Attention, Interest, Desire, Action - Copywriting

[Dcrux]

Have you ever gotten to a site page where the first thing that hit you is the keyword stuffing? It's all well and good to write with search engines in mind. More than a few sites are still writing copy with nothing else in mind.

Copywriting for humans has a general rule: AIDA. The first step is attention. And the web is all too good at getting attention. Unfortunately, the web's favored way is like a sugared up four-year-old screaming "Look At Me!" Attention has a task: getting the reader interested.

That means, no gimmicks without a purpose. Attention is easily had: show someone doing a backflip. If you show how the shoes you sell absorb the shock, you're well on track. If you show how you tailor clothing keeps change, wallet and personal electronics from falling out, you're doing well. Most sites fail right away.

One site used a beautiful flash animation on the theme "balance," never to mention it again in word or deed. A web design site has a photo of a tree in the layout. Why? Why not. As common as this is, the message sent is "why not" and "me too." A coherent site can discuss how their business philosophy is about balance. Web design can readily be related to a tree.

When the goal is communication, text and images can refer to each other. The reader's attention is rewarded, which leads to interest. Rewarding interest means information, not just name rank and serial number. At this stage you're trying to tell the reader why to stick around. A Unique Selling Position and differentiation is a small thing to ask. Yet, for many sites, the message is "Open for business." When a user clicks on a thumbnail, display more information not just a bigger picture.

While usability removes task roadblocks, desirability is the motivation getting users to move to conversion. Most sites get the functional requirements, not the motivational facets required for success. At the most rudimentary level, don't design the site in a competitive vacuum. If the competition looks good, then looking good isn't a competitive advantage -- looking different is.

There is not penalty for going beyond the competition.

Finally there are two different ways sites communicate what they want them to do. One is a simple "call to action" which can be going to the next page, or start the checkout. Here too, site builders get so caught up with the action they desire they forget fulfilling user desires gets them what they desire.

A lot of sites are what I call data parsers. You want a camera, I give you the price and stats. What kind of picture does the camera take? How confusing are the features? Most sites aren't set up to support shopping, they support buying. Set up with the idea of the financial transaction at the end, too many sites are shopping carts. The product catalog merely supports the cart, not the other way around.

What this communicates to the user is they are merely the life support system for a wallet.

It’s Not About Keyword Stuffing A Web Copywriting Tip by Nick Usborne (http://www.excessvoice.com/web-copywriting-tip37.htm)

A Rose By Any Other Name... Stinks by Chris Hass (http://www.air.org/usability/publications/chrishass/rose.html)

Persuasive Navigation By Jeff Lash (http://www.digital-web.com/articles/persuasive_navigation/)

Nine In Ten Online Shoppers Frustrated: Survey By K.C. Jones (http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173602800)
Around 90% of online users have problems completing Internet transactions, according to a survey conducted by Harris Interactive.

[ronparrs]

Thanks for a GREAT article!

I just posted the AIDA bullets in our sales office. They are good reminders whether online or face to face.

The comment at the end is a terrific wake up call. When we first started selling online I saw our stats & questioned our shopping cart vendor. They told me that it's VERY normal to have drop-off rates in the 85% to 90% range. As a brick & mortar guy that seemed outrageous, but online it made better sense. Imagine 90% of a store's customers just suddenly walking out just before they ring out!

Over the years as we've added USEFUL CONTENT, our drop-off rate (thank GOD!) has dropped also so now we're averaging about 60% ( www.parpools.com ). I know that 0% will never happen, but we'll keep working at it. Our secondary site ( www.cheaphottubchemicals.com ) which is just starting with a lot more to add is at just under 80%. We know that as we add pertinent content, that number will keep falling too.

[abuthepooh]

thanks for the warning DCrux
i am an amateur blogger and to be very frank i really was thinking of doing a wild advertising for my insignificant link. however thank you for pulling me short. i'll be careful and try to be build up a decent reputation for my articles and comments rather than get them ignored.
mazhar

[ADAM Web Design]

One site used a beautiful flash animation on the theme "balance," never to mention it again in word or deed. A web design site has a photo of a tree in the layout. Why? Why not. As common as this is, the message sent is "why not" and "me too." A coherent site can discuss how their business philosophy is about balance. Web design can readily be related to a tree.

Agreed, except that there are way too many sites out there that just stick an animation or an image into a site (or marketing copy) for no reason at all.

Personally, I'd rather see a recommendation that says "don't use an image that doesn't directly relate to the products/services being offered".

Even the web design example, as much as it isn't a quantum leap, isn't a leap that everyone would make. If the connection has to be explained, the image isn't working.

[Dcrux]

If the connection has to be explained, the image isn't working.

Either way is a step up from where we are now, which is to drop components into a layout. Information, by definition, explains a connection which may not be intuitive or apparent. When you strip out the stuff that needs explaining, you're left with generic boilerplate filler in templates for sites. Just drop in a name and contact address.

That an image always communicates exactly the right thing to everyone who sees it is illusory.

Some images are just put in to be strange for the sake of being strange -- they can't be explained. If they can't explain, it communicates they're in the "Cuisinart" school, throwing it at the wall to see what the client will pay for. That's the basis for design decisions you want to know. "Intutive" is an illusion with interaction design. Idioms (icons) need explaining -- good idioms only need to be explained once. Information architecture is best when invisible, but needs explaining to communicate its value.