Long copy vs short copy – Evidence please?
April 7, 2009 • Glenn Murray
I’ve written on the subject of long versus short copy before. At length (if you’ll pardon the terrible pun – it’s my blog, whatdyagonnadoaboutit?!). So I won’t go on about it here. Suffice to say that I think it’s horses for courses, and that long copy works well for some audiences and not for others. The important thing is to engage the reader, solve their problems, and guide them towards your desired course of action. (See my post on the inverted pyramid v story-telling approach to copywriting.)
So why this post? I’d like to see some proper evidence related to the long copy v short copy debate. Sure, I’ve read the books by the big (mostly American) copywriting names who espouse long copy, but, in true long-form style, they don’t present hard evidence, they simply wax lyrical about their own splendid experiences (and successes!).
Anecdotal evidence is only worth so much… And split testing is suggestive, but not conclusive, because split tests typically target a single audience type with a single offering.
What I’d like to see is some sort of cross-audience / cross-product study.
Anyone know of any? Please comment…