Probably because the first time I heard this industry axiom I was in the midst of having my copy worked over, word by word, for the umpteenth time by the legendary wordsmith, Tom Thomas, I found it a little hard to accept. And I don’t think I was entirely wrong either, as I later learned that this is another of those advertising shibboleths that’s been foisted upon us by the always-eager-to-help copy-testing industry. Starch, I believe, was the culprit here, insofar as its print ad testing methodology appeared to show that even an ad that scored well for being “noticed” was lucky if a piddling 20% of the audience “read most” of it. Of course, the fact that most extraordinary print ads were never even subjected to this Derridian exegesis and thus were not part of Starch’s “norms” was never factored into the equation, which may have skewed these findings just a little.
Be that as it may, if you ask me (and by reading this you essentially are), any headline that manages to stop a reader owes that reader something of value for having stopped. And that something is the body copy. Which brings me to these print executions from www.wecansolveit(unlessit’sordinaryads).org.
The first uses a technique deemed by many ad writers to be quite dangerous–the “blind” headline–because unless the viewer reads the copy that ad won’t make a whole lot of sense. Which perforce means the copy better be damn good. And that is neither easy nor remotely in evidence here. On the contrary, this ad is a dog’s breakfast of statements manifesting an astonishing grasp of the obvious: “It’s too big for one person to solve.” Combined with everything the writer was able to pick up at Cliche City’s 100% off sale: “working together”, “powerful message”, “all walks of life”, “across the political spectrum” and “voices heard.” All deftly summarized in a last line that restates the headline (Copywriting 101) and feeds into sorriest theme line ever to bear the weight a $300MM investment in advertising: “But together we(TM) can.”
Hell, if I understand Archimedes correctly, with a lever long enough and using the eastern hemisphere as a fulcrum, together we ought to be able to pop the U.S. out of the Earth’s mantle and send it into orbit around Antares thereby putting an end to this global warming jazz once and for all. 
But, let me take a few deep breaths and turn my attention to this second ad. Which is, I have to admit, a lot better than the first. It’s quite striking. Sort of interesting. And adroitly skips over the whole body copy issue by making the copy part of the visual. All well and good. Providing you have excellent eyes and a lot of time on your hands. Otherwise, to borrow a phrase from one of former vice president Gore’s political contemporaries, it’s: “Asta la vista, baby!”
Now, in case you’re curious as to why I get so worked up about this (and are perhaps concerned that I’ve mixed up my meds), it’s really very simple. I know that print advertising of the extraordinary variety–which would naturally include scintillating, Tom Thomas-approved, body copy–could do wonders for this noble cause. And I’m wondering why it is instead being served so ignobly. It can’t be that the TV ads are getting all the attention since that aspect of this campaign has done nothing but go from bad to worse. If you’ve missed it, they’ve now evolved from the use of stock footage (cheap) to the hoary tactic of pairing political celebrities (free) of diametrically opposing points of view to illustrate that The Alliance for Climate Protection’s cause is so important, it’s something even a Julie Andrews and Jenna Jameson could agree on. (Actually, the two spots I’ve seen use the Reverends Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson and the Honorable and former Honorable Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich, but you get the idea.)
The question is: Do the people behind the Alliance’s advertising? It sure doesn’t look that way, which would suggest the long term outlook for this initiative may be about as sanguine as Mr. Gore’s future political prospects.
If no one is reading body copy, it is probably because of the prevalence of unreadable sans-serif reverse type that
threatens the eyesight of the nation.
If no one reads body copy these days, Tom and Mark, it’s because few, if any, copywriters understand that it’s an art that will not only make their work more successful but also give it an infinitely better shot at winning an award, the latter, of course, being what they care about most, especially when it’s a “save the world” assignment they’ve been handed.
Why the art of writing good body copy has reached its dimwitted state is beyond me, all the more so given the existence of the Internet and the requirement that the conversations voiced on it be written directly, in plain English with a degree of humanity in the words, as opposed to the conversations being a miasma of mindless corporate-sounding clap-trap, setting the stage for obfuscation and leading the reader to terminal disinterest.
Writing good print - good headlines and good body copy - requires that one weigh every word before use. Compared to writing a TV spot, especially one that follows the current “joke, joke, joke, vague tag line” standard, it’s hard work. But when you finish, assuming you’ve paid your dues, you don’t wind up with a mahogany-knocker, i.e., an ad so lifeless and boring it causes the reader to fall asleep, hitting their head as they plunge into somnolence.
Where are today’s good print ads? You’ve got me. Apple, I suppose. Maybe a few others. Certainly not BMW, especially compared to the ones that built the brand. Not Mercedes. Not even Volvo.
The latter used to run electrifying print ads that made you sit up and pay attention. Like the great ad Ed McCabe wrote that said “Fat cars die young.” It seems to me that the same sort of thing goes for ads. Fat ones - ones made of fluff instead of protein - die the minute they run.
Hi Mark, how are you keeping?
Americans once read long copy when it was written by people like Vic Schwab and Bill Jayme. They could hold a reader’s interest and sell. What happened since then? Young writers just can’t be bothered to learn their craft, I’d guess. To me the case for long copy is made persuasively with recruitment ads for the Metropolitan Police. Tony Brignull was one of the writers. I expect he’s retired now but the ads are there for all who want to learn.
All the best,
Steve Ulin