Copywriting

Why Your Copy Needs to Pick a Fight

What are you built to destroy?

That’s an aggressive idea.

The idea of being a destructive force.

After all, we build products to help people, to improve lives, to make happiness. We write about benefits and value. Our raison d’etre is to build others up.

We don’t destroy.

But… if we’ve created something better than the competition has created – if we’ve built something that our users are truly going to love – then does it, perhaps, behoove us to eliminate The Other Guy?

Is it our job as marketers to put up our dukes… look our competitor in the eye… and swing?

In April 2015, the New York Times wrote about clothing company Lane Bryant’s newly picked fight with Victoria’s Secret:

Lane Bryant vs Victoria's Secret newspaper

Lane Bryant wasn’t trying to attack Victoria’s Secret.

They were attacking an idealized, unrealistic version of the female form, which Victoria’s Secret helped to create and continues to reinforce:

They were standing up for the millions of women that felt indirectly but viscerally attacked by Victoria’s Secret. They weren’t fighting. They were fighting back. You can imagine how uncomfortable marketers and C-levels at Lane Bryant might have felt at the idea of being perceived as “attacking” Victoria’s Secret. Yet they did it anyway…

ImNoAngel campaign

Fighting, arguing, calling others out and fighting back is a risky move online.

It’s one thing to leave a comment that might pick a fight with the writer of a blog post (ahem).

But it’s something else to build a campaign around a bone you’ve got to pick. Or to write copy that is, effectively, throwing down your gloves, to use a hockey term for the first time in my life.

It’s partly because of that fear that that the web is filled with non-battling word-shaped air like this:

Flowdock home page hero copy - no fight

What’s wrong with that copy?

Nothing, technically.

Except that it’s kinduv doing this:

…but with less charm.

That copy is acting like it just has to speak to be heard. It’s acting like it’s not a lesser-known contender in a televised boxing match that’s been going on for years: the battle against email. It’s acting like it can just show up in a crowded room where one particularly charismatic chick (Slack) is buying rounds and one particularly well-known dude (Gmail) is dominating the conversation – and when Flowdock walks in, people are going to turn, look, and abandon not only that chick and that dude but also alllllllll the other interesting people currently engaging them in conversations. Just to give Flowdock a try.

“What does this Flowdock person have to say?” they’ll ask in wonder.

To which Flowdock – seemingly clueless about how incredibly lucky it is to have been noticed at all – will respond as one would expect the clueless to: “Chat and inbox for teams. One place to talk and stay up to date.”

…Grrrrrreat…

Maybe Flowdock’s amazing. I don’t know. This isn’t about the product. This is about the copy.

The Flowdock copy, like so much copy out there, does not give me (the prospect) a clue as to why I should not only choose Flowdock but, in choosing Flowdock, also do ALL of the following:

  • Not choose Slack
  • Not keep relying on Gmail or Outlook or both
  • Not choose Hipchat, Flow or a half dozen other team chat solutions
  • Convince my team to use Flowdock
  • Stand behind my decision to use Flowdock when my team resists and says, “Why don’t we just use Slack?”

Yes, sure, a lot of the convincing can and will come later because some objections can and will arise later.

But I ask you as I ask Flowdock: how long does your copy have to wait before it starts convincing? Is there a time limit I don’t know about?

What exactly is the headline, subhead and hero copy for Flowdock saying that needs to be said before any of the actual work of being convincing happens? Nothing at all. In fact, it’s saying all the same things that other chat solutions say in their hero copy. Take a look at chat solution* Flow’s hero section:

Flow home page headline and sub* Flow changed their product positioning and home page copy just before this post was published.

So Flow is 1 place to collaborate on things that matter to get more done…

…And Flowdock is 1 place to collaborate on things that matter to get more done.

Which means that, at this point, I’m essentially choosing based on whether I like the word “dock” or not.

But at least Flow – to their credit – attempts to pick a fight. They’re not fighting with a competitor, necessarily, but with the status quo, of which the competition is a key part. Here’s what Flow does:

Flow battles the old way

They’re not using copy to pick a fight. They’re using a graphic: the old way vs the Flow way.

It seems that Flow understands this:

To choose your solution, your prospect has to switch from their existing behavior – from the status quo, which is likely to include an existing solution.

The Switch. To choose you, I have to stop choosing other things. I have to stop.

Stopping is haaard.

I’m truckin’ along with my existing behavior… part of that behavior is annoying me enough that I’m thinking there’s gotta be a better way… I find what appears to be a better way… and suddenly I’m faced with all the complexities of switching, including the ginormous complex thing that is stopping what I’m doing. To stop and switch, I have to give up what I have and what I know in the hopes of getting more – and if switching hasn’t paid off for me in the past, I’m that much less likely to want to give it a shot again.

Do you know how powerful the force of inertia is? (Science geeks, take it easy on me. I’m sure you’ve got a calculation. 🙂 )

Do you know how much work is involved in stopping?

Do you know how desperately I have to want Y to switch from X to Y?

Your prospect has to be jolted out of inertia, or its path at least, by a force stronger than it. The crew at The Rewired Group (think Jobs to Be Done) illustrates the challenges of switching beautifully:

JTBD push pull habit anxiety diagram

Marketers tend to think along the top of the above graphic, where the Progress-Making Forces are.

The push of what’s happening now: painkiller marketing. The pull of the new idea: benefits.

But the bottom half – the Progress-Hindering Forces – are at least as critical for us to consider in our marketing and address in our messaging.

The current way of doing things is a force working against us. We have to push back on it.

Your competitor, or the incumbent solution, is a progress-hindering force.

Victoria’s Secret is a progress-hindering force for Lane Bryant. Lane Bryant’s prospective lingerie shoppers know what they’re getting with Victoria’s Secret. They know where to go on the VS website; after years of trying and failing, they know which two or three bras at VS fit them well enough; they have the pink-striped VS beach bag, which they use for things other than underwear shopping; their friends shop at VS, and they might randomly talk about VS, and as much as they may all loathe comparing themselves to the models, they like watching the VS fashion show on TV every December so they can go tweet about which models take themselves too seriously.

Do they get any of that with Lane Bryant?

The push of proper-fitting underwear alone and the pull of shopping somewhere that idolizes your otherwise-not-idolized body type is not enough. The habit of the present is too strong with VS. It requires some work to make the habit look bad and the anxiety of switching look nil. Hence #ImNoAngel.

Back to you. What are your progress-hindering forces, and how many of those are directly tied to the work your competitor’s marketing and products are doing? Do you address those forces in your copy?

If you’re not planning to address said progress-hindering forces, then your progress-making forces need to be craaaaaazy powerful. So, are they? And if not:

Have you forgotten that some of the most memorable and high-impact marketing moves have been brand-vs-brand battles?

Brilliant screenwriter Aaron Sorkin once said:

“Find the conflict, and you’ll find the heart of the story.”

Our brains are wired to pay attention to conflict. We make decisions by weighing options, by comparing X to Y and contrasting Y with Z. I’d cite studies to support this, but there are about a million of them and entire university departments dedicated to the idea that decisions are not made in vacuums. Perhaps you’ve read Predictably Irrational (Ariely) or Influence (Cialdini)? Then you already know: we compare and contrast to arrive at a decision with greater confidence and satisfaction, and sometimes those comparisons result in negative takeaways that lead to no decision at all.

In fact, without a second option to compare a consideration against, we may not make a decision at all. Recall the Williams-Sonoma bread maker study, explained by Paul Lee on WSJ:

In the 1990s, Williams-Sonoma brought a bread maker to the market for the very first time and, after much consumer research, decided to price the new product at $275.

At its launch, sales were surprisingly tepid. Frustrated by the poor sales, management brought in a marketing research firm that recommended Williams-Sonoma introduce a slightly bigger, better-functioning bread maker at double the price point.

Williams-Sonoma heeded the advice and diligently launched the new premium product. Almost immediately, sales took off. But not sales of the new “bigger and better” bread maker. It was sales of the original bread maker that skyrocketed.

In the bread maker example, people couldn’t decide until they had something to decide against, as I discuss with examples here. Once they could contrast one bread maker against another and weigh the attributes of each, they could confidently choose, which is why sales of the original bread maker doubled.

Now move up a level: how did people choose to buy a bread maker from Williams-Sonoma at all? Why not Pottery Barn? Why not Nordstrom?

Why might we choose Pepsi over Coke?

Why might we choose a Mac over a PC?

Because their marketing teams made a bold decision: pick a fight with the competitor.

Which gave us some wildly famous campaigns.

In 1975, the Pepsi Challenge was a series of advertised blind taste tests created by BBDO where more people preferred the taste of Pepsi to the taste of Coke. The campaign’s tagline didn’t hold back:

“Coca Cola drinkers, let your taste decide. Take the Pepsi challenge.”

Here’s a spot from 1981:

(Side note A: why aren’t today’s commercials as awesome as the old ones? Side note B: The new Pepsi Challenge has lost all the original charm.)

The Pepsi Challenge was so powerful, people recreated the experiment themselves and Coke even changed its recipe to a more Pepsi-like sweetness in 1985 – catastrophically.

Fast forward to 2006 and switch industries: Apple repeated the “pick a fight” strategy when they took on Microsoft with their “I’m a Mac” commercials, created by TBWA:

That campaign was so memorable, I don’t have to embed the videos for you to remember them. I embed them because I want to – because they’re awesome and I want to watch all 66 of them.

Which brings me to this point: both the Pepsi Challenge and the I’m a Mac commercials were done with a spirit of good humor.

Nobody throws a cup of Coke across the room and yells, “Disgusting!” We learn that more than 50% of people choose Pepsi, but we don’t learn that Coke is a repulsive drink only morons choose. And the PC guy is a little charming while the Mac guy is a little forgiving. Because:

The fight worth publicizing is not a dirty fight.
It’s a fair fight that stays above the belt.

Competitive marketing (also called “offensive marketing” (!) or “comparative advertising”) is a tricky thing to get right and an easy thing to get wrong – but that doesn’t mean it’s so risky that it should be avoided.

Like any fight worth watching, your fight should seem fair and balanced. Nobody wants to watch one pugilist sucker-punch some surprised dude in glasses. As advertising professor Fred Beard warns:

“In our culture, we have a preference for fair play. People will respond negatively to what they perceive as an unfair and excessively mean-spirited attack.”

So you don’t want your copy to:

  • Make you look insecure
  • Appear to attack the people that like your competitor
  • Appear to attack the people working for the competitor
  • Expose your brand to harsh retaliation
  • Make people feel sorry for your competitor
  • Fight a clearly weaker opponent (if you’re Goliath and they’re David)

Consider presenting both sides of the argument. Studies show that two-sided, or balanced, arguments are more persuasive.

Consider your tone. Are you being aggressive, or are you being playful? Are you being rude, or are you being respectful? After reading your copy, would people want to hang out with you more than they did before?

Consider the information you’re focusing your prospect on. As the Heath brothers taught us about the Spotlight Effect: your prospects will focus on the messages you give them and think very little if at all about the info you leave unmentioned. You have the opportunity to shape the discussion. You have the opportunity to point to one of your weaknesses (vs six or seven of theirs) and make it seem that that is your only weakness. Macs were happy not to be great at spreadsheets – they happily let PCs win on that point.

“Picking a fight with your competitor”
doesn’t have to mean choosing one or naming names

Perhaps your first thought when considering comparative advertising is this: their lawyers will be on my ass.

Then it might surprise and help you to know that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) – the group smart advertisers are scared of – has, since 1972, encouraged advertisers to name competitors in their comparative advertising campaigns. The idea is that, if you write:

“ConvertKit helps you grow and nurture your list.
MailChimp only helps you nurture it.”

instead of

“ConvertKit helps you grow and nurture your list.
The other guys only help you nurture it.”

you do right by the consumer because you are:

  • Stimulating comparison shopping,
  • Encouraging innovation, and
  • Fostering a positive competitive environment.

But actually mentioning your competitor’s name is a rather scary prospect rife with myriad potential challenges for any business. When you mention your competitor by name, you run the risk of:

That’s why only 5% of an estimated half of all TV spots employing some form of comparative advertising actually name the competitor. You’ll recall (if you’re not a newbie) the Wendy’s campaign, “Where’s the beef?”, which was calling out all other fast food chains on their pathetically tiny beef patties – but which carefully tiptoed around actually saying, “McDonald’s burgers are all bun.” Hell, maybe they weren’t even talking about McDonald’s. We’ll never know ‘cos they didn’t name names.

I’d argue that, to reduce risk when “picking a fight”, today’s startups should avoid naming names in the Control and try naming names in Variation B. I’ve written copy for banks and tech giants, and that’s exposed me to some insaaanely risk-averse legal teams. The gist of their advice: to protect your butt, protect your butt. Be careful if you’re making a claim that pits you against your competitor. Proceed carefully but not fearfully.

“Being aggressive doesn’t guarantee success, but failing to be aggressive nearly always guarantees failure. In a modern world of political correctness, glad handing, and fear of offending everyone and anyone, the art of the fight is undervalued.”
Tim Ferriss

With that in mind, I wrote the home page hero section for Airstory like so:

Airstory copy picks a fight

The Airstory hero copy is picking a fight with an unnamed competitor. Further down the page, I position Airstory as the new, better way vs the old way (we only want old when we’re feeling nostalgic):

Airstory is the new way to write

Above, you saw a similar sort of comparison on the old Flow home page.

These comparisons are cropping up all over SaaS sites. Intercom uses one:

Intercom old vs new

And TruConversion uses one:

TruConversion picks a fight

Nudging your prospects away from the competitor or getting them to switch to you doesn’t have to be aggressive or abrasive or the stuff that lines litigators’ pockets. As we’ve been seeing in the examples:

You can still be positive and benefits-focused
while subtly arguing like Hell’s lawyers

Your product is already picking a fight. That is, you’ve built a solution that does X better than the other guys do. You’ve built a solution that better solves Y problem than the incumbent does. The whole point of your product is to do better by people than the other guys have been doing.

And your copy needs to reflect that.

Help Scout does a great job of keeping a positive tone with copy that’s all about what makes it better than the unnamed competitor:

Help Scout indirectly battles

Less Accounting takes aim at its unnamed competitors in a similar way, suggesting that they are the only accounting software that focuses on the user instead of the use:

Less Accounting indirectly battles

It may not seem that Help Scout and Less Accounting are picking a fight, but they are. They’re giving you a reason to switch from the other guys – to interrupt your habit, to overcome the anxiety of choosing a new way. They’re leading with copy that neutralizes progress-hindering forces, while other marketers in their spaces are leading with copy that focuses on progress-making forces. (Note that, later on Help Scout and Less Accounting’s pages, they address progress-making forces.)

They’re writing for the switch:

JTBD push pull habit anxiety diagram

TAKEAWAY: To help your prospects see how you’re better than the other guys, you CAN still be friendly and pleasant.

If they decided to swing, would your copy fall?

I’m not paranoid. I don’t have a bomb shelter in my backyard. And I think the idea of keeping a gun handy just in case someone else has a gun is, like, completely bonkers. I don’t walk around in a state of fear, and I pray that never changes.

But.

But the nature of business is competition. You are in a competition right now. You call the other guys “competitors.” As in, those against whom you compete. If you’re on their radar or soon to be, then you’re their competition, too. And if they’re built to destroy, do you have a battle strategy in place?

We’ve talked all about going on the offensive in this post. Your full strategy should also include:

  1. The Defensive: keep your customers by treating them like gold and staying top of mind
  2. Flanking: expose the chink in your competitor’s armour and go in for it
  3. Guerrilla Marketing: all the brilliant extras you can do, as described in this fave book

Chances are good (I hope) that you’re already knee-deep in Defensive and Guerrilla Marketing. Now the challenge is to add a little Flanking and/or Offensive into the mix.

Admittedly, you are taking a risk if you pick a fight.

You’re also taking one if don’t.

Either way, you’re in a battle.

Does your copy know that?

~joanna

PS: The pick a fight idea isn’t just for copy. It’s great for content, too. Try writing a blog post that’s contentious – that picks a fight with the status quo or an accepted best practice. Suddenly, you’ve got yourself a story where before you just had whitenoise.

About the author

Joanna Wiebe

Joanna Wiebe - Copywriter and author of "Copy Hackers"

  • Brandy Werczynski

    Excellent post. Truly a must read for all copywriters and content writers.

  • alfalah_i
  • This was a great article. It pointed out to me how much my writing is way too soft. I’m going to look for conflicts going forward. Although I’ll probably still do it in a nice way.

  • Kalen Jordan

    Hey! You already commented over on my blog about this, so feel free to not have to repeat yourself here, but I just wanted to post this comment here for the sake of posterity 🙂

    The question that I had was about how to handle picking a fight in the context of an industry where you have relationships with the client who’s thinking about picking the fight and also with the person with whom they intend to pick said fight.

    http://blog.goodlinks.io/to-attack-or-not-to-attack/

  • Wow great tips you shared.Thanks for sharing.

    • Joanna Wiebe

      Glad you found it useful!

  • Joanna, want to see the worst thing you’ve ever seen? -> ripoffornot.org

    This is an actual serious thing written by adult men.

    • Really really nice article by the way! “Air-shaped words” gets me every time.

    • Joanna Wiebe

      Well that just makes me want to use Freshdesk.

  • Awesome post! BTW, have you seen Microsoft’s TV ad where they sorta pick a fight on Apple, by not picking a fight, but making themselves look like the good guy? (https://youtu.be/TMATD2qk564) It was brilliant! Especially given the season of the year.

    • Joanna Wiebe

      There were a few Microsoft vs X spots that I wanted to work in… but because they tried to take on Apple and Google separately, I didn’t end up including those. It just felt very MS-heavy. (Your link doesn’t work, so I didn’t get to see the one you meant. But I know it, yeah.)

      • Thanks, fixed. Somehow the ‘)’ got incorporated as part of the url.

  • Great article Joanna. While by nature, I don’t like to “picking a fight” but as you wrote, you have to, whether online or offline. I prefer to call this being different enough. If a competitor is big, then being small is the differentiator. They target mass, you target niche.

    • Joanna Wiebe

      But the question is whether you put it on the page. It’s not just knowing you’re different but making sure the prospect knows you’re different and that that difference makes you the better choice. Positioning yourself against a competitor is risky, but this is one strategy of many – possibly the right strategy for a good number of scrappier startups and even established businesses.

  • Great post, Joanna

    Conflict is in our DNA. Despite our protestations humans love conflict. That’s why it works so well for marketers. You gave the example of Apple in 2006. I remember reading a book by Guy Kawasaki (Selling the Dream). In that book he describes how he created the campaign for the original Apple Macintosh (if memory serves me correctly).

    The key to the phenomenal success of that campaign was due to the pitting of the Mac against the PC. The Mac was hip, sexy and desirable whereas the PC was dowdy,dull and passe. Clever stuff, as is this post. Love it.

    As for Flowdock. Yeech – corporate blather written by people who seem to be blissfully unaware of the basics of selling. It ain’t hard.

    • Joanna Wiebe

      Exactly! A story is boring without conflict. We care about change, and conflict is soooo often at the route of change. Breaking Bad was filled with every kind of conflict, which is, for me, what made it such an interesting series to follow. (Obvs that’s a TV reference rather than ads, but I was such a fan of change + conflict in BB.)

      I do feel bad for poor Flowdock. They were just a random example I pulled. It’s definitely not just them; the web is filled to the brim with soft copy that doesn’t quite know what it’s supposed to say (probably because it was written by committee).

  • Maddy Cool

    awesome.

    check out this blog
    hackersclub96.blogspot.com

  • Ben Morel

    To be that science geek, the equation or moment of inertia for a body is calculated using the equation I=mr^2, where m is mass and r is the distance between a body and the point about which it is rotating.

    There is an interesting point here: it’s not only the mass of a body (in the case of this discussion this is equivalent to how big your competitor brand is) that gives it inertia, it’s also how far away from the pivot that body is. Bring your customers closer to that pivot point – or find the customers who are closest to pivoting – and you’ll have a much easier time getting them to turn than if you target those who are further away.

    • Joanna Wiebe

      Ooooh, that’s smart! You should write about that, Ben. Or maybe you already have? I’d read that!!

  • Love this (nothing new, lol). I really believe that your points about overcoming anxiety are a place where you’ll see a ton of lift. And thanks for introducing some ideas on where to include that type of copy vs the more progressive stuff. Definitely going to be able to use this in my workflow.

    PS the line about deciding choosing whether you like the word “dock” had me cracking up, thanks for the chuckle, Jo!

    • Joanna Wiebe

      haha – well that seemed to be what it came down to: the name. 🙂

  • Benjamin Johnson

    Great post, Joanna. The functional but empty copy for Flowdock reminded me of a letter I read the other day from David Ogilvy to his copywriters about the importance of breathing life into advertising with a Big Idea (a well-executed “Us vs. Them” angle being a perfect example):

    “Three years ago, I woke up to the fact that the majority of our campaigns, while impeccable as to positioning and promise, contained no big idea. They were too dull to penetrate the filter which consumers erect to protect themselves against the daily deluge of advertising. Too dull to be remembered. Too dull to build a brand image. Too dull to sell. (You cannot bore people into buying your product.) In short, we were still sound, but we were no longer brilliant. Neither soundness nor brilliance is any good by itself; each requires the other…” –From “The Unpublished David Ogilvy”

    • Joanna Wiebe

      Ah! The classic Big Idea idea. Sooooo difficult for most marketers to agree to / commit to. “But our product does this too. And this. And this!” It’s like that commercial for Tic Tacs: “We’re new! And fresh! And fun! And neat!” or whatever. Goes on for an eternity listing off every favorable adjective you could possibly apply to a breathmint. Like, maybe try to be just one thing, and we’ll know why the hell we should pick up Tic Tacs on our way to the register. (It sure as f*** isn’t because I want a “fun” breathmint.)

      I love this line in Ogilvy’s letter, which I appreciate you writing out here: “They were too dull to penetrate the filter which consumers erect to protect themselves against the daily deluge of advertising.” We all know consumers erect walls. Why on earth do we think we’re the one exception to that?–like our solution is so incredibly kick-ass no one could possibly need a convincing argument to choose it.

      I should write a post about a big idea. I should do a bunch of tests about a big idea. I like it. Making a note now…….. Thanks, Benjamin!

  • I think the “fighting back” approach has a lot in common with “us vs. them” approach… which both relate to the “overcoming the monster” way of telling a story.

    Everyone has a monster. Or, to quote an episode from Season 1 of Gotham, “Everyone Has a Cobblepot.”

    If you can find the “monster” and a way to fight back, then rallying the troops in your copy is a greeeeeeat approach.

    • Joanna Wiebe

      “Overcoming the monster” is interesting. What does that mean, practically? What’s the monster? The monster is the thing you fear and want to kill? More, please, Raymond!!

      • Whoops. I missed this comment.

        The monster is exactly what you said, the big and scary and hairy and mean-looking thing you want to kill. It’s the thing you wished didn’t exist… the thing you ignore.

        It’s what keeps you up at night.

        It’s hiding in your closet, under your bed, and inside your subconscious.

        🙂

  • Well timed Joanna, I recently started promoting my travel guide as more than you can get from the tourist bureau, and was feeling guilty about it (I do still want to work with them in the long run). This post made me feel better about starting a little competition.

    • Joanna Wiebe

      Yay! Good on you. I tend to find that the copy that makes me feel most unsure is the copy to go with. If I’m scared, I’m on the right track. (Always within reason, of course! None of the Scrooged-style fear: “If you don’t watch this show, your world will explode!”)

  • Minard Benjamin

    Thanks Jo!

    Really great post!

    For a landing page I am working on, the competition is not so clear (immature market in Belgium) and I observe that our approach is too passive, very conventional,…

    I am very inspired by your post and especially Intercom example that illustrates that it is possible to insist on “progress-hindering forces” in a immature market (market with low awareness about actors of the market).

    In fact, even if the competition is not clear, it is possible to tell a story based on a conflict,

    A possibility is to focus on the decisional conflict : old process versus new process (to get the best offer on Telco market in our case).

    It provides great opportunities to focus on anxiety and resistance in a positive and clear way.

    Here the other guy is “the old process” to satisfy an existing need.

    PS : Sorry for my English but I am a native French speaking 😉

    • Joanna Wiebe

      “In fact, even if the competition is not clear, it is possible to tell a story based on a conflict.” Yes! There is a conflict. As you point out, in your case, it appears to be the old way vs the new way. I’m replying late to these comments (whoops!!), so I wonder if you’ve put this into practice yet or not, Minard…

      PS: Very good English! I’d have no idea how to comment on a blog in French. 🙂

      • Minard Benjamin

        No whooops 😉 at all for your late reply!

        We created 4 similar landing pages with different messages and are trying to find the best mix “channels-targets-messages”.

        It is a very interesting test with already many lessons.

        Once the test is finished I will introduce on the winning landin page(s) the Intercom approach.

        It is for sure very interesting in our case as the pains are important (difficult to adopt our new service…).

        I am a true fan of your publications in the form and in the font.

        PS : Note that I dislike autoproclamed and autosatisfied marketing so-called guru’s or evangelists…

        But I am a very fan of your work and could exceptionally tell you that you are my copy guru 😉

        So, if you need assistance to get information on Belgian market, actors or whatever, do not hesitate to contact me!

        This would be my humble contribution to thank you for your inspiring work 😉

  • Thanck you very much for this AMAZING TIPS .

  • Hey Jo!

    The timing of this post is perfect. So is the message.

    I aim to pick a fight in an upcoming blog post. But this post makes me take pause…to make sure I don’t go overboard.

    Especially since I have experts and influencers who contributed to the post. Experts who don’t have a dog in my fight. Not sure where that saying comes from…dog fights, perhaps? Show me a little mercy — I was born & raised in Oklahoma. 🙂

    Speaking of influencers and picking fights: I think a lot of new entrepreneurs and bloggers take the passive route ‘cos they’re taught to make alliances with experts in the same niche.

    Those expert-newbie relationships make picking a fight seem like networking suicide.

    But I believe your advice to challenge the status quo provides a sensible way to be bold without burning bridges.

    Thanks for the inspiration!

    • Joanna Wiebe

      One of our rules for writing blog posts at Copy Hackers is that we must pick a fight with something (not someone, though). What’s the status quo? Pick a fight with it. What’s the accepted best practice? Pick a fight with it. You can “attack”, say, the lean startup methodology without attacking Eric Ries. We’re allowed to question things. We’re supposed to. That’s how we get new, better ideas and practices. But the old rule applies: think before you speak, and read before you think.

      The pick-a-fight idea also works well for generating a/b test hypotheses, if you’re working with a very open-minded team. 🙂

  • This was a really good read. I guess I’ve never thought about it, but I can be kind of passive in my writing to the point that I AVOID picking those kind of fights. Makes me think. Thanks!

    • Joanna Wiebe

      I think a lot of us are passive in our writing, Ryan. We have to be shaken out of it, and that’s where some of these really extreme examples – like Mac vs PC – come in: they help us see that it’s perfectly acceptable to position your product against another product IF you do it the right way.

  • Alana Falk

    Great article with lots of inspiration, thanks!

    • Joanna Wiebe

      Glad to hear it, Alana!

  • Daniel Rose

    Hi Joanna. Thanks for the post, I absolutely adore it. It’s really made me rethink my attitude to copy. It’s so easy to settle into a cozy comfortable bubble, but you’ve really highlighted the benefit of picking a fight (albeit a fair one). Thank you.

    • Joanna Wiebe

      Glad to hear it, Daniel! I just find it so much easier to start writing when I can visualize the thing that makes what I’m trying to sell / promote / offer better than anything else… which naturally brings up “the other guy.” And I think it behooves every startup to be as scrappy as its supposed to be and actually go out swinging – cleverly but powerfully.

Copywriting tutorial

2017 events

Business of Software
September 18 to 20 in Boston, MA
Converted
Oct 17 & 18 in Minneapolis, MN
Content Jam
November 1 & 2 in Chicago, IL

We built a million-dollar business on blogging

Amazing blog posts build businesses and print money. Now Copy Hackers is teaching indies and teams to write kick-ass posts in half the time. Get notified when we're live.

Unsubscribe anytime. 100% privacy. Powered by ConvertKit