GUEST POST

This post was kindly written by Andrew Ingle. Andrew is a freelance copywriter with whom it has been a pleasure to work. He is a gentleman, a craftsman and a true pro. He can be contacted at copy.writer@btinternet.com. He is clearly passionate about writing for websites, and one day he may even get around to writing his own.

Ok, his words and opinions from here on in….

If, in the short walk from pub to pad, the hot-totty you picked up at the bar changed appearance, attitude and sex, you’d have the right to feel a tad worried. Cheated even.

Then why is it that so many agencies and their clients are apparently unperturbed by the fact that customers are reading web copy that bears little or no relation to the ad that sent them to the site a millimoment before?

If the ad is cheeky and chatty, the website copy should be cheeky and chatty too… Isn’t that common sense: a branding basic from ‘The Ladybird Book of Marketing’? Seemingly not.

Sharing the blame

Where does the fault lie? It could be that the digital agency has failed to see the wisdom of investing in writing talent. Or worse still, the client has written the copy. (Sadly, neither of those is unheard of, and will be the subject of Whinge No.2.) But, more often than not, it’s all down to a lack of communication in our communications industry.

In this connected, networked world of ours, it’s bizarre to see such a gulf between the agency that writes the site copy and the agency that writes the ads directing prospects to the site. There’s little or no connection. Step beyond the landing page and any tone that the original ad possessed goes walkies.

And no, of course, this isn’t true of all sites (or of all agencies and all clients). But unless your standards are depressingly low, it’s undeniable that good web copy is the exception rather than the rule. And good web copy that’s consistently on-brand, hitting the right tone of voice from one end of the map to the other, is as rare as rocking horse poo.

Nobody is immune

Just before writing this, I took a link to a famous drinks website. This brand is one of my favourites, with a lovingly developed tone of voice that makes me smile at least once a year – usually at Christmas.

Designwise, the site is charming and witty (as it should be). But, once you’re all loaded, the tone changes. The site loses its voice. The writing is dry, repetitive and overlong. It’s everything the brand wasn’t before I got on the site, but is to me now. What a shame.

Surely it’s in the interests of the client and their above-the-online agency to ensure the digital copy is on-brand and on-promise? The site is where everyone gets to see – and prove – ROI: it’s where conversion takes place, data is gathered, sales are closed. It’s not just important. It’s frigging vital.

Making the marriage work

What’s the solution? Well, a single agency doing the whole shebang is one answer. A Jack of all trades. But that’s not always possible or desirable; unless you’re pretty sure the in-house talent is evenly spread across all the agency’s offerings.

So, assuming there’s more than one agency involved, it’s got to be client-led. The client is, after all, responsible for these arranged marketing marriages. And only the client has the clout to get all those egos toeing the line.

The client has got to insist – from day one of the contract – that their agencies talk, meet and work together on a regular basis. So very regular that the usual preening, point-scoring and political positioning of most inter-agency meetings (we’ve all been there) doesn’t just become foolish but untenable.

Channels of communication must be permanently open and used. Briefs must be shared. And systems and positions must be set up to ensure that the terms of this relationship are adhered to. All parties must invest in it.

And if agencies really have their client’s interests – as well as their own fragile reputations – at heart, they’ve got to be ballsy enough to tell it like it is. That without this kind of relationship, they simply can’t be as good as they could be. Indeed, as Dave Trott never said to me, “nobody can work well in a vacuum, unless they’re called ‘Shake ‘n’ Vac’.”

Of course, this sort of creative cohabitation doesn’t just apply to copy. It applies to every facet of any campaign that requires the input of more than one agency.

No excuses

It’s all very irksome for the client, because it means more work, and probably greater cost. They might even have to stay in the office until 6.15pm. But the resulting ROI will prove the effort worthwhile.

On the flipside, it may not make an iota of difference. If, after everyone has been properly informed, consulted, included, briefed and generally loved-up, the copy is still tummy-rot, then it’s okay to flourish the waggy finger of disappointment in the red faces of those responsible. Clearly the fault lies elsewhere. Exit Whinge No.1. Enter Whinge No.2…

It’s not just policemen that are getting younger. Teachers are judging by the last couple of parents’ evenings I’ve been to. And so are No 10 Downing Street aides.

On the 10 o’clock news the other night Gordon Brown emerged from No 10 followed by what can only be described as a boy. He was wearing a suit (but no tie), but I doubt he has to shave more than once a fortnight.

Seeing this prompted me to think again about the people behind the No 10 Twitter stream (@10downingstreet). Is it the men in ties or the boys in open neck shirts?

There has been a lot of talk recently about how Gordon Brown has found his voice in a time of financial and political crisis, but where has the @10downingstreet Twitter account found its voice?

Here are some examples of the voice in question.

I’m sure that as the Cabinet meeting in Liverpool wrapped up, the PM’s mind would have been on things other than a patchwork of mudflats. Not so “No10 admin” who, as you can see, can be relied upon to add a bit of romantic, poetic colour and context to the most unlikely of settings.

What, or rather, who do we want No 10 to be on Twitter? I asked them who they actually are and got the following reply.

I guess that the civil servant reference means that the Twitter stream is not meant to be a marketing tool for the current administration. If not a marketing tool then presumably an of-the-minute, by-the-minute information source.

In which case how should we feel about such an obviously jaunty, open-necked tone of voice? Choosing a tone of voice is a crucial component of communication strategy for any brand. It means something. It affects. It positions.

Ergo it markets?

Whether it’s intentional or not, there is a piece of positioning going on here. Using words like “snazzy” on a platform like Twitter says with-it, modern and down with the social networkers. It’s all very Blairite and not very Gordon Brown.

To give these civil servants the benefit of the doubt it could just be a function of believing that not only is the medium the message, but also that the medium and its audience should dictate the tone of voice. An easy trap to fall into. Many times during my career I’ve had to urge brands to sound like who they are rather than who they’re talking to. Such dissonance is transparent and not sustainable.

Should you be so inclined, feel free to Tweet about this post by copying and pasting the text below into your Twitter tool of choice.

No10 – waxing lyrically. But dissonantly – http://bit.ly/GbO