Talk:Copywriting/Archives/2012

Merge with Copywriter
Now here is a merge which makes sense! There seems no reason for two separate articles, one about the activity and one about the people who do it. It should all be collected under Copywriting, as Proofreader is subsumed within Proofreading. Gnusmas 07:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.240.39 (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC) No one seems interested in discussing this. Maybe not surprising, as it's so obviously a good idea! I have incorporated the content of Copywriter into Copywriting. I will turn Copywriter into a redirect in 5 days if no one objects. Gnusmas 22:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! I have done it. Snalwibma 13:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

26 group link - spam?
There's a link to 26.org.uk on this page and on the copywriter page. The site seems to deal with copywriting among other things, but it's hard to tell because it's members-only. As such, I think its presence here could well be spammy. Not-for-profit it may be, but a quick look reveals they charge £26 a year to be a member. Unless anyone objects with a day or two, I'll pull it. That leaves the page with no other links, so I can do some reseach and add some.Bedesboy 19:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There were a lot of spammy links-- I left that one as the least spammy. I'm OK with losing it. Other options might be the One Club for Art and Copy site. The topic unfortunately attracts a lot of WP:COI. Jokestress 20:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take it out, in that case - the only merit I can see it having is that it's not-for-profit. It's not really a site specifically about copywriting. Finding other links could be tough, as from what I can see most information on copywriting is tied to the pro pages of individual writers - it's a fundamentally commercial business. Maybe we could add links to famous copywriters' WP pages - David Ogilvy, David Abbott and so on. None of those guys are working anymore.Bedesboy 08:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to article
I've deleted references to Caleb Osborn and Robert W. Bly, who, whatever their status in the direct response niche, don't rank so prominently in the industry as David Ogilvy and Leo Burnett. (Although, we might argue for the restoration of Bly, due to the continual presence of his "Copywriter's Handbook" on major store shelves for 20-some years.) To reduce the arguability of these deletions, I changed "Well-known" to "Famous." I also revised references to freelancing so as to be more neutral and in proportion with independent contractors' place in the industry (which, although much more significant than decades ago, hardly merited the lead sentence). And finally, the tone in the previous version's reference to the Internet as an "incredibly powerful tool" for making a living at copywriting seemed slanted to presell copywriting courses and gurus. So this, too, I have tried to make more neutral. (For support, review views expressed at How to become an advertising copywriter, of which I am not the author.) 68.164.34.47 (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Nightingale quotation appropriate?
Is the new quotation (attributed to Rob Nightingale) at the end of the first paragraph blatant self- or link-promotion? It does not seem to appear on any major page at the referenced site, which makes it at least a bit suspicious.

It is a fine sentiment, but clearly the article cannot bear every copywriter adding a quotation of his or her own that is otherwise unknown. I would prefer a pithy insight from a famous copywriter, or an observation that does not need attribution. Eplater (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep a sense of proportion
Ogilvy, Bernbach and Burnett inarguably reside in the ad industry's pantheon, for their fame, stature and widely acknowledged contributions to the arts and science of copywriting. Other more recent copywriters will someday join them, but it may be too soon to say what names will top that list. One thing is certain: It probably won't be the names that were inserted on Aug 20, 2008 (however notable those individuals might be in some circles). I therefore deleted them.

Further, someone is obviously (and repeatedly) trying to presell the idea of online copywriting courses, possibly even leading to specific providers. Although online courses do have a potential role in a copywriter's training, these additions play up that role disproportionately. In fact, they have been so blatant that they amount to spamming. To discourage these efforts, I have grudgingly revised my previous edits to give general online educational opportunities a little more play. At best, maybe I've improved on my earlier version. At worst, maybe the discussion of freelancing is, even now, a bit too heavy.

Ironically, the submissions I deleted were so rife with rhetorical, typographical and spelling mistakes that one wonders how much their author knows about copywriting. Eplater (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Unclear definition
To me, the article doesn't really clarify what copywriting actually *is*, except in a very abstract way (persuade a reader in some way). Instead, it talks about semantics of the word, and how copywriters work. Is it simply the writing of promotional texts? What does it really have to do with "copies"? Perhaps some more concrete examples would be helpful in understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasticE (talk • contribs) 11:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with the homograph "copy" meaning "duplicate" (the product of copying) such as what you would get with a photocopier. Using "copies" as a plural makes it obvious that you are not talking about copy from copywriting. "Copy" in advertising simply refers to text. Copywriting is text for the purposes of advertising or promotions. The plural for this is still "copy." Oicumayberight (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Although JasticE's query may have resulted from heading down the wrong alley, it is nevertheless an interesting point. The article pretty much simply defines the job and where copywriters are found. Apart from stating the copywriter's objective, there is no description of what the copywriting process actually is ... no "living" insight into the copywriter's world or how the deed is done.


 * This article could benefit from a pithy paragraph along that line. It probably won't be easy -- there are so many types of copywriting, how can one insight characterize all of them?  And the point is not to turn the article into a text book (which of course a few lines cannot be).  Maybe it could be an anecdote from a famous copywriter, illustrating a defining event in their day or career? (Repeat: famous; Contributors, please leave personal narratives for your blogs). Eplater (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Copywrite" as a verb
Why I deleted "copywrite" is sometimes used as a verb by professionals:

I suppose, logically or theoretically, if there is such a thing as a "copywriter," that person might be said to "copywrite." In the real world, though, a copywriter "copywrites" no more than a bricklayer "bricklays." The word "copywriter" appears in my Merriam Webster's Collegiate (albeit the 10th Ed.), but "copywrite" does not. Nor is it found by Dictionary.com. (In fact, this absence suggests that the phrase "'copywrite' as a verb" is wordy; apparently "copywrite" is not any part of speech.)

I realize it still seems odd. In fact, I spend all day "copywriting," so how can it be that what I do each hour is not "copywrite"? But I've been 40 years in the business, based in one of the world's ad capitals, working globally and in all aspects of marketing communications, and I don't remember ever hearing a pro use the form "copywrite" as a verb. The very few people who have used it that way were painfully naive about the business and art of copywriting. (And, grinding their vocabular fingernails further along the blackboard, some also used "copywrite" as a noun!)

Sorry to belabor what may seem a very minor point, but it's a significant one, because Wikipedia is considered authoritative by many readers. If a trend to using "copywrite" as a verb were to emerge based on its authentication here, that would be unfortunately circular.

If somehow I have missed a significant pocket where pros do say "copywrite," before reverting please do the favor of citing job description, situation and frequency of usage here, and consider including such context in your edit. Eplater (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger suggestion
Search engine optimization is an important consideration for online copywriting. Most copywriters are now familiar with the topic and have developed this skill. Could we please merge Search engine optimization copywriting into this article. The contents there need to be rewritten. Jehochman Talk 13:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

untitled
I think that one of the language links on this page is incorrect. While playing around, I clicked on a link that I believe takes one to the Farsi edition of this page (http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/حق_تکثیر). It has a large copyright symbol on it, leading me to believe it a copyright article, and not about copywriting. I do not know how to fix this, but perhaps someone does. Lithrium (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging 'copy' (written) with 'copywriting' seems incorrect, to me.

Though 'copy' does describe the commercially purposed work produced by a copywriter (of which I am one myself), 'copy' is also in general parlance to describe that editorially purposed work which is filed by a journalist to a paper or magazine. But this work is quite different in nature from the work of the 'copywriter'.
 * Fair enough, but the use of "copy" for non-advertising uses is covered in Copy (written), and otherwise the two articles cover identical subjects. Thus, I support the proposed merge. Jlittlet 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not support the proposal to merge. Copywriting is largely a promotional commercial activity, while Copy (written) refers to any form of written text that an editor works on, covering a much wider range. Gnusmas 07:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This looks to me like a consensus NOT to merge these two. Furthermore, I have done a substantial edit to [{Copy (written)]] to make it more distinct. I am therefore removing the merge tags. Gnusmas 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at "Jenny Brown" and "11 Ways..." as inappropriate external links. Both offer services for hire. Brown is obvious, 11 Ways only slightly less so. Will delete 9.22.06 if no comments prior. Globaledits 02:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)