Spend enough time around the world’s greatest copywriters, and you’ll discover things that might frighten you…
Okay, I’m already regretting writing this issue. And I’m only three sentences in.
But I also think it’s a completely fair and accurate look at what the world’s greatest copywriters and marketers do in creating the kind of compelling big idea that will move markets.
For the last couple weeks, I’ve been buried in financial research.
I’ve been digging deeper into the markets and investor sentiment than I have in months.
I’m doing this because I’m working on a new promotion for a client. And while I think we’re about 95% of the way to the core idea and narrative of the promotion, I’m still digging to make sure I get all the way to 100%.
And I noticed myself going into a pattern I’ve consistently seen in the world’s greatest copywriters.
This borders on conspiracy theory…
I’ll explain.
When you’re trying to come up with a big idea for a promotion, you’re looking for something that will feel new and unique.
You’re looking for something that will stimulate both the emotions and the intellect of your prospect.
You want them to walk away from your marketing — whether or not they buy — with the feeling that they discovered something interesting and got value.
When you do that, you earned their engagement (readership, viewership, etc.).
But here’s the challenge.
You can’t just take one of the prepackaged narratives that already exists in the market and mainstream media, and tell it in your own voice… With the expectation it’ll come across as new and unique.
You have to connect new dots. You have to introduce new narratives. You have to create new perspectives.
And you know you’re doing this at concert pitch when you start to feel like a conspiracy theorist.
That is, when you plot out a bunch of research “dots” all over the place, and the lines you draw between them present a picture that’s somehow startling, or enticing, or exciting in some way.
On one hand, it seems like you’re just making s*** up…
Let me address this from the point of view of the skeptic.
What you’re doing with the research is taking a bunch of disconnected things, making up connections between them, calling it real, and using that to manipulate your market into buying something.
And I’ve definitely watched with some discomfort as copywriters have basically done that, without any conviction that the narrative they told was real. And, in fact, sometimes openly bashing their prospects for being idiot enough to believe it.
This is not what I’m recommending here.
I don’t do this. At least, I don’t think I do.
What I see myself doing as I’m doing this kind of research is…
Looking for the plausible scenario…
Let’s rewind back to November 2014. I was in the middle of trying to piece together a narrative for a client that would lead to why his customers would want to buy an EMP-resistant backup solar generator.
At the time, there was plenty of fear around an EMP strike wiping out our power grid. It could happen from a solar flare. Or it could happen as a military attack. Either way would be devastating. And, in fact, both the US and USSR had tested EMP-based weapons during the Cold War.
It was all very real.
But it lacked a really compelling, current narrative that would drive interest.
When suddenly an unrelated piece of news came across my computer screen. Russia had launched a bunch of satellites at once. A piece of debris from the launch, originally thought to be “space junk,” was suddenly moving around through space, even docking with other satellites. There was all kinds of speculation about this satellite, and its intent.
I started connecting dots. What altitude was this satellite at? Was that an altitude from which an EMP attack could be launched? Would this satellite — or one like it — make a good delivery vehicle for an EMP attack?
I scoured every research source I could find to answer my questions. I started connecting the dots. And piece-by-piece, they came together.
Surprise, surprise, it was actually easy to connect the dots. Like any good conspiracy theorist, the deeper I dug, the more real it all became.
Now, I never came out and said this WOULD happen. I didn’t have to. All I had to do was say that it COULD happen, and that there was a whole pile of circumstantial evidence that pointed in the direction I was going.
(Side note: This actually SUCKS for science and empirical truth — give me enough time and I could probably connect any two dots together!)
And here’s the thing: when I presented this to my client, he actually thought I was UNDER-PLAYING the risk.
This is playing with fire, but it’s also the secret behind creating a compelling narrative…
And it goes on all the time.
It goes on in the mainstream media, as well as from fringe publications. It comes from every part of the political spectrum. It goes on in supposedly impartial journalism and academics, as well as from slimy capitalists and manipulative marketers like us.
As humans, we’re GREAT at making things up, and we suck at knowing what’s really true.
Heck, there are many times when our own confirmation bias has led us to believe something is true, in spite of a piles and piles of evidence against it.
You, me, and the rest of us will believe anything we want to believe, truth be damned.
And when you get into creating a marketing narrative involving predicting some future event? It gets even crazier.
This is a secret of all thought leaders…
They make something up, and they make it real, by connecting whatever dots they need to connect.
To do this with integrity, make sure you:
— Do as much legitimate research as possible from reputable sources.
— Make sure any connections you make are sound and believable, even if they’re still a hypothesis.
— State facts as facts and possibilities as possibilities (done with candor, this increases your persuasiveness).
— Believe in the conclusions you use to make the sale.
— Always act with the intention of serving your prospect and buyer’s best interests.
Final thought…
Right now, I’ve just come to some conclusions about the dangers to our investment market and economy, based on the research I’ve done.
The conclusions are compelling enough that I’m legitimately worried.
I’m NOT an economist. I’m NOT telling you what to do with your money.
Rather, I’m stating this because this is the level of conviction you should notice in yourself, if you do the research right.
In short, by the time you’re done, you should only be giving advice that you’d want to be given if the positions were reversed.
Then, tell a narrative that connects the dots with full conviction.
Yours for bigger breakthroughs,
Roy Furr
