Last month, I shared a conversation with Chris Brogan about his salesletter rewrite project, including the changes I suggested to him and his response. I also shared the revised salesletter done by the copywriter he hired to “shiny it up.” And I told you I’d come to you this month with my reaction to the rewrite.
Unfortunately, I hated it. And here’s why:
The previous version of the letter clearly identified an audience: People who want to earn more customers, create fast, effective media, find better productivity tools, receive guidance, be more known, be the authority, get more attention. They may or may not already consider themselves a part of Chris’s tribe, but they respect him enough to visit his website. And some portion of them could consider going deeper with him and might enjoy the option of a continuity program.
But what happens in the rewrite? The headline is just “Owner Media.” Some people may know that’s the name of one of Chris’s businesses. Others might just be confused. What does that even mean? Not only is there no call to action or audience clarification in the headline, it loses any promise of something to help the prospect—even the fairly week “Small Business Owner Tools and Support” of the original.
And the subhead that follows those two words is “WAIT, WHAT? THERE’S A MEMBER COMMUNITY AT OWNER MEDIA?” (emphasis in original)
Let’s keep in mind that for most people, a continuity program in the form of a membership site is not a goal. It’s a tool: a way of getting fresh thinking, new insights, and access to other tools that someone they trust has already vetted. Yet this copy assumes that:
- The reader will already want Chris’s membership community and just has to be informed that it exists
- The community is a desire, not a means; the reader knows the benefits without being told
- “We” language about Chris and his partner Rob will work better than “you” language about the prospect’s wants and needs
I disagree with all three assumptions. Let’s look at the third one: I think language like “we’re not telly-tell lecture-y people who create a curriculum and never want to hear sass from the audience. No, that’s not how we do our best, and we know it’s not how our Insiders do their best” is all about them, not about the benefits, and counterproductive.
Then the letter starts addressing the objection of not enough time. But it hasn’t really addressed why the person reading even needs this. Then there’s a long digression about pricing before getting to the actual pricing. Instead of building confidence in Chris and Rob’s considerable skills—they’re two of the smartest people I know—it makes Chris and Rob sound flaky, disorganized, and narcissistic.
I could go on, but I’ll stop here. I already laid out the strategy I would have used in my first response to Chris’s newsletter.