by Dan Kelsall
Let me say that again.
When it comes to marketing, you will never know for certain whether something will work until it does.
Shit that, isn’t it.
So your opinion, and the argument you’re having with your copywriter, is pointless. Just test both ideas. And then, when one works better than the other, you or your copywriter can be a wanker and give it the ol’, "Told you so."
Now, there are a growing number of people touting the use of
‘web psychology’ and ‘neuroscience’ in marketing or, more specifically, content marketing. They claim that there are ways of knowing what makes your target audience tick and, therefore, 49
knowing what they’ll react well too. That should then mean that there’s a good chance they’ll know which bits of content will do well, and which won’t. No need for opinions at all, right?
And that’s all well and good in theory. But it’s also bollocks.
Let’s look at it for a second, shall we.
Advocates of digital or web psychology, and ‘neuro-marketing’
talk about things like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – safety, shelter, love, friendship all the way up to self-actualisation – and how you can help your customers achieve this stuff online. They talk about colour psychology – how the colour red supposedly increases arousal or heart rate, or how the colour blue apparently calms and evokes trust. How certain language or visuals are more likely to provoke an emotional response, or how certain titles will get more clicks than others because when we read it, it does something in this or that part of the brain.
All sounds very fucking cool, right? But the issue I have here is, psychologists i.e. people who have studied this for years and are qual’d up to their eyeballs, still know very little about how the mind works.
In the grand scheme of things, neuroscientists still don’t really know much about how the nervous system affects how we act and think. A lot of it is still based on theory and guesswork.
So how the fuck can content marketers possibly know?
Do you realise how complicated those subjects are? Do you realise how little scientists actually know about what’s going on in our heads?
50
#fuckmaslow
When so little is known, how can we possibly expect marketers to use psychology and neuroscience effectively in marketing.
Do you see how dumb that sounds?
Until scientists themselves know more, in my opinion, people plugging these subjects when it comes to content creation are massively overcomplicating things.
And you know what? I’d hazard a guess that most marketers that sit there overanalysing this stuff probably aren’t the ones producing the best content.
So, for now, let’s keep it simple.
51
17. FUCK GRAMMAR
Oh, a writer said, "Fuck grammar." How edgy.
Right, so if you’ve ever read any of my stuff before, you’ll know how important I think it is to keep things simple.
I mean, other than taking risks, this should be your top priority when it comes to creating content.
And I don’t really mean ‘fuck grammar’. But it’s not as important as you might think, especially when it comes to social media.
Now before you spit your coffee out and start ranting about how I’m a twat on Twitter, let me make an argument.
If you look around, there are millions and millions of ‘technically good’ copywriters. But very few GOOD copywriters. There are millions of ‘technically good’ content creators. But very few GOOD content creators.
And what I mean by this is, tons of people know how to write well. They have good grammar, a real grasp of language, and, on the face of it, their writing appears top notch. But it gets no engagement. Nobody reads it. Nobody gives a shit about what they write.
But they continue to write the same way, because it’s how they’ve been taught, their friends tell them its good, and their mum spends time at dinner parties talking about how their son or daughter is an ‘amazing writer’.
You see, the vast majority of creatives, don’t understand that content has one purpose and one purpose alone. To create an audience and, more often than not, eventually make money.
52
But if you’re only getting 2 likes and a comment from your dad saying ‘Great article, kid’, I don’t give a shit how ‘technically good’ your writing is, (and these words are gonna hurt) you, my friend, for the moment, are not a good writer. At least when it comes to marketing.
And here’s another thing I can’t get my head around. If that’s the case, and you’re a content producer who gets no engagement, and drives nothing to the business, why aren’t you questioning that? Why aren’t you looking in the mirror and going, “What I’m doing is shit. What can I do about it?”
Good writing (or design, or videography, or anything else creative) isn’t about getting things perfect technically. When it comes to marketing, the only thing it’s about is the end result.
So I’m going to say something controversial here. If you write an article and the grammar is perfect, and one of your colleagues writes an article and the grammar is shocking, but their article drives 10x more traffic and engagement than yours does, from a marketing perspective, theirs was the better piece of writing.
Hard to hear that, isn’t it?
The fact is, creatives that are technically good are in the millions. Seriously, there are shitloads of writers, designers, videographers, illustrators etc. that are great at producing what can be considered technically good work. But creatives that can use their content to grow an audience, or bring in something tangible to the business – they’re like gold dust.
Here’s a tip that some writers won’t like, either.
When it comes to social, when it comes to online content, when 53
it comes to engaging a mass audience, please get good at one thing: writing the same way that you speak.
Now for most writers, this is painful. Academia fucked us.
We were all taught from a young age to write properly. Not to say ‘me and Donald Trump’ but to say ‘Donald Trump and I’, not to start sentences with ‘And or But’ and most of all, to make well-rounded arguments.
I’d like to say things have changed, but they haven’t. Readers have always liked stuff that’s easy to digest. The mass market doesn’t really like jargon or the overuse of big words that they don’t understand. So write for them. Don’t write to show how many fancy words you know. The mass market doesn’t read academic white papers, even in B2B. To be a good copywriter or content marketer, you need to take all of that writing shit that school, college and university taught you, chuck it out of the window, and learn to write again.
And as for making a well-rounded argument, don't. If you argue both sides of the thing you're writing about, it'll bring less people to the table. Why? Because people want to say their piece on the topic, and if you make their argument for them, they'll have less to say, and they won't comment on your post, or article.
Your only job as a content producer is to light the fire - to spark the debate. It can be hard to leave parts of the argument out. It can be difficult to sit firmly on one side of the fence, knowing that you have more to say on a subject, but what you don't say is just as important as what you do when it comes to content marketing.
Now, most literary critics would look at my writing and say it’s shit. I break all the rules I was told not to. To them I say, “Fuck 54
your rules.” I’ve hit over 10 million views on my content in the past 9 months, had just shy of 10,000 eBook downloads and got big results for tons of clients. Not only that, but my business, up until this point, has been built solely on inbound leads as a result of my own content. That’s a brag, but it’s also proof that what I say works.
However, I’m now going to contradict that last line with the next section.
55
18. FUCK WHAT I JUST SAID
Just because what I
say works, doesn’t mean that it works.
“What in the holy motherfucking fuck are you on about, Dan? If what you say might not work, why the hell am I reading this book?”
I know. I contradict myself a lot. I say some confusing stuff. I’m like one of those parents that smoke crack in front of their kids but tell them not to eat too many crisps because ‘they’re bad for you’. It’s important to say at this stage, that I actually have no scientific proof that crack is worse for you than Quavers.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say is, the way that I write content will work for some of you. But, for most of you, if you follow what I say to the letter, it will bomb. Why? Because you’re not me.
Most of you won’t be able to get away with saying stuff like,
“Your marketing team is as useless as a chocolate dildo.” Most of you will look very ‘try hard’ if you start littering your copy with swearwords. And, let’s be honest, most of you probably aren’t funny either.
But what I can promise you is that, no matter what brand or sector I’ve produced content for, the following things are consistent.
People want to be spoken to like people. I don’t care if you’re B2C or B2B, lose the corporate bollocks. Bin the jargon. Stop with the shit acronyms.
The structure of good content has always remained the same.
The hook (the title or first line of a piece of content) has to draw readers in. The body has to give them value and be relatable, and the close has to encourage them to act – whether that 56
means a comment, a website visit or even a purchase.
Honesty is everything. If you’re a brand, talk about your struggles as much as your successes. Admit it when you fuck up (see the ‘FCK’ KFC advert for a good example of this). Use the differing views of those within your organisation to show that you’re not all corporate robots. Stop with the ‘Our employees all have to sound the same’ nonsense.
You need to test content repeatedly. Test messages.
Experiment with different tones of voice. Not just at the start, but FOREVER. There is no blueprint to what works when it comes to marketing, nor will something that works necessarily continue to work. Those who fail at marketing are the ones that stick to what they’ve always known, are scared of taking risks, and never analyse what’s going well and what’s not.
Not all channels will work. If your business doesn’t sell shit that’s aesthetically pleasing or you don’t have loads of good looking staff, you probably won’t do very well on Instagram. If you’re not the sort of brand that can have casual conversations with customers and take the piss out of competitors, Twitter is pretty pointless.
Unless you’ve got a solid budget, your Facebook campaigns will probably dive. If you’re a boring accountant (sorry accountants) with the charisma of a dead slug, you’ll most likely struggle to build a decent following on LinkedIn. Find one channel that works and, once you’ve mastered it, transfer that audience to other channels if you feel like you need them, and if you've got the time to manage them.
Aaannnndddd, back to the point about not listening to me. If you're truly creative, and if you try new types of content 57
regularly, you will soon find your own way of doing things. You'll find things that work for you and wouldn't work for me or anyone else, and you might even find that things that I told you not to do, actually work for you.
If that's the case, what's the point of this book?
Well, I wrote this to give you things to think about. I know how difficult creating good content is, and I know how hard it can be to grow, and keep, an audience. But I also know that there is absolutely no blueprint for getting it right. None. You can read as many books like this one as you want. You can study as many great content creators as you want. You can get as many marketing quals, and learn as much about marketing psychology as you want. But nothing will ever replace good ol' trial and error. Nothing will ever replace 'learning on the job'.
Want to create fucking good content? Start by just creating content.
With a bit of talent and hard graft, you might just stumble upon something that works.
58
19. FUCKING GOOD CONTENT
To start, see if you can answer this. Below are 2 campaigns: Protein World and Nike. Both are examples of messages that were as controversial as they were successful. But what's the major difference between the approaches to these adverts?
Nike & Colin Kaepernick. The sportswear giant's market value rose by $6 billion after backing the former NFL quarterback.
Protein World. The brand made around £1 million in 4 days after this controversial campaign.
59
You know what I think the major difference is here?
Luck.
You see, Nike are known for their controversial marketing campaigns. They're known for firmly taking a stand.
The Colin Kaepernick ads were no different. It infuriated part of their audience to the extent that people actually bought items of Nike clothing and burnt them in the street.
On the surface, the Protein World campaign was equally controversial. It drove feminist groups and many others to deface the ads that were plastered across the London Underground.
Despite the controversy, both adverts drove profits.
But did Protein World ever manage to replicate the success of this campaign? Nope. And yet Nike continue to churn out successful campaign after successful campaign.
See the difference yet?
The fact is, I don't think Protein World realised what they'd done well. I think the campaign's success (and it was very successful, regardless of whether you or I agree with the message) was an accident.
And the fact that we've never seen any similar campaigns from them since, tells me that they haven't got a clue what they did to cause such a stir, or how to replicate it with further marketing.
Content marketing is about being like Nike. Not Protein World.
It's about being able to create consistently good content.
60
Not a one off viral piece, or single successful campaign.
So what does good content do? What does it look like? How do you produce it?
Firstly, good content never sits on the fence. Ever. People, and small brands, are so scared of polarising opinion. But why?
Did Nike sit on the fence with Colin Kaepernick? Nope. Did it damage their brand? Nope.
Did Protein World worry about putting skinny models on advertisements on the underground with the caption, “Are you beach body ready?”, and apologise when feminists lost their shit about it? Did they fuck.
In both cases, profits shot through the roof. I’m not saying I agree with Protein World’s message, in fact I massively don’t, but it spoke to their target demographic, and because of those that thought defacing posters with lipstick and girl power slogans would make a difference, the brand ended up all over the national news. Prime time TV slots and not a penny paid for it.
So, who came off better in the end?
And do you honestly think that Protein World gave a shit what I and so many other people who disagreed with their advert thought? Do you think that Nike cared that old, white blokes and racists were burning their trainers in response to the brand's support for Kaepernick?
The fact is, good content gets results. It says something powerful that strikes a chord with your target market. It has personality. It doesn’t force products or services down people’s throats. It’s engaging.
61
And it always says something that your target market wish they could say, but daren’t say.
We have a myriad of channels available to us to distribute content to the right people. Everyone has the tools at their finger tips to drive more traffic to their business.
Good content can’t make up for a shit product. But one thing is certain. Good content will always work, no matter the social channel, no matter the advertising method, no matter the market.
If you get your content right,
if you get your message nailed, if you find a tone of voice that makes you stand out, everything else will fall into place. But be very aware that it's only getting harder to do that.
You have to realise that we are currently experiencing content overload, and there is only so much our tiny minds can take in.
We walk down the street and we're bombarded with billboards, posters and company visuals. We watch telly or Youtube and we're subjected to boat loads of cringe-inducing ads and product placements. We scroll through social media feeds peppered with