The cut – why copywriting is more interested in short words than long ones
A professional hazard of copywriting is that you’re frequently used as a fleshy thesaurus. In the half-interested minds of your nearest and dearest, your job is the rudimentary exchange of simple words for sexy ones. How often are we asked to produce ‘a better word for…’. And how often could ‘better’ be substituted for ‘longer’.
In a universe of such reckless distension, we would say ‘elementary’ instead of ‘simple’. ‘Protracted’ would nudge its way ahead of ‘long’. ‘Wearisome’ would snooze its way past the unchecked boringness of ‘boring’. More letters equals more impact, or so one would assume.
While in the amateur field this often results in nothing more upsetting than an incomprehensible What’s App message, for a copywriter it’s an act of professional negligence.
The assumption may be that our job is to make the ordinary sound impressive. The reality is that, in copywriting, the impressive and the ordinary are largely inseparable.
And I’d imagine it’s a temptation most of us have succumbed to, particularly in our earliest attempts to prod the alphabet around an invitingly empty page. I’d also imagine many of us were politely reminded that we weren’t ‘on f*cking Countdown’.
Copywriting is, fundamentally, the path of least resistance. That’s not to say the clarity of a message trumps how compellingly it’s expressed. Yet there is a common, sometimes wilful, misunderstanding of the word ‘eloquence’ in copywriting – choosing to forget that it means to write with fluency or precision, not to needlessly embellish.
Admittedly the temptation to reach for the thesaurus is an itch few copywriters can allow to tingle for long. And yet, the mark of a good copywriter is not necessarily an immunity to synonyms, it’s their capacity to always pick the word that works best – even when confronted with a walk-in wardrobe of sparkly alternatives.
Often, the word that works best is the simplest one. Or the most common. It may sound unimaginative, but a copywriter should not try too often to surprise. Yes, a startlingly original headline is part of the game, but the human reaction that best distinguishes effective copy from indulgent copy is, primarily, comprehension.
Understandably this tension often gathers around the comparable merits of short versus long words. The simple approach is, in the process of rigorous self-editing, to substitute any long word for a more tidily packaged cousin. Often, in the face of a particularly satisfying expression, to then slice it off at the thighs is a disheartening act of self-limitation. It’s also an entirely necessary one.
Of course like all good copywriting rules, a mild breeze can spin it on its head. There are times when the benefits of a more evocative word vastly outweigh those of uncompromising simplicity. If, in the act of making our copy shine more brightly we also succeed in making it persuade more intensely, then the ultimate copywriting balance has been struck.
Fundamentally though, the best copywriters I know cultivate a strict internal equilibrium. The writer, full of fluid prose and ambrosial expression. And the editor, with a ruthless eye for extravagance and an untiring demand for brevity.
The great copywriters develop this inner symmetry for expressing creative thoughts with absolute clarity. And, as you may have gathered by the use of words such as ‘ambrosial’ this copywriter politely excuses himself from greatness.
I am, in my own mind at least, very much ‘on f*cking Countdown’.