The point of failure for marketing is not in the execution.
The point of failure for marketing is in the foundation.
I mean that you can execute your marketing flawlessly, but if your value prop is too broad, it will still bring minimal business ROI. Or if you have no true POV or reason for why you exist.
Your value prop (differentiation) or POV–and many other things–are critical for marketing to be a net positive. Without it, it's like trying to ride an incorrectly built bike.
That leads me to the ad I'm going to rewrite. The company, Amplience, is one of those examples of having the foundation off. I spent over 15 minutes on their website, still unable to understand what they do.
Maybe that's marketing's fault (i.e., unable to nail the messaging and web copy), or it's the leadership's fault of being all things to all people (i.e., poor strategy). Marketing can only do so much.
Before I share the ad, here is Amplience's hero page copy (the first thing you see on their website): The headless commerce experience platform for brands and retailers.
So you're like the headless horseman, except you're a platform (whatever the hell that means)? I'm confused.
Let's see their ad before we get any more confused:
What I like about this ad:
The copy is written like a human. Choppy sentences = how we talk.
The copy in the creative draws your eye (whether this is good or not is up for debate)
What I would change about this ad:
The opening two sentences are generic and don't specifically touch on the "Key challenges content producers face."
The copy is rough. "Get the fixes" Who says that?
The CTA is weak. No one wants to read your shit. They do want the benefit, however.
Here's my take on making this ad 99% better:
My first change is to touch on a real challenge (i.e., generating leads from content). Rather than saying generic things like "take back your time."
Also, I feel no content marketer wants to take back the content creation process. That's what Amplience wants you to think. But content marketers want results.
My second change is to address the reader (What about you?). Maybe they don't have any challenges, and they're killing it. Well, then keep scrolling buttercup.
But, if you face a similar challenge, I bet you'll find our guide–with solutions–helpful.
My third change is to discuss the guide in detail. "We surveyed over 1,000 content marketers to hear what their top challenges are." Great, it's not a company telling me what the challenges are (which their software solves), but rather real marketers. I can get behind that.
And I also included how we "FIXED" the challenges. We brainstormed with them on how they are or could solve those challenges. So you don't have to waste your time thinking, we've done the hard work for you. Just download and rip the solutions (strategies).
My fourth change is to make the CTA something they care about. Rather than "Read now: {insert guide name}," I chose to put what they would get from the guide (being able to solve their content challenges).
I feel like this one was a tad too easy. Maybe it's because the company is all over the place with what they're trying to solve, which makes writing an ad challenging. So they choose generics rather than specifics.
But in the end, the guide comes across as a huge sales pitch to get their software, which it probably is, rather than a helpful guide for their hero (the content marketer).
What do you think about this one?
Was I a little too harsh? Or did my critical feedback improve this ad?
