The last word in social media idiocy
This week Dominic Mills looks at the dangers of only looking at life through the rose-tinted prism of social media – plus: do we need to prescribe some anti-depressants to copywriters?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this headline on a MediaWeek news story published on 8 May – yes, the day the Conservatives won the general election. ‘Tories win Facebook, Labour wins Twitter’.
Meanwhile, under the headline ‘Social media’s crucial role in deciding the 2015 General Election winner’ the Drum solemnly reported that, according to Proofpoint Nexgate – no, I’ve no idea who they are – “Facebook and Twitter performed a decisive role in determining the outcome.”
My instant reaction is: ‘So what?’.
My more considered reaction is: ‘What the chuffin’ f*ck kind of world do these people live in?’ Talk about seeing life only through the rose-tinted prism of social media.
I’ll bet, amongst all the weeping at Labour HQ, its social media team will be high-fiving each other, and meanwhile Ed Miliband and his campaign team will be consoling themselves with the thought ‘we won something…at least we’re not total fuckwits’.
I’d like to think that the many media outfits who published this item of utmost stupidity did so in order to expose Proofpoint Nexgate to the oxygen of ridicule.
Sadly, though, I don’t think this is the case.
Nurse, bring me the morphine.
By the way, if you want a much more realistic take on the influence of social media on the election (i.e. hardly any), read this more illuminating analysis by David Fletcher of MEC.
And now for something more serious…
Mix with copywriters – and you’ll want to slit your wrists
I don’t know what the collective noun for a group of copywriters is, but I’ve got a suggestion. It’s a ‘moan’.
I have nothing personal against them – indeed, I usually find them stimulating company – but right now they’re a miserable bunch and I wouldn’t want to be stuck in a lift with any of them.
I know this because 10 days ago the Direct Marketing Association published the results of a census into copywriter attitudes – at Google of all places (actually not as daft as it sounds, but read on).
You can read the full results of what 430 of them think here, but let me summarise the key findings:
– 54% say there is a lack of respect for their output
– 68% say they suffer from poor briefs
– 50% say deadlines are unrealistic, leading to (35%) insufficient insight into the customer and (33%) a factory-like agency process machine
– 29% say half their published work is not as good as it could be
– 28% believe that, if the client was cutting back budgets, copywriting would be the first to go.
As Debi Bester, writer-in-residence at the DMA, says: “they feel overworked and undervalued“.
My first reaction to the study is to say this: “Oi, copywriters…get over it. Most people, especially in advertising, feel overworked and undervalued. That’s modern life.”
But at the same time, I feel that copywriting really matters, perhaps more than ever before. As one copywriter pointed out, you can’t walk down the street without seeing someone reading ‘content’ on their mobile phone.
So let’s cut the copywriters some slack, listen to their problems, and nurture them.
At heart, I suspect, their angst is driven by the view that we now live in a visual culture. That’s partly true, but words make a difference.
Imagery needs words to give context, meaning and resonance. Words convey both emotion and reasoned argument; they entertain and charm.
An image without copy, or good copy, is a waste of time. Copy too benefits from imagery, but not always. Sometimes, the words create the imagery, as some of Churchill’s stirring wartime speeches (“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight them on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields…”) do.
Of course, most copywriting pursues more mundane goals, whether it’s to attract the opposite sex, as this example does brilliantly, or to sell more maple syrup by writing ‘Keep chilled’ on the label, thus ensuring that the bottle lives in the fridge, where it is front of mind, rather than invisibly, at the back of the larder cupboard.
Note: no pictures necessary in both those examples.
I owe Patrick Collister, head of design at Google, for highlighting those brilliant bits of copy. A copywriter by training (apparently, he’s the only one at Google, but they gave him his odd title because they couldn’t think of what else to call him), Collister also makes two key points about copywriting.
One, the way you say something is as important as what you say; and two, the real skill of the copywriter is in being able to put themselves in the readers’ shoes.
One problem is what you might call (the illusory) ‘democraticisation of skill’ in which, thanks to software and digitisation, everyone thinks they can be a) a professional photographer b) an art director and c) a copywriter.
But spell-check, access to an online dictionary, and that funny green squiggly line on Word that tells you your grammar is wrong, do not a copywriter make, and nor do they involve the ability to see things from the customers’ point of view.
The second problem is what can be described as the ‘democratisation of authority’ in client organisations. This is where all the internal ‘stakeholders’ are given the chance to comment on copy via multi-cc’ed e-mail.
They haven’t actually got anything meaningful to say, but internal politics means corporate drones feel obligated to, so they chip in with utterly pointless comments about moving commas, adding wank words like ‘utilise’, and generally making a nuisance of themselves.
The result: the copywriter receives back a ‘Track Changes’ document that is an absolute mess, and one change contradicts another.
I once submitted some non-editorial copy, and one client stakeholder wanted to add the word ‘decimate’ without understanding its true meaning, and one wanted to substitute ‘illicit’ for ‘elicit’ (Doh! But spell-check doesn’t cover stupidity, only misspelling).
So, yes, I can understand the copywriters’ frustration with interfering clients. It brings to mind the old saying: “Why keep a dog and bark yourself?”
However, where I part company with the copywriters is in two areas. The first is in proving their worth (i.e. feeling valued). It seems to me it’s never been easier to prove the value of good copy.
Digital media means a) you can test different copy quickly and cheaply and b) you can see what works and what doesn’t simply by measuring time spent and any actions that result.
The cream should rise to the top, especially in anything that is searchable, given the way Google algorithms reward quality, originality and relevance of copy.
The second is in the lament about loss of time. Get used to it, copywriters! It’s the way life is going.
I wonder though whether this reluctance to accept the need for speed is linked to the fact that, according to the census, 39% of them prefer writing long copy.
Long copy, they may idealise, is where the real craft skills reside. I don’t agree, but then as a journalist I’m not likely to. Journalists mostly write fast, and they often have to write short. Just ask a tabloid reporter about the craft skills that requires.
The difference – and it is a big one, I concede – is that while journalists only have to come up with an angle, copywriters have to find an idea. And that is hard.
Nevertheless, today’s media eco-system requires speed of output, and as well as long copy, it also demands plenty of short, pithy stuff.
What then, is the answer to the copywriters’ ‘Weltschmerz’ (look it up)? The DMA and its sponsors (Royal Mail, Google, The Guardian and HP) are funding 20 scholarships via its Future Writers Lab. That will help, and maybe they should run a special for clients too.
I’d also like to see the DMA publish a Copy Book, perhaps in association with D&AD, to showcase the best of contemporary copywriting. It’s out there, but it needs celebrating.