Increasingly, I'm skeptical of this copywriting advice: "Focus on benefits over features." In practice, it makes the copy longer, more abstract, and harder to parse for potential customers. When folks land on your website, they just want to know: "What does this company do?"
-
-
Gmail's original marketing site was beautifully simple: "Gmail is a new kind of webmail" (quickly describes "what is this?") Features: - Searchable - 1000 MB of storage - Grouped replies (displayed as thread) - No pop-up ads Who's the product for? Whoever wants these features!pic.twitter.com/Z6AMRu6y2j
Pokaż ten wątek -
Who lands on a random company website when they’re “just browsing,” anyway?” Feels like companies are optimizing for folks just stumbling upon their site accidentally. If folks are landing on your site, it’s because it was recommended to them (friend, search engine, article).
Pokaż ten wątek -
What I’m railing against is the idea of writing long, benefit-driven copy, as opposed to specifically telling me what your app does. This “so what?” methodology is a good example. To me, it leads to fluffy, abstract copy. It’s enough to tell me “this oven preheats fast!”pic.twitter.com/SNwqxTM7c3
Pokaż ten wątek
Koniec rozmowy
Nowa rozmowa -
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.
building
