Copywriting

Promiscious upgrading is a very bad plan indeed

by

A Copy Riddles member named Paul writes in:

Hello John,

I purchased Copy Riddles some months ago.

Will you give me (and all previous buyers) access to the member’s area now that the program is delivered on a website?

The answer is yes and no.

I definitely gave Paul access to the members-only area of my site where Copy Riddles is now hosted.

Hence the yes part in the “yes and no” above.

But I won’t do the same for all previous buyers — not unless they write me and ask. ​​Hence the no.

The reason I am not giving access automatically to all previous buyers is that I have to do it manually, and that takes some time and effort. And why go to that expense for someone who might not appreciate it? ​​In the words of the godfather of modern advertising, Claude Hopkins:

I consider promiscuous sampling a very bad plan indeed. Products handed out without asking or thrown on the doorstep lose respect. It is different when you force people to make an effort.

As it was for bars of soap a hundred years ago, so it is for the new Copy Riddles today.

If you have gone through Copy Riddles previously, in its old, email-based form, and you’d like me to upgrade you to the new, web-based form, just write me and ask. I will do it, as Joe Sugarman used to say, promptly and courteously.

And if you haven’t yet gone through Copy Riddles yet in any form, here’s what Paul (same Paul as above) had to say after I upgraded him to the new Copy Riddles:

What you offer in the “Copy Riddles Course” is a very clever and powerful way to improve our copywriting skills. It’s based on the work of the greatest copywriters. But it’s the kind of practical value you wouldn’t generally find in the books they wrote. In fact, I think there are very few copywriting courses that offer this level of practical value. Best of all, yours is very affordable. Thanks again John. Oh, and by the way, my mother tongue is French and I find that everything you present is clear and well explained, even though I am not a native English speaker.

In case you’d like to join Copy Riddles before the price goes up:

https://bejakovic.com/cr/

“Why would you ever say anything that’s not awesome?”

by

This past summer, I wrote an email about how I was struggling to get through the Dig.This.Zoom course, in spite of having paid $1,200 for it.

Maybe it will turn out the course wasn’t an entire waste of money, because it did provide me with the following quick story:

In one Dig.This.Zoom lesson, Aaron Winter, former copy chief at Motley Fool and guru to super successful Dig copywriters like Dan Ferrari and Austin Lee, was talking about headlines.

​​”So there’s headlines,” Aaron said, “and then there’s… stuff? Content? We reject that. Ideally, they’re all headlines. Why would you ever say something that’s not awesome?”

In slightly clearer words, Aaron was saying that each line of your copy should have as much pull — as much emotional weight and curiosity and benefit, all fused together — as your headline has.

This is the kind of inspirational but vague mysticism that made me start to tune out the entire Dig.This.Zoom course.

Fortunately, Austin Lee, who was on this particular Dig.This.Zoom call, chimed in at this point with some practical advice:

“One of the most fun and educational exercises you encouraged me to do was write a headline for every little section of my outline. I really wrote an entire promo of maybe 26 or 32 headlines all the way down through the offer.”

I bring this up (spoiler alert) because I am promoting my Copy Riddles program. Whenever I do promote this program, I always get some form of the following question:

Is Copy Riddles just about bullets OR about about copywriting in general?

The answer is yes.

As Aaron says above, copywriting is really about your best headlines. And your best headlines are really just your best bullets. Or as Ben Settle put it once:

“Bullets still work, never stopped working, and will always work — When written correct everything ‘comes’ from the bullets, including non-bullet copy or ads where there are no bullets.”

Copy Riddles is now open and ready to turn you into somebody who writes stuff that’s awesome. Whether that’s awesome bullets, awesome headlines, or awesome body copy.

​​In case you’re interested:

https://bejakovic.com/cr/

“sold out”

by

Yesterday, marketer Justin Goff sent out an email with the subject line “sold out”. The body copy immediately explained what was sold out:

Just a heads up, nearly half of the 250 swipe files that are available in the special sale going on today have already been taken…

So they will be sold out soon.

Here are a few things I, and probably many other people who are on Justin’s list, know after this email:

1. Justin has been promoting this affiliate offer for a few days.

2. So have several other marketers with large lists, including some with the largest lists in the copywriting/IM niche.

3. After several days of steady emailing by all those marketers, going out to tens of thousands of people in total, fewer than 125 sales of the affiliate offer have been made. That probably translates to a less than 0.1% conversion rate — and maybe as low as 0.025%.

I don’t know how many sales, and more importantly, how much money, Justin made with this “sold out” email. Maybe he did great. And maybe I will look like a fool for sticking my nose into things that I don’t know anything about.

With that in mind, let me say that Justin’s email is a violation of a fundamental rule of copywriting.

Perhaps the most fundamental rule of them all.

It’s a rule I was exposed to in the mythical webinar training that A-list copywriter Parris Lampropoulos put on back in 2018. Parris repeated this rule, over and over, while talking about how he evaluates his own copy, and while critiquing many pieces of student-submitted copy. The rule is this:

“Does it help your case, hurt your case, or is it neutral? Only keep it in if it helps your case.”

This rule might seem blindingly obvious. But as Justin’s email above shows, even smart and successful marketers will break this rule — because they get rushed, careless, or greedy.

When I read Justin’s email, my first impression was, “Fewer than 125 copies sold? This must not be a very attractive offer.” My second impression was, “Even if it’s a fine offer, I’ve got plenty of time to get it, since at this rate it won’t sell out soon — in spite of Justin’s alarmist subject line.”

Again, I might be sticking my hoof in my snout by talking about a promotion where I don’t know the actual sales numbers, and one which is still going on.

But the bigger point stands. Does it help your case, hurt your case, or is it neutral?

Anyways, on to my own promotion:

Nearly half of the infinity+ digital copies of my Most Valuable Email course have already been sold.

The remaining infinity+ copies are sure to sell out soon. So starting tomorrow, I will turn my great eye elsewhere, and start promoting my twice-born Copy Riddles program.

That means you might not hear from me about my Most Valuable Email program for a while, even though it will continue to be available for sale.

But hold on—

Is this any kind of way to do urgency? Should the fact that I won’t be pitching MVE for a while make you want to buy it today?

No. Not unless you’re the type to get activated by “sold out” subject lines and other transparent scarcity tactics.

On the other hand, if you like the basic promise of Most Valuable Email — “turn ordinary and rather boring emails into something clever and cool” — then today is as good a day as any to start down that path. ​​And maybe even better than any later day — because if you get going now, you will start seeing the benefits of this little trick in action sooner.

Whatever the case, if you are interested, here’s the link:

https://bejakovic.com/mve/

Copywriting is a crazy business, but it’s not unlike any other business

by

A few weeks ago, a reader named Ferdinand wrote me to say he has written a book, but he is afraid to advertise it because he’s not sure it’s any good. Would I be kind and selfless enough to take a look and tell him if it’s ok to put out?

I was kind and selfless enough to respond to Ferdinand, saying that I charge people a great deal of money to review copy and content — but good on him for trying.

That was a mistake.

Because yesterday, I got a second email from Ferdinand. He said he didn’t get the precise response he was looking for with regard to the book. And that’s okay. But he still wants to bother me a little bit.

Would I give him a job? Any kind of a job? The pay doesn’t matter, as long as it’s consistent. He knows he can do more than what he’s currently doing, and copywriting is his dream, and he wants to chase it…

This reminded me of a scene in the King of Comedy.

Robert De Niro plays a wannabe standup comedian. He’s a big fan of a late-night talk show host played by Jerry Lewis.

One night, as Jerry is leaving the studio and getting into a cab, De Niro pushes his way through the crowd and jumps into the cab with Jerry.

Jerry is startled, even frightened. But De Niro reassures him. He just needs to talk for a minute. Right now, he’s working in “communications” but by nature he’s a comedian. His stuff is dynamite, it’s his dream, he just needs a break…

Once Jerry’s heart rate comes down a bit from the scare, he gives De Niro some practical advice:

“Look pal, gotta tell you… This is a crazy business, but it’s not unlike any other business. There are ground rules. And you don’t just walk on to a network show without experience. Now I know it’s an old, hackneyed expression but it happens to be the truth. You’ve got to start at the bottom.”

No?

You don’t like that old, hackneyed expression?

You want something a little more “hustle culture”-y, a little more Tim Ferriss-y? Ok, try this on and see if it fits:

In my experience in the direct response industry, it’s always a lousy idea to ask for a job. Even if you’re starting at the bottom. It’s much better to put yourself in a position where people ask you to work with them. In the words of Claude Hopkins, offer a privilege, not an inducement.

Are you still with me? That’s surprising. But in that case, you might get value from other emails and essays I write. In case you want to read them, you can sign up to my daily email newsletter.

Have we reached “peak storytelling”?

by

This week’s New Yorker features a cartoon of a puzzled couple in front of an apartment door.

​​The man is holding a bottle of wine, so the couple are probably guests coming for a party. But they are hesitating, because the welcome mat in front of the door doesn’t say “Welcome”. Instead, it says,

“Welcome?”

This cartoon connected in my mind to a “law” I found out about a few day’s ago, Betteridge’s law, which states:

“If a headline asks a yes or no question, the answer is always no.”

Ian Betteridge is a technology journalist. And his argument was, if the answer to that yes/no question were yes, the writer would definitely tell you so, right away, as a matter of shocking fact.

Instead, the writer didn’t have enough proof to support his claim. But he decided to make it anyhow, as a question, in order to say something more dramatic than he could otherwise, and to suck you into reading. Like this:

“Will AI and Transhumanism Lead to the Next Evolution of Mankind, or Doom It?”

No. And no.

Betteridge’s law is an instance of the persuasion knowledge model.

​​That’s a fancy, academic term for the fact that people become aware of manipulative advertising and media techniques. And after people become aware, they also start resisting — “Don’t even bother reading this article, because the answer is sure to be no.”

That’s how in time, people become dismissive of intriguing headlines (“clickbait”), of being told something new about themselves (r/StupidInternetQuizzes/), even of effective stories (the entire TV Tropes website).

That’s not to say that curiosity, categorization, or stories no longer work or will not work as ways to persuade or influence.

But it does say that the effort and skill required to make them work today is a bit greater than it was yesterday — and it will be a bit greater still tomorrow.

And so it is with what I’ve been calling the Most Valuable Email trick.

Like stories, categorization, or curiosity, my MVE trick is based on fundamental human psychology.

​​It will continue to work forever — just how a well-told or fascinating story continues to work today, in spite of the fact that you probably have 20 story-based daily emails sitting in your inbox right now.

The thing is, if you act today, you get bonus points for using the MVE trick.

​​The day may come when the persuasion knowledge of the market becomes aware of this trick, and maybe even takes evasive measures. But today, practically nobody is aware of the MVE trick, especially in emails. As copywriter Cindy Suzuki wrote me after going through the Most Valuable Email course:

I’m looking back at your old emails with new eyes. You know that moment people get epiphanies and the entire world looks different? I’m feeling that way about your writing now. You’ve helped me unlock something I didn’t know existed. So incredible.

In case you’d like to take advantage of this opportunity while it’s still early days:

https://bejakovic.com/mve/

Breaking News: I have an email surplus

by

Yesterday, I was sitting on the couch trying to work.

The girl who was sitting next to me had her phone out. Suddenly, it started blaring with an English woman’s voice:

“I came into office at a time of great economic and international…”

I waited for a second, hoping that the noise would die down. The phone continued to blare:

“… instability. Families and businesses were worried about how to pay their…”

I frowned, both at the level of noise and the level of fluff. “What is this?” I asked the girl.

“It’s breaking news,” she said. “The UK’s Prime Minster just resigned.”

“Who cares?” I asked, hoping she would get the hint and turn the noise down.

“It’s breaking news!” she repeated.

I’m telling you this not to highlight how little I care for breaking news, though that’s certainly true.

I’m telling it to you to set up the fact that yesterday, when the UK’s Prime Minister resigned, was Thursday October 20.

Today, as I write this email, is Friday October 21.

And tomorrow, when this email will actually be sent out so you can read it, will be Saturday October 22.

In other words, I am a day ahead in my emails. I have an extra email written and scheduled — for the first time in something like 18 months.

The last time this happened was during my trip to Colombia in January 2021.

​​I was traveling with friends, and I was unsure that I’d have time each day to sit down and write a new email. So when I did find time to sit down, I’d write several emails at a time. By the end of that trip, I ended up with a surplus of a few days’ worth of emails.

The same thing happened this time.

​​I was traveling to London with a friend this past weekend. ​​Again, I was unsure when I might have time to sit down and write. Again, as a result of this, I wound up with an email surplus.

Which brings me to the paradoxical mathematics of email copywriting:

I find it’s often easier to write two, three, or 10 emails than to write one.

I can think of a few diff reasons why this is:

* More time spent on research…

* Less time spent on fiddling…

* And an overall tighter, clearer, faster structure for the emails in a batch of 10 than for a lone, lonely, and possibly bloated single email.

So my takeaway for you is, if you’re having a hard time writing a single email, set yourself the goal to write 10. Paradoxically, you might have an easier time of it.

And now, here’s some real breaking news:

Next week, I will be releasing my amazing Copy Riddles program for all the world to marvel at. I’m planning to throw a big and loud launch party in this newsletter, starting next Thursday and ending next Sunday. Maybe it will be a costume party, and if it is, I’ll dress up as Po the Kung Fu panda.

In case you’d like to be invited to that party, you can sign up for my daily email newsletter. Click here for the application.

Barnum, Bejakovic, and the burning ring of fire

by

A fiery but true story about two men and a horse:

Back in 1866, a man named Henry Bergh established the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

The ASPCA’s powers were such that Bergh and his minions could stop and arrest anybody they believed was mistreating an animal.

The trouble was that Bergh himself was largely an uninformed crusader, who knew little about many of the animals he was seeking to protect.

For example, he once ordered a large tank of water for a rhinoceros to swim in, despite the fact that a rhinoceros will not swim — nor will he float.

Another time, Bergh set his sights on P.T. Barnum’s circus, and specifically, an act in which Salamander the horse jumped through several rings of fire.

Bergh sent his assistant down to Barnum’s circus to investigate the rings, the horse, and P.T. Barnum himself.

Barnum, master showman that he was, sensed an opportunity.

He invited Henry Bergh’s assistant, the police, and a large crowd to the main tent of his circus.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” Barnum said, “I have been catering to the public for forty-eight years, yet I am here today expecting arrest.” He went on to talk about all the animals he had owned and all the care and protection he had provided them over the years. The crowd, the police, and Bergh’s assistant sat there, arms crossed, unimpressed.

And then, Barnum had the rings of fire lit.

First, he stepped through the rings himself. He emerged unscathed and unsinged. The crowd hemmed and hawed.

Next, a troupe of Barnum’s clowns came out. They performed some antics, tumbling in and out of the fiery hoops. The crowd laughed.

Then, Salamander the horse was led to the rings. He passed through them with no signs of fear or hurt. The crowd cheered.

The end? Oh no. Barnum didn’t end his show just yet.

Because as the final act, Barnum had Henry Bergh’s assistant pass through the rings of fire. The man, a little hesitant at first, emerged unhurt and impressed.

He stated right then and there, in front of the police and the assembled crowd, that his employer, Mr. Bergh, had made a mistake.

Barnum stood in the middle of his big tent to share his big takeaway. “I love animals too well,” he said, “to ever torture them.”

My own takeaway of why I’m telling you this story should be obvious enough.

And if it’s not, might be more obvious once you go through my Most Valuable Email course.

That course features elephants and mice, wizards and strongmen — in short, high drama — and that’s just in the swipe file I give away.

The real show happens in the main tent, I mean, the core training. If you sit through that show, you will emerge on the other side, not only unscathed by the fire, but wiser and more excited than you are now, with a clear understanding of how today’s story of P.T. Barnum ties into my email writing

Whenever you’re ready,​​ step right this way:

https://bejakovic.com/mve/

“THE GIRL WHO SEEMED TO DIE” and other effective renamings

by

True story of a disgruntled employee:

Back in 1986, Disney was set to release a new movie called Basil of Baker Street, based on a book by the same name.

​​But studio execs thought the title was too cryptic, so they renamed the movie to telegraph what it’s really about. The result was The Great Mouse Detective.

This didn’t go over well with the people working on the movie.

​​Ed Gombert, an animator on Basil of Baker Street, wrote up a slightly bitter office memo, claiming Disney has decided to rename other classics in its portfolio. The new titles included:

“SEVEN LITTLE MEN HELP A GIRL”
“THE WOODEN BOY WHO BECAME REAL”
“COLOR AND MUSIC”
“THE LITTLE DEER WHO GREW UP”
“THE GIRL WITH THE SEE-THROUGH SHOES”
“THE GIRL IN THE IMAGINARY WORLD”
“THE AMAZING FLYING CHILDREN”
“TWO DOGS FALL IN LOVE”

etc etc.

The joke memo became widely circulated inside Disney. Disney CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg was not impressed. He did his best to ferret out who had written the sarcastic note, without success.

​​To make things worse, the memo eventually leaked out and resulted in an article in the LA Times. Suddenly, everybody was talking about the new Disney film, but for all the wrong reasons.

Or was it really all that wrong?

After all, The Great Mouse Detective, with its prosaic new name, went on to become a big commercial and critical hit.

It wouldn’t be the first time that’s ever happened.

​​I once read a book called The First 100 Million, by E. Haldeman-Julius, publisher of the Little Blue Books. The Little Blue Books were a phenomenon for much of the 20th century, and sold hundreds of millions of copies. Some were fiction, but mostly, they were practical how-to info about health, self-help, relationships, etc.

The most interesting chapter of The First 100 Million is about The Hospital. That’s where Haldeman-Julius took poorly selling titles and performed a radical operation — he renamed the books, including some classics. Results:

“The mystery of the iron mask” => “The mystery of the man in the iron mask”: 277% jump in sales

“Ten o’clock” => “What art should mean to you”: 450% jump in sales

“Fleece of gold” => “The quest for a blonde mistress”: 833% jump in sales

So while it’s good to be creative if you are an animator, maybe it’s not so good if you are naming a product and hoping for lots of sales.

Therefore, I would like to announce I am renaming my too-poetic Most Valuable Email course. From now on, the course will be called:

“How to use an email copywriting trick to turn ordinary and rather boring emails into something clever and cool”

I’m still reworking the sales page to account for this change and expansion in the name. But in case you’d like to get your paws on this soon-to-be classic right now, here’s where to go:

https://bejakovic.com/mve/

My best Ben Settle impression

by

Spanish copywriter Iván Orange, who bought my Most Valuable Email course, reports:

===

I want to take the opportunity to tell you that the day after I read MVE, I sent my list a first [MVE trick] email, using an idea from one of your swipe file emails.

That day I sold one of my courses, which made me make 5 times more the investment in MVE, so I’m looking forward to keep improving in this technique and make many more sales.

Hope you are very well John, I keep reading you.

Iván.

===

Let me do my best Ben Settle impression and say:

Not everyone gets results like this.

Before ever writing a single email using my Most Valuable Email trick, Iván built a large email list, products that people want to buy, and credibility in the industry.

For reasons that are ultimately beyond me, most people will never do the groundwork Iván has done and build up the same kinds of assets for themselves, so they too can be in a position where they can send one email and make $500 in return.

But wait.

I’m not done imitating Ben or negative striplining you.

I make lots of promises for my Most Valuable Email course. But in spite of Iván’s experience above, making 5x ROI in the first 24 hours is NOT one of those promises. Not because you cannot use my MVE trick make sales, But because it’s overkill. If all you want to do is to make quick and short-term sales, there are easier ways to do that.

On the other hand:

If you want to grow your email list… create interesting products that people want… and build up your credibility in the industry… all with an email copywriting trick you can learn in under an hour… then those are promises I do make for MVE.

Whatever the case, get your lovin’ here:

https://bejakovic.com/mve/

Nobel Prize-winner shows just how right I, John Bejakovic, was

by

Trust me for a moment or two while I tell you about the following interesting people:

On October 3, 1918, a man named Grover Bougher sent a letter to his brother George, a Private in the American Expeditionary Force.

Two days later, Grover was killed in a train wreck.

Grover’s letter was returned unopened the following April, with a note from the Command P.O. that George had also been killed, fighting the war in France.

Neither brother ever learned of the other’s death.

But life goes on. Eventually, Grover’s widow, Lulu Belle Lomax, met and married a man named Vernon Smith.

Smith loved children, including Lulu’s two daughters by Grover Bougher. And while Lulu had often said she would never have any more children, Vernon’s love for her two daughters changed her mind.

​​The result was Vernon Lomax Smith, born on January 1, 1927.

Fast forward to 2002:

Vernon Lomax Smith is awarded the Nobel Prize in economics. Well, actually he shares the prize with Daniel Kahneman. Like Kahneman, Smith did work in behavioral and experimental economics, so the Nobel committee thought it okay to split the prize among the two of them.

Fast forward even more, to 2022:

Vernon Smith, now aged 95, has taken part in an interesting experiment. Except, he is not the investigator. He is part of the experiment itself. The experiment runs as follows.

Smith and a lesser-known coauthor (one without a Nobel Prize) submit a paper for publication.

Will the paper be accepted for publication? How will Smith’s name influence those odds?

Result:

If Smith’s Nobel Prize-winning name is revealed to peer reviewers, they are more likely to accept the paper for publication.

If Smith’s name is hidden to peer reviewers, the reviewers are less likely to the accept for publication.

Common sense, right?

Except, what was not common sense, what was not obvious, and what was in fact shocking to the scientists who conducted this experiment, was the size of the effect of revealing Vernon Smith’s name to peer reviewers.

If Smith’s name was revealed to peer reviewers, they were 6x more likely to accept the paper than otherwise.

Same paper. Same quality of ideas inside. 6x difference in response.

6x!

Yesterday, I, John Bejakovic, wrote an email advising you to give your prospects mental shortcuts to make their decision-making easier.

One of the most valuable of such shortcuts is, as I have long trumpeted, to sell people, and not ideas.

Ideas are vague, hard to grasp, and hard to judge.

People, on the other hand, sell much better. How much better?

Well, thanks to Vernon Smith, we now have the answer:

​​6x better.

Like I said, this is something I have known for a long time. But I still need to remind myself of it often.

For example, I have lately been promoting my Most Valuable Email training.

I’ve given you all sorts of idea-y reasons why you might want to buy this training and learn the “Most Valuable Email trick” inside.

What I haven’t done yet is tell you maybe the most important reason.

While I have used this MVE trick heavily – more heavily than anyone I know of — I did not invent it.

In fact, I have seen some very smart and successful marketers, including Gary Bencivenga, Parris Lampropoulos, and Mark Ford reach for this trick it in non-email content.

It’s much rarer to see this trick being used in emails — outside my own — though I have spotted Daniel Throssell using this trick on occasion.

So many names.

So many people.

So many reasons to buy my Most Valuable Email training.

In case you are interested:

https://bejakovic.com/mve/