years.)

That said, if I were actually advising Mr. Ebert on this I would make him take a step back and really think about what he’s got to offer that could be turned into a solid info product or continuity program. I think you’re 100% correct that $5 a year is kind of a “loser price” since it establishes such an incredibly low value for the service. He missed the mark. I didn’t quite nail the bullseye with my (hastily constructed between work projects) post, but think I showed the right direction at least that he should be heading in.

Of course the problem now is that the “cat is out of the bag” and millions of Ebert fans have been exposed to a low priced, badly sold and lousily constructed offer. If Roger wants to launch something better in the near future he’ll have to do some major work.

Great dissection & fix, Chris! Loved it. Thanks for sharing!

tl;dr

Chris–
This was a great post, and I actually found the link on Mr. Ebert’s Twitter feed! You made some great points that are helpful to anyone making a pitch for a new product (especially if that product is not [yet] making any money).

I’m already excited to weave some of these tips into my own pitches for the startup company I work for, but I wonder how to avoid making it sound *too* “pitchy.” I’ve crafted emails with many of your tips before, but some customers told me later that it sounded like a soapbox speech or something they’d see on a midnight infomercial. I immediately associate phrases like “This means,” for example, with the late Billy Mays.

I suppose my question is this: is there a risk of sounding too much like a door-to-door salesman with these kinds of pitches, or is it best to just give it your all, sell hard, and hope the true believers get your message?

Thanks again for the great article. It was a really interesting read!
-CH

^

This sounds like a web marketer wrote it… something that fails everytime. While Roger’s pitch may not have been a home run, it doesn’t sully his brand or reputation.

The magic thing about Ebert’s blog & twitter is that he treats his readers as smart, decent folk. I doubt he could stand to use marketing ploys even if he’s aware that would bring in that much more in revenue.

You know what doesn’t play in Peoria? The old “my wife is a heartless slave driver who expects me to spend all my money on her” tack.

Roger has more class than that.

I don’t know if you wrote that thinking of Roger’s wife, an attorney who has devoted the rest of her life to Roger’s care, or if it was a general “all women are heartless golddiggers” type comment.

The tone of this suggestion has ensured that I’m uninterested in reading anything else you might have to offer. I realize that it’s my loss, but there are plenty of people in your niche who respect women and don’t resort to tired old sexist cliche.

Chris,

Where to start? I understand you’re a marketing guy, but really? If Roger Ebert wrote like this, I’d have absolutely zero interest in reading his stuff (and he never in a million years would’ve won that Pulitzer). I agree that the perks he offers to Ebert Club members are pretty weak, but your rewrites are antithetical to what Ebert is all about. He’s genuine, and his readers love him for that. It would look totally out of character if he started sending marketing-y pleas for money. He’s an award-winning author and journalist, not a used car salesman.

I joined the Ebert Club not because I’m all that interested in the benefits, but because I have a huge amount of respect for and goodwill toward the man. Plus, the email you came up with was practically novel-length. As someone who does email marketing for a living, let me tell you: no one would read that entire wall of text.

Another gripe: for someone who calls himself a copywriter, your copy needs MAJOR help. What’s with all the unnecessary quotation marks and random, way-too-frequent ellipses? I caught more than one grammatical error as well. Seriously dude, this is just bad writing.

I feel bad slamming your post so hard, so I’ll end with a compliment: I really like your site design. Very pretty.

Sorry for the snark,

Amanda

I think you’re right. I actually paid up to join Ebert’s … club thing (see, I don’t even remember the name, even after your description of it), but it was most definitely DESPITE his marketing rather than because of it. And I live in Chicago. If he wants to get beyond the “Chicagoans who like local newspaper columnists and movies” segment, he’ll have to do a lot better.

Heh. Roger retweeted me and pointed towards this post. Expecting lots of fun on the blog today . . . and some “I HATE MARKETING PEOPLE” posts as well.

@Chris Haddad
RE: I HATE MARKETING PEOPLE

For the record, I *am* a marketing person. I just understand that there are better ways of doing it than infomercial-style.

I think that you could likely find some sort of a middle ground that wouldn’t offend the intelligentsia. In other words, use language that is more in line with their tastes, but still drives sales. It’s quite likely that traditional sales copy and marketing language would need to be tweaked, and the styling as well.

On that note, I think it’s fair to say that while their are “film snobs” there are also “marketing snobs” who think that direct marketing is the end all be all of marketing. It’s a great tool in the tool box, but there are others to be used as well.

I guess I’m going to have to be the sole dissenting voice, but I completely disagree. I gave Ebert my $5 ($4.99 actually, because of the amazing introductory price discount) based on the original request. I would not have done so with your proposed revision.

Ebert’s Twitter feed and blog since he lost his voice have become a wonderful place to read his honest thoughts and feelings. Emphasis on “honest”. His piece reads like a genuine request for support from a guy that many of us who read regularly feel is a digital “friend”, someone who isn’t putting on an act or trying to sell you something.

His request maintains that feel. He adds Ebert-y humor (the April Fool’s price increase is hilarious, and I can’t believe you removed it). He efficiently (important in a Twitter-based world) and cohesively (important in a blog-based world) explains what you get for your $5. And yet he manages to do all that without ever once sounding like he’s selling you something. He’s ASKING for your support, and in a social media world, that’s what’s important. If you need help from your friends, you don’t try to sell them on what they’re going to get from helping you, you just tell them why you need help and ask them to help you.

Your piece reads like, well, a marketing ploy (not surprisingly considering your job). The offers you make mention of display a lack of understanding of Ebert’s personality in the social media world: for example, you say that “I’ll be personally monitoring Private Forum discussion threads, replying to interesting comments throughout the day and giving a level of personal attention to this forum that I simply can’t do to the “Public” forum on the site.” If you read Ebert’s blog regularly, you’d know that he already reads every comment on his blog, personally approving them, and responds to many.

That’s my biggest problem with your piece: you don’t “get” Ebert. I gave Ebert my cash because I like his writing, I like the product he puts out, and I feel like I would like the guy if I met him in person. I feel that way because of the honest quality to his writing–which translated to his request–and which your marketing piece did not uphold.

(This comment isn’t intended to be insulting to you or your profession, by the way. I just think that in this particular case it doesn’t work, for the reasons given.)

(By the way, I found this post because Ebert posted a link to it. )

And while I was writing a whole bunch of other people dissented, so I guess I’m no longer sole, which I was when I started writing.

First, your use of quotation marks and capitalised words are infuriating. If your writing can’t indicate emphasis and tone, you’re a bad writer. You shouldn’t need to rely on gimmicky devices like that, and to be honest that put me off your proposal.
Second, I agree that Roger’s original needed work, but yours comes across slimy. Yes, I’m a film student and probably fit into the “I HATE MARKETING PEOPLE” category, but I’m exactly the kind of person your proposal should have been directed at. If you’re going to tweak a proposal so that it doesn’t appeal to the original, intended audience, then you’ve failed in what you set out to achieve. I read Roger’s, and I think ‘poorly sold, but genuine’. I read yours and I think, ‘I bet there’s some catch that will see my credit card charged $200 a month’. You don’t inspire confidence, and were Roger Ebert to use this proposal it would destroy any of the credibility that you talk about him possessing.

Yeah, come on, Chris! Roger Ebert has probably written more words than you, me, and our collective closest 100 (if not 1000) friends combined.

He’s a movie critic with a very large and likable personality who hasn’t developed one of those massive egos that seems to go with having such a large personality.

Most of all, he has unimpeachable integrity. I *TRUST* him and everything that he writes and I can only say that about a small handful of journalists.

He’s not trying to sell people who don’t already know him and his work. His pitch, while not converting everyone who goes to his site, works perfectly for those of us who have been reading his work for, what, twenty years now?

I *love* Roger’s writing. He sold me. We (including you) have a lot to learn from him. Thankfully, so much of his work is published and we will always be able to sit down and learn more from him.

In the meantime I thank all of the forces in the Universe that Roger writes what he writes instead of writing like a marketing copywriter.

Oh, and BTW, congratulations for sending more traffic to your site than you’ll probably ever get in any other way!

Whew! Looks like the storm of “Ebert Traffic” has abated. Thanks for commenting if you did (though I never do understand why people feel the need to be mean or get angry online. Something about a lack of accountability I suppose.)

Just to go on record (and I said this in my post) I’m a big fan of Roger, his film reviews and his writing in general. And think the way he’s handled his health problems over the last several years and come out “on top” is absolutely inspiring.

As for folks who don’t like direct marketing or psychological selling . . . uhh . . . not sure what to tell you kids. As a marketer, I’m really only interested in what works and in what I can do to give as much value to my customers as possible. I’m also a big fan of split testing and letting the market tell me what works.

Anyway, not going to get into a big and angry debate about Direct Marketing versus “other kinds” because I agree. . . they both have their place. Roger was using direct marketing (poorly) to sell his “Ebert Club” so I wrote a post about it that I thought my readers and members of my list would get something out of.

Oh, and for the folks who didn’t read the post but commented: Now THAT’S hilarious. =-)

He’s not a “sales guy” and that’s fine, but I saw an opportunity to create some teaching content out of his “Ebert Club” pitch.

I am another person who gladly gave Ebert my $5 based on his original proposal. If he had used the marketing suggestion on this page, I wouldn’t have given it a second glance. If you say this is the kind of approach that actually works on most people, I guess I believe you, because I’m not really a marketing expert or anything – but it absolutely does not work on *me*, and in fact really turns me off. I think many of the dissenters feel the same way, which is why we are Ebert fans and Ebert Club members.

Then again, I wonder if marketers who follow this type of approach actually care that they are alienating me as a consumer. Maybe I’m not their target demographic or my money isn’t good enough for them or something.

@Amanda – Breathe! It’s going to be OK. I swear. Someday you’ll get out of college and realize that grammar is not the most important thing. I fully admit that I’ve got the grammar chops of a retarded ferret . . . hasn’t hurt my career so far and I doubt it will in the future. =-)

@Kelly, @Max Thanks for your comments. Later.

@Amanda I will admit that, having reread it, there are a few CAPITALIZED words that are totally unnecessary. What can I say? I was on a “roll.” (UGH! Where did those quote marks come from? What the heck is going on with my computer?)

You’re a “fan” of Roger Ebert and you start your column off by calling him “dumb”? Very classless and enough to make me NOT want to read your idea, EVEN IF it was a good one. There’s a thing called “respect” that some of us in the world have toward those people of which we are fans, Mr. Haddad. Apparently you know nothing about this concept.

Furthermore, your writing goes on and on and on, which tells me that maybe you could learn a thing or two (or three and four) from Roger about writing a succinct piece that doesn’t drag on and bore your audience to death.

I believe that if you truly wanted to “help Mr. Ebert”, you would have written your piece with a much greater amount of respect towards him, even if you consider his experience in “internet marketing” to be lacking. You are VERY OBVIOUSLY trying to gain traffic to your site and that’s pathetic on so many different levels.

BTW, I have a MBA in marketing, so I would likely have been interested in reading your piece, were it not for your blatant disrespect.

PS: “All around great guy” my ass!! (just read your bio below)
PSS: I’m sure you won’t post this to your site, but I had to write it anyway…

Hey Berge,

Nah, people can say pretty much whatever they want on here and I won’t edit it out (unless they get racist, sexist, swear in a non-amusing manner or are actually threatening in some way. That gets you the ban hammer.)

I think it’s pretty cool that Roger has people who care so passionately about him. He’s been a part of a lot of our lives for decades and he’s earned the love.

It is funny to me that people who don’t read the blog post end up being the most vicious and active comment slingers. (Yours was relatively tame, but there were a few really angry ones earlier today.)

Reminds me of an interview I heard with James Cameron recently where he talked about conservative bloggers who tore “Avatar” to shreds and called it “un-American) without seeing the movie. (Great interview on NPR’s “The Treatment” if you haven’t heard it. And no, I’m not trying to compare myself to James Cameron. Though I think I’m taller.)

As far the traffic play, I understand your point about why it would look that way but . . . nah.

What am I going to do with all this Ebert traffic anyway? All 7,000 or so page views I’ve gotten on this blog today are pretty much useless to me. I don’t have any ads on the site, I don’t have a lead capture set up designed to appeal to Ebert lovers and it’s not like any of you guys are going to sign up for my email list or add me to your RSS reader (I actually got fewer newsletter sign ups today than I do on a typical day without the Ebert traffic. No lie.)

I’d rather have 500 folks who are interested in product launches, online marketing and copywriting than all the film folk in the world.

Do I want people to read my blog? Sure. The blog gets me exposure, speaking gigs, copy and product launch contracts etc.

Do I want you to read my blog? Not particularly. You’re welcome to if you want, but it’s not going to move the needle for me either way if you do.

Then again, dealing with the torrent of negative comments (and some very nice ones, thanks) adds noise to my day and chaff to my brain that I don’t particularly relish.

Ahh, well. Negative comments are part of the deal when you put something out online. “If you can’t take the heat move to Alaska,” as my Mom used to say. (OK, she never actually said that. I’m lying.)

As for being disrespectful to Roger Ebert: I actually doubt he would see it that way. Roger is a big boy who’s been banging around the media world longer than I’ve been alive (and earning a level of success in his chosen field that I truly admire.) I doubt he’s bothered by being called “kind of dumb” in a tongue in cheek way by some random marketing guy online.

Heck, if he was bothered why would he retweet my post in the first place? He knows full well that doing so directs the traffic hordes this way. If he was bothered he could have just ignored my post and voila! I instantly disappear from his world.

(Maybe Roger knew that the Ebert hordes would take me to task and figured that would be punishment enough? Man, it would be cool to be able to mobilize thousands of folks to insult and harangue my enemies with nothing but a tweet. Imagine the power! I wonder if I could get a bunch of folks to go after Gold’s Gym for me? I hate those guys and their sleazy business practices.)

I get the feeling that Roger has a lot more grace and sense of humor about this sort of thing than his readers do. You don’t stay in the public eye for as long as he has without developing a somewhat thick skin and sense of what’s actually important.

As for Roger’s original tweet that lead you here today:

Roger said:
“Roger Ebert Doesn’t Get it.” You know, I think Chris is right. http://j.mp/cFtGso

There’s really only two ways to read Roger’s tweet.

Either he actually does think I was right (because he’s not a marketer, doesn’t feel comfortable selling online, didn’t sell very many memberships etc. ) or he was being kind of sarcastic and biting (totally his right.)

If the first one is true . . .well, shouldn’t you guys be a bit nicer about it?

And if the second . . . why bother ranting and raving and flinging so many insults my way? Does it really accomplish anything?

Final tangent: Marketing MBA’s are interesting. I don’t know too many folks in the entrepreneurial marketing world who have gone that route (and have some friends who have nothing but negative things to say about MBA programs in general. Actually, one friend of mine who runs a $100 Mil a year company has a hard and fast rule *against* hiring folks with MBA’s. Guess she’s had some negative experiences in the past.)

I’m pretty neutral on them (seems like a good route to take if you’re interested in working for a big company. Not so much if you want to start your own venture or create more of a lifestyle business.)

Sincere question: What was the number one thing you learned in your MBA program that you use in your everyday life and career?

Dig the JoBlo site, by the way. Looks like a cool and profitable business.

Good luck and I apologize for offending you. Certainly wasn’t my intention.

(Hmm. I doubt I’ll get a response to this . . . or at least not a reasonable one. Will you prove me wrong?)

Amanda reminds me of the dozens of $40,000 per year English teachers that write to me and rip apart my grammar (or lack of correct grammar).

Hey, I actually learned the difference between “then” and “than” the other day.

Yippee!

Nicely said Chris . . . for folks who don’t know Chris, he really is a nice guy, although at time he can be a bit of a Mass-hole (what folks from the other New England states call folks from Massachusetts).

(Perhaps it’s his East Coast bluntness that’s setting people off? He doesn’t mean anything by it. When he says he respects someone, he means it.)

He also is passionate about helping people, sharing his experience and insight, and generally working at making the world a much, much better place.

Chris also is fantastic at helping people find their authentic voice–and I’ve see sites he’s done for wonderful people I know and he nails it. His first quick cut of web copy here was just that, and he even points out that it’s a quick and dirty and just for illustration:

“Something along the lines of . . . (Have made an effort to keep this relatively “Ebertized” and low hype . . . not 100% happy with it but it shows you what I mean.)”

So I guess what there is for me to “say” . . . is come on folks! Roger Ebert wanted to do some copywriting, and that would be like Chris trying to do some movie reviewing. If Roger truly wants to bring in some revenue, he could do a lot worse that learning from Chris.

Which, it appears, he’s graciously willing to do.

Your ideas are all well and good, I suppose, but it’s pretty damn lengthy. People wouldn’t read your bloated version. Ebert’s is better–short, sweet, to the point, and most importantly, not patronizing. He just honestly laid out the facts.

Dude, this was so fun to read. I love when smart people think we direct response retards don’t know good grammar from the badly kind.

To them, a long life of self-aggrandizing coffee house chatter and stay-at-home vacations. Not the worst thing imaginable. But, you know…

I think Amanda is deeply in love with you, by the way. Why else would she be hawking this thread and viciously nitpicking your comments?

Little nutso. She’ll be played by Ali Sheedy in the movie of this thread.

Oh good grief. Dismissing my criticism by (falsely) accusing me of being a naive college student (graduated four years ago, thanks) doesn’t change the fact that A) for someone who sells himself as a writer, your command of the English language sucks, and B) even if your grammar had been flawless, your version of Ebert’s email STILL would’ve sucked, for all the reasons I listed above, which you ignored in favor of the old “grammar ain’t everything” defense.

Clearly when you said “Comments? Bring ‘em on,” you really meant “Comments from regular readers who fawn adoringly and inflate my ego? Bring ‘em on.”

Mostly I was hoping for comments from Smurfs. Sexy, sexy smurfs.

Couple quick points (these are serious, non-sarcastic and not meant to evoke an emotional response. Later in this post I get really sarcastic, but I’ve marked that out for you.) . . .

1. I would never suggest Roger send this as an email. He’d put it up as a web page. If it were an email I would write it completely differently and would push towards a web page for the actual conversion. I’d also want him to do quite a bit of work on the design of the page.

Does Roger even have an email list? If he does, what does he send to it?

2. You are completely correct and I am an awful writer.

3. Sorry for thinking you were a college kid. Not sure where that came from. I thought I read in one of your earlier posts that you were still in school. I was wrong for thinking that and I apologize. I’m also sorry for the implied statement that all college kids are naive. Many of them are (I certainly was) and after feeling attacked I lashed out. I’m ashamed of my actions.

OK, that’s the serious and sincere part.

Now . . .

(Melodrama and Sarcasm)
There, I’ve agreed with you on all points. You win. I lay down my sword. I’ve actually decided to quit my career based on this experience. I’m going to enroll in a quilting class at the local community college (there’s no way I can get into a real school) and see if I can actually make something good from my poor and pathetic life by quilting taser-cozies for those in need.

For years now I’ve mistaken an ability to type at 120 words per minute as actual writing skill. I’ve brutalized the world with hundreds-of-thousands of putrid words. It’s an unforgivable crime and I deserve the gallows.

I’ve won prizes for my writing (the fools), I’ve made audiences of thousands fall down laughing and frothing at the mouth with my plays (the morons), I’ve seen print in national publications and I’ve sold literally millions of dollars of stuff both online and off with my sales letters, product launches and videos (to dumb people exclusively.)

I don’t know if I can live with my crimes anymore.

If you don’t hear from me again . . . if I decide to end it all tonight by jumping from the balcony at the Gaylord Hotel while dressed as Leonardo Di Caprio from Baz Luhrman’s “Romeo And Juliet” . . . know that I’m thankful for our time together. With my last breathe I’ll whisper “Thank you, Amanda for showing me the truth.”

(/Melodroma and Sarcasm)

OK, had to get that out.

More serious discussion:

What kind of marketing person are you? What kind of stuff do you sell?

I just reread your post about there being “Better ways to get the word out there than infomercial.”

And you know what? I agree. If you’re doing “brand building” kind of stuff you would tend to use a different tone and style. If you’re trying to raise product awareness, ditto. But for actually getting people to complete a transaction via direct marketing . . . go to the Caples, chica. Read up on your Ogilvy. Study the masters (I’m not putting myself in their company, by the way. So please don’t take this as rant bait.)

Copywriting (in its most effective form) is “Salesmanship In Print” (dammit, I capitalized again!!).

Which means you have to use the sales tactics and “tricks” that have been tested and proven again and again (NOTE: Yes, I put “tricks” in quotes even though I wasn’t actively quoting anyone. I did this because while I was saying the word “tricks” the techniques I’m speaking of aren’t really “tricks” at all. It’s a device. It works.)

I’ve consulted with quite a few companies in the past who thought just like you do (and like I did 5 years ago before I got into this whacky world of direct marketing) . . . and to a T they’ve all been astounded when the stuff I wrote for them massively out-pulled their more conservative and “proper” style.

Whew!

OK, to sum up . . .

1. You seem like a bright, intelligent and passionate young woman. I wish you the best in whatever you do. If you ever want to dip your toe into the world of Direct Marketing (I choose to capitalize it because to me it IS a proper noun DAMMIT) let me know. If not, that’s totally cool too.

2. I apologize if I insulted you in an undue way. I also apologize for my friends who keep saying you’re in love with me. That’s kind of weird of them.

3. I think you’re wrong on some core points. Winning a Pulitzer is awesome (and Roger deserved it) but it doesn’t qualify you to sell stuff. Roger himself would agree with this point (and more or less did in his tweet that pointed you here.) I highly doubt I will ever win a Pulitzer unless they give one for snark and short plays about people desperately trying to talk to each other and failing (they’re actually quite good. I bet you’d like them.)

4. When I first responded to you I was feeling a bit overly attacked and I may have lashed out. Since then I’ve tried to be respectful and nice (with the exception of some handily marked-out melodrama and sarcasm.)

5. Re: Unnecessary capitalization and quote marks. I was a little excessive in my rough draft (which is what the masses came to . . . it’s a blog, not a print pub and I don’t worry too much about a few typos). I’ve since gone back and smoothed some stuff out. That said, those kind of devices (plus ellipses, highlighting, sentence fragments, weird clauses and other stuff) have been proven again and again to increase readability and sales. (Yes, I know that you don’t like them, but you’re not the stuff-buying masses.)

6. Awesome that you joined Roger’s club. But you sure as heck didn’t do so because of his copy.

7. HUG. That’s all I’ve got for you. Notice that I haven’t personally insulted you at all in this entire long thing and have no intention of ever doing so. Can you say the same?

@Michelle
Hey Michelle, thanks for you comment. Mine actually isn’t that long as far as online direct marketing copy goes. It’s unfortunate (because I’d rather write half as much and still get paid) but longer copy almost always outpulls shorter copy when it comes to actually making the sale.

Believe me, if sales letters, long copy sites, sales videos, launches, full page magazine ads (with really dense copy), door hangars and all the other tools in the DM toolbox didn’t work, we wouldn’t spend the time writing them. It’s hard work doing that stuff.

Take care.

Aaron and I have come to a interesting thought while going over your article and comments. Your blog is targeted mostly for people who are already familiar with marketing and are interested in what you have to offer.

When Robert re-tweeted your blog he open up the flood gates of many non-marketing people and even one marketing lady ( OH HAI AMANDA ) who just seemed bitchy. Seriously, attacking your writing style is the lowest insult because it’s style! It’s as subjective as it gets!

You probably already know this but I just kept thinking, those people that said the meanest thing ( again with the long drown out comparison to a crack head…really?! Yeah, you MAX. You’re an ass hole) they didn’t leave their picture, they don’t have a blog that’s written from their voice, or even a blog that they write for a large company! THEY ARE COWARDS! THEIR OPINION DON’T MATTER!! …oh shit I cap’ed my word…does this mean I’m a crack head too?!

Anyways, what’s the opinion of the people who know what’s going on? People who you respect? People who aren’t cowards? People pay you big bucks to do what you do!

….which reminds me of two quotes I love. Myron once said “You have to learn how to hate every one before you can start being nice…” or something like that. In most cases when your among peers or respected friends, it’s good to have a open mind to critique but in this case FUCK EM. Let the hate fuel you to keep doing what you do. Last quote from a wise go-go dancer “When bitches start talking shit, just remember: the club paid you to dance here and those bitches paid the club to dance here” It’s hard when your product is you. It’s too easy to take critique personal, especially with the anonymity of the internet. So, again, you may already know all this but it helps to be reminded once in a while.

Lastly, Aaron and I talked about Tim Ferris and Gala Darling, and other blog writers who sell something and use their personality/face for marketing. ( Tim and Gala: book/e-books, you : service ) and how they conquer the ever present bitchy-ness that is the internet! Gala calls them out and deletes those buggers. Ferris moderates his blogs and you may not have to do that but it speak volumes about how THESE PEOPLES COMMENTS ARE WORTHLESS! RAWR!

My comment is in response to other comments because, while I like reading your blog, I am no internet marketing expert. I am an expert at calling bullshit!

So keep on doing your thing.

I take it back.

She was in love with you until you started grovelling.

I bet she’s removing your photo from her desktop as we speak.

Loved it Moneyfingers

As a Bostonian, I’m highly amused at the suggestion we’re all horrifically blunt to the point where none of us can speak without sticking our feet directly into our mouths. Thanks for the education on East Coasters! I’m rather outspoken myself but like to think I have the capacity for thoughtful and diplomatic dialogue, so let’s give it a go:

While this blog post was educational, I think you missed the point of Ebert’s appeal. He doesn’t need snappy words to sell himself. He’s already done that through the sort of man he’s demonstrated himself to be. I follow him on my Twitter account because he’s an honest, refreshing read–a lovely thing to see in anyone who has spent any time in the spotlight. A sales pitch like that is good for someone who needs to find a hook to reel people in as an unknown, which Roger Ebert most certainly is not.

I also found that the wife comment was unnecessary and bordered on personal attack. I’m sure that your intention was to be humorous, perhaps a bit slapstick, but it came across as more of a slap and a rather sexist one at that. And Ebert’s wife sure as hell didn’t deserve it.

Interesting and educational post, Chris, and a very entertaining string of comments. Made my morning.

I learned a lot from the post, knowledge that I hope to put to good use marketing my own site (I work on a shoestring, one that’s borrowed no less, and I absorb all the free marketing advice I can get). Thank you very much for the information.

But let me leave you with a few observations, based purely on my reading of this post and the comments. (In other words, this post is, as far as I can recall, my only knowledge of you and your work.)

1. For what it’s worth, I only arrived here thanks to a link from The Ebert Club, for which I already had paid my $4.99. So, as far as my five bucks are concerned, Roger Ebert does get it.

2. Your revised pitch, whether delivered via web page or e-mail, would have been a complete turn-off, even without boldface caps and quotes. (One day I still hope to create a band called the Boldface Caps.) Not so much because it’s 100% marketing-speak, but because It Ain’t Ebert. It’s nowhere near being Roger’s voice. Perhaps if Roger took your notes and rewrote your pitch to his voice … (But then again, I’m already here via The Ebert Club, so for me it’s a moot point.)

3. Based purely on my reading of this post and the comments, and not having met either of you, I would have to say that, if pressed to select a marketing representative here and now, I would select Amanda as a rep over you, Chris. (Nothing at all personal, just a business decision; I realize neither of you were auditioning for the gig in the first place. Merely my unsolicited observation.)

Thanks again for the information, Chris.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the post. Very well thought out response. I agree with you that I didn’t nail Ebert’s voice in this post. Wrote it rather quickly and was surprised at all the attention it got (and some of the whacky comments.) I do still think that the core concepts I point out in the post (think of the benefit to the customer, put your biggest and most attractive benefits first, explain the value of what you’re getting) would have served Roger well in his pitch for the Ebert Club. The individual words on the page are a lot less important to me.

Oh, one more thing: there’s a whole discussion about the value of Roger’s “brand” that’s beyond the scope of this. The folks who signed up for Roger’s club did so because he’s Roger, not because he did a good job selling them. That’s a totally valid way of getting folks in the door, but most of us can’t afford to spend 30 years building up a worldwide brand before doing this sort of stuff. I also think Roger left a lot of moolah on the table with his “from the heels” approach to selling this. Should he have gone hyptastic? Not at all, but he should have done a better job thinking out what he could offer to his audience that would have tremendous value and be worthy of cash.

Later.

Later, skater.

Put me down as another Ebert Club member who wouldn’t have signed up had he used your text. (In fact, as I said in the original thread, I’d have signed up much more enthusiastically if Club membership provided no benefits at all. I want to help support the site so that everybody continues to have full access to it, not to gain anything special.)

Phew. I don’t understand why commentary has to be so far polarized either way when there are some perfectly valid points laid out by both ‘camps’ (oops).

1. As already tackled, the presentation is not Ebert-ish. The Club IS in a sense a dignified call for a little help keeping the site alive, so in terms of just the language, the text presently used by RE is – heck man’s won a Pulitzer – just fine.

2. In terms of the points and benefits laid out, yes RE could certainly use some of your ideas. The private forum for instance could get an earlier mention.

3. Grammatical errors. This is not ‘real’ copy, so it’s not a big deal. But to completely DENY that grammar is important is like saying using ’slightly’ wrong colors or blurred textures would be ok for a graphic designer. Or having the mike peep into an ill-framed shot is ok for a cinematographer, or even the director of the movie. It is not.

That said, it would be wrong for me or anyone else to comment on your quality of work without actually seeing your ‘real’ work. And if there are in-fact errors it is better to accept them than go “BOO it doesn’t matter!” After all, these are usually the easiest of errors to correct. (Maybe that was a response to the more acidic comments that apparently have been deleted, but what I can’t see I can’t really comment on)

And ultimately, it all depends on the client, right? If he/she – or the ‘market’ they are catering to – DOES care about grammar (or even the tone) there really is no option.

4. And finally, you might have written your post just for fun, and that’s perfectly fine, but Ebert IS a big, very popular and heavily adored fish. You HAD the dissection and analysis coming!

I’d agree with this, from a marketing perspective. I’d also think Ebert had become a shameless shill, recycling sales-speak head games in an attempt to make a buck off his fans. You’re considering Roger as a sellable commodity. There’s also a ‘gift’ market–people who create art, or offer an intellectual dialogue that can enrich the lives of others. This dynamic is based more on appreciation for the individual, for their work and integrity, than any ‘Raid Kills Bugs. Dead,’ sloganeering. Ebert began his blog with no clue, and his fans grew with it. Why not do the same here? He could benefit from some of your advice, surely. But calling him ‘dumb’ shows you’re missing part of the picture yourself.

Throw me in the “Chris’ generic marketing language is long-winded and off-putting” camp. The grammar riposte is pretty weak too.

I do the same thing you do for a living, and your version has “spam bin” all over it. But you are good at hustling Roger Ebert’s site for your own benefit.

Hey Dev,

Yeah, I don’t get the vitriol either. Thanks for the comment. And yup, I should have seen it coming. Ouch!

Well, I suppose I’m another that likely wouldn’t have even bothered to read the full copy, though as stated above the two techniques are for completely different audiences. I am rather surprised you didn’t include the meet and greet with Roger at Ebertfest in your version and a bit curious as to why. when you said you were skipping nine I assumed you were going to make that a bullet of it’s own.

anyhow, interesting blog, I’ll definitely poking around more.

I suppose I should also state that I agree with you that it is drastically underpriced.

Hi Jerad,

Brain fart re: the meet and greet with Ebert. That’s a big selling point.

As for 9, I ended up using it as a P.S.

Thanks for the comment.

Oh good, I was afraid I was missing something. From what I’ve read so far I’m a bit ashamed at how Eberts followers have responded, it’s obvious that you were adapting that to a totally different type of campaign.

Wow. No insults here. You looked at it from a marketing POV, and it was interesting to follow along, but I paid my $4.99 because I thought the whole thing was so darned cute! I mean, really, under five bucks a year to be pals with Roger Ebert? Done!

(And, truth be told, because he said in print that he was a liberal. Best marketing tool ever from my own point of view.)

(BTW, I love ellipses. I couldn’t write without them. They’re just so. . .I don’t know. . .visual.)

(Ahem)

Just saying I for one paid the $4.99 almost as soon as Roger posted it. I got the link here from his first news-letter.

From the news-letter: ‘Actually the Club isn’t intended to monetize the site, but to create a bonus. It’s a work in progress. We want your suggestions.’

This reminds me of when our little newspaper was housed all in one room– advertising on one side and the newsroom on the other with an aisle down the middle. We knew better than to cross the aisle.

The newsroom staff knew that advertising personnel had magic tricks and knew that the newsroom shouldn’t use them. They also knew that the sales staff made more money than they did. They were sometimes bitter about that, but never forgot WHY.

Roger Ebert has traffic and credibility because he continues to write from the newsroom. If he gives up asset #1 and asset #2, he’ll have nothing to convert.

I really liked Mary919’s comment. As an Ebert Club Member, I’m really enjoying that aspect of membership: gems like that. My yearly 5 bucks has already provided rich dividends, and I just joined two days ago. Thanks, Mary. And thanks, Roger.

Chris, you seem generally well mannered and courteous. I wish more people behaved so in daily lives, blogs, and comments to blogs.

I am also floored by all the vitriol. We’re not talking about nationalized medicine here. I respect Chris for sharing his insight, which I believe has merit, and I’m happy that I’ve stumbled onto this interesting site. BTW – I’m also a “Mass-hole” who now lives in the UK. Go Redsox. No hate, please.

Hello, Mr. Chris,

I don’t mean to knock marketing, but “integrity” is pretty far down the list of things I think of when a marketing plan is brought up. Marketing is the spin rather than the reality. Roger’s the opposite – he has become a renowned and revered voice in journalism, and his words carry weight and import.

Perhaps you don’t see the stark contrast, but I would never have bought into his club with the gimmicky copy you wrote. I want to stress that this is in no way a critique of you or your skills, but rather, it’s antithetical to the notion of Roger’s persona and what he brings to the table.

Maybe what he’s offering is indeed sparse and barely indistinguishable from the free content, but the mere fact that he is Roger Ebert is the selling point here.

Love,
Mr. Sushi

@James – Hey fellow Masshole! You should see the comments I deleted for being too mean. =-)

@Sushi – thanks for the comment. There’s a whole other post I could write about Ebert’s brand and how it factors into this but it’s outside the scope of a comment. Good point, though.

Hi, Chris.

Another one here who arrived at this page by way of Roger Ebert’s link. So yes, I am one of his club members… steel yourself for the inevitable disagreement!

It would be interesting, I think, to run some kind of poll to see how many prefer your copy, and how many prefer Ebert’s approach. As I implied above, I fall into the latter camp, but am nowhere near certain of being in the majority. Indeed, I rather suspected myself to be in the minority, before reading such a large number of comments above from people who seem to agree with me. I propose such a poll not for any sense of self-justification, but rather simply to sate my curiosity.

I apologize in advance for anything I say below that is a re-hashing of discussions had above. This thread is getting rather long, and while I read about a third of the comments, I admit to having merely skimmed the remaining two thirds or so. I just feel the need to throw in my two cents because… why? Well, that’s probably for the psychologists to figure out!

Anyway. I do understand and sympathize with your contention that while RE may have a 30-year brand to build on, others may not, and that RE’s approach may not work for them. The fact remains, though, that you /did/ choose RE’s pitch to critique, and indeed led said critique by talking about how to structure a pitch that already has “fuel points” 1 and 2 (traffic and credibility) well in hand, and only needs work on point 3 (conversion). Which is to say, to some extent you are basing the whole analysis in the context of the assumption that the person making the pitch does have some brand and customer loyalty built in. It seems a little dinsingenuous to then turn around and claim that you can’t generalize that assumption. No, you’re absolutely right, you can’t. But if you want to talk to people about making a pitch when they don’t have the built-in customer base, and personal (or brand) style that built that base, then I wonder if that might not be easier to approach via a case study of someone who, well, doesn’t have said built-in customer base and style.

That’s (only slightly) tangential to my main point, however, which is this: as someone who very happily paid the $4.99 to join the RE club, I did so not because of any expectation (or desire) that I would get anything more out of it. I did it /absolutely/ to pay RE back for the value that he’s given me over the last decade or so that I’ve been reading him online.

When you propositionally re-structured his pitch, you moved his bullet #9 down into a “PS”… I’m afraid I have a bit of trouble with that, because bullet #9 is the only one I cared about. Numbers 1 through 8, and 10 felt entirely irrelevant.

Indeed (and here’s where my take differs slightly from those I’ve seen in the above responses) all talk about any benefits to me from joining is a little off-putting. Not because of any distaste for marketing-speak per se (that has already been covered above), but because I’m not interested (for now) in anything else he might have to offer. I’m interested in what he alaready is offering, and has proven that he can do well. That has a proven value to me that I know I like, and am happy to pay for. Additional (or exclusive, for whatever definitions of additional and exclusive) content leaves me, at best, skeptical, for the reasons that: 1. It has yet to be demonstrated to me that it’s something RE will be able to do well; and 2. I’ve gotten along just fine without it so far; I’m not convinced I want it anyway.

It is possible that I would have paid for the pitch that was more along the lines of “this site is moving to pay only — if you want to continue seeing the content you’ve been getting so far, you will have to pay $5; the free site will only offer reduced content.” This certainly addresses the concern in my last paragraph, however is distasteful in the extreme; I expect I would feel like I’m being strong-armed. (It is admittedly possible that the right wording could sufficiently mitigate this impression. It’s hard to say, and I reserve judgement for now.) In short, I identify with the desire to keep the site free, not necessarily just for those who don’t see the $5 value in paying, but even to prevent me from feeling coerced into paying, a situation that would be more likely than not to raise my defiance and drive me away entirely.

But then, why would (or rather: did) I pay at all? Because as I stated above, I already feel that I’ve gotten (more than) $5 worth from the site, I appreciate this, and I want to acknowledge it. No more, no less.

In short, I’m not certain that there’s any way RE could have gotten my money /other/ than the way he did. But that way certainly worked! So in a sense this is a rebuttal to your argument above that while some people paid in response to Ebert’s pitch as it stood, he could have gotten even more people to pay by re-structuring it. (e.g.: from your response to Mike: “I also think Roger left a lot of moolah on the table with his ‘from the heels’ approach to selling this.”) Possibly, but in doing so, there’s no guarantee it would have been a net gain; he may have lost some of his existing payers.

And again, I want to underline the point I made earlier that: my contention has little to nothing to do with the precise wording. Yes, there’s a lot of marketing speak in your version, and it may not have sounded exactly like Ebert, but I recognize that it was off-the-cuff; those are issues that can certainly be addressed with a bit of time and effort. My contention is entirely with the re-prioritizing of what benefits are and are not important to the readers of his pitch, and the corresponding emphasis, placement, etc. of those benefits.

Now, to return to my intro, I am utterly unconvinced I’m in the majority here. It would be very interesting to get some kind of idea of how many more people would be likely to respond to your version of the pitch vs. how many would be turned away. (Clearly, there would be some of both; on the balance, what would the benefit be?) Hence my musing about a poll. Although it is possible that this topic (now a week old) has started to go stale, and there are no longer enough hangers-around to make it worthwhile?

Anyway, an interesting take. I appreciate the thought you put into it (and into struggling through my response!). I may be back later to read some of the rest of your blog…

Take care!

Hey Sean,

Thanks for the well thought out reply. I’m in the middle of a launch right now (getting a ton of traction on it too) so I can’t go point for point with you, but I appreciate your comment and you make some good points.

I will say that a 30 year brand still isn’t an excuse to sell from your heels.

Weird to me that I’m getting the reasonable comments now. Where were you guys when the angry folks were here? =-)

I’m having conceptual issues with your categorization of Ebert as a “brand”. This is much the same feeling I get when referring to movies as a franchise.

Off topic, should the Christmas Tree Shoppe change its name? Those filthy bastards are just crap stores with sometimes-in-sync merchandise. It’s really no different than an Ocean State Job Lot or a Building 19, but you don’t see those guys calling themselves “Easter Bunny Boutique”.

I think we can read from this that Ebert’s fans are fiercely loyal and will not countenance anything bad being said about him, even in a “helpful” forum such as yours (I love quotation marks, too). I’m one of his legion of fans and would have joined up if he had just dropped one line saying “I need money, give me 5 bucks.”

What can I say, we just love the guy. Still, this has been a brilliant hour reading the entry and comments. Love the snark. Cheers.

I finally got to read this. I’m not sure why some people would get their panties in a bunch around this.

It’s really really good. Well done my friend. Simple, basic, and very clean writing to tells the deal.

As Carlton would say, “this is the ultimate selling form the heels sales letter.”