A new interview - with Linda Caroll

The eigth interview in the series 'Success Stories - 12 Doers Share Their Secrets' just went live online.

This time the subject is Linda Caroll - a lady many people will know from the boards and forums as a very helpful and knowledgeable friend.

To read her story, please visit:

http://www.BizE-zine.com/interview-lc.htm

Please note that there is no commercial motive behind this post.

Martin.


Success Stories #8: Linda Caroll

Hi Martin,

Thanks, that was another very insightful interview!

Here is one part of your interview which stood out for me....

BizE-zine: What do you think is the secret of great advertising?

LC: While I've never bought an ad for my own business (it thrives on word of mouth and referrals) - I create ad strategies for my clients daily.

I believe that good advertising must surprise the viewer.

People see the same old lines and ads and buzzwords all the time. If you can surprise them, make them laugh, make them curious - or just make them feel emotion that's when you get response.

What this made me think of is what Joe Sugarman calls the "slippery slide" approach to advertising.

His approach is that the ONLY job of the headline is to get you to read the sub-headline.

The ONLY job of the sub-headline is to get you to read the first line of text.

The job of THAT line is to get you to read the next line.... and so on. Of course, in there somewhere is also a sales message....

Joe Sugarman describes this approach in his book "Advertising Secrets of the Written Word," and it's also described in "Outrageous Marketing" by Jon Spoelstra (who was one of Joe Sugarman's students).

Or I guess the "surprise" can be the "A" in the well-known "AIDA" formula for advertising (Attention, Interest, Desire, Action).

Martin, I was wondering if youy had any comments on this - on the value of surprise? It seems to be a different approach from the one which focuses on BENEFITS in the headline, for example....

And also (this kind of relates to the copyright discussion elsewhere here).... In an interview, who owns the copyright?

For example, I know with photos, the photographer owns the copyright (not the subject).

So, if it is an AUDIO recorded interview, does the person making the recording own the interview? Or does the person being interviewed partly own it (since it's their words)? If you know more about this, I'd be grateful if you could shed light on this topic....

Again, thank you for these fantastic and enlightening interviews!

- Dien Rice

> Hi Martin,

> Thanks, that was another very insightful
> interview!

Thank you very much. But, as always, the insight comes from the interviewees, not the interviewer!

> Martin, I was wondering if youy had any
> comments on this - on the value of surprise?
> It seems to be a different approach from the
> one which focuses on BENEFITS in the
> headline, for example....

I hope that Linda will see your post and offer her insight. But for now, you'll have to put up with mine...

Personally, I don't see any distinction. A great benefit is also a lovely surprise. Linda had a great example (which didn't make it into the final interview) and I will ask her to post it here. But it clearly illustrates that surprise and benefits are not separate issues.

If the benefit doesn't come as a surprise, then perhaps the wrong benefit has been chosen.

Sometimes the headline is purely used to shock or jar the reader into paying attention. But even then, a strong benefit must follow up pretty quickly in the subhead.

The approach to copywriting that you describe is what I call 'cascade writing.' Every line is like a tributary flowing into a river that by the end cascades into a torrent of positive emotion. Anything else just doesn't get the business.

> And also (this kind of relates to the
> copyright discussion elsewhere here).... In
> an interview, who owns the copyright?

> For example, I know with photos, the
> photographer owns the copyright (not the
> subject).

> So, if it is an AUDIO recorded interview,
> does the person making the recording own the
> interview? Or does the person being
> interviewed partly own it (since it's their
> words)? If you know more about this, I'd be
> grateful if you could shed light on this
> topic....

Phew! That is a big question and one that I'm not 100% certain of the answer to. I believe that there is a split of ownership. The interviewee owns copyright of their own specific words, where they have been used verbatim (ideas can't be copyrighted, so the concepts in an interview are not covered). However, the recorder owns the copyright of the piece that is published under his/her name.

Also, by agreeing to be interviewed, and, presumably voluntarily participating in the process, the interviewee has conferred the rights to the specific words written to the recorder.

There you are ... clear as mud.

> Again, thank you for these fantastic and
> enlightening interviews!

You are very welcome. There is another great one next week.

Best wishes,

Martin.




Success Story #8: Linda Caroll

Hi Martin,

> Personally, I don't see any distinction. A
> great benefit is also a lovely surprise.
> Linda had a great example (which didn't make
> it into the final interview) and I will ask
> her to post it here. But it clearly
> illustrates that surprise and benefits are
> not separate issues.

> If the benefit doesn't come as a surprise,
> then perhaps the wrong benefit has been
> chosen.

Thanks, that's a good perspective....

> Sometimes the headline is purely used to
> shock or jar the reader into paying
> attention. But even then, a strong benefit
> must follow up pretty quickly in the
> subhead.

Yes, I can think of ads like this.

Joe Sugarman had an ad with the headline

Pickle Power

The copy was humorous, talking about their new (not-quite-ready) product, battery powered electronic pickles!

The REAL product, in fact, was the rechargeable, one-size-fits-all batteries - which, in the ad copy were used to power the pickles!

Of course, anyone reading the copy The approach to copywriting that you
> describe is what I call 'cascade writing.'
> Every line is like a tributary flowing into
> a river that by the end cascades into a
> torrent of positive emotion. Anything else
> just doesn't get the business.

Do you have any resources (eg. books, or articles I can look up, etc.) you could recommend to read about this? I'd like to read more about this from a different perspective....

Thanks again Martin, and to Linda too....

By the way, we keep a copy of Linda's story, The Grey Knit Vest right here at Sowpub.... :)

- Dien Rice