An interesting debate is raging among copywriters, web designers and content providers about
key differences, if any, between writing copy for
web versus writing content.According to prolific copywriter Nick Usborne, a survey conducted among
readers of his email newsletter "Excess Voice," which is available at nickusborne.com, offers some interesting results. They seem to be split almost three ways: one-third consists of copywriters, another content writers and
final third both.
This is an important debate, I believe, since all online copy is content but not all content is copy. And that's a real problem.
Most designers, webmasters and writers develop content for their websites in a way to educate their visitors. They also write it with
notion that "content is king," "content raises search engine rankings," "content makes a website sticky" and so on.
That's all fine and good. But in my estimation, web content fails when it strives only at informing
reader, and lacks important elements that take
reader "by
hand" and compels them to do something -- anything, including
simple act of reading.
In other words, while some may compel our attention, many sites fail to propel our actions, too. And their owners often scream, "Why is my site not producing any sales," "why is it so heavily trafficked but getting such a poor response" or "why are people leaving so quickly (or after they got what they came for)?"
Well, if content was king, copy should be
castle.
The Internet is not a traditional medium in
broadcast sense. It is intimate, dynamic and interactive. People are more involved when reading
content of a website than reading a conventional print publication or watching a TV commercial. With
Internet, people also have a powerful weapon, and they usually never think twice about using it when
need confronts them: their mouse.
So,
idea is this: forget about writing content, at least in
traditional sense. Think copy. Think content that compels
reader to do something, even if it's just to continue reading.