Usually, my ad rewrites are for "bad" ads. But this week is different.
Today's ad executes on principles I routinely preach, making it a great ad. I think there is a lot to learn from the good as well as from the bad.
And I'll have a few changes to improve it by 1%.
What I like about this ad:
- Specificity is key. (i.e., 100+ journalists, 93%)
- "Who is it for?" is directly addressed throughout the ad (journalists), making it easy to engage if you're a journalist
- Curiosity is created by touching on what the 93% believe (negatively impacting journalism), leading you to wonder what they mean by negatively impacting
What I would change about this ad:
- Have a better CTA within the copy. "Read the report for more insights" is okay, but I think they could improve it.
- Get even more specific with how many journalists they surveyed; was it 105 or 188? 100+ sometimes ticks my bullshit detector.
Here's my take on making this ad 1% better:
My first change is to get specific on the number of journalists surveyed. If you can't get specific, 100+ isn't bad, but too many times when I see "100+", I think it's bullshit.
My second change is to get more direct about what's in the report ("Find out why fake news is ruining the industry and why there's hope for a better future for journalists")
My third change is to enhance the CTA by including action (download) and more direct about what's in it, rather than "Journalist's sentiment–and reason for hope."
This was a well-done ad. I'm not sure if my tweaks would move the ball at all. But I wanted to try and improve a good ad rather than always tackling the easy pitches.
Do you think this was a good ad from the start? Where would you have improved it?
Reply and let me know!
🧠 + ❤️ // JO