Here it is again. An internet guru (a name you know) says about headlines:

“It’s essential that your headline promise one or more specific benefits. ‘Curiousity’ headlines don’t work.”

Wish I had a nickel for every time I’ve seen this. I always feel guilty when I read it.

I wonder what’s wrong with me?

Lots, no doubt, but let me plod on with my thought.

There’s probably no piece of marketing lore more universally accepted than “Curiousity headlines don’t work.”

Or more untrue, in my experience.

Some of my headlines that have built businesses:

“Tomato Warning!”
“Dead Doctors Don’t Lie!”
“The Strangest Nutritional Secret!”
“I REALLY Expected To Be Dead By Now!”

I’ve really tried. I’ve tested benefit-oriented heads. They didn’t pull as well as my “curiousity” heads.

I don’t know why. But I have a theory.

In researching press releases a few months ago, I came across a poll of media editors. The question was, what types of stories do they most want?

Their subjects:

1. human interest (stories that choke you up or make you smile)
2. personal relationships under pressure
3. bulletted tip lists
4. unique stuff: achievements or ideas, websites or products
5. stories with political or social impact
6. humor, wisdom, fun, tragedy
7. holiday/event stories

The reason they want these types of stories is, that’s what appeals to their readers. If you’re writing a press release, it’s easier to get it published if it focuses on one of these subjects. And if you carry the idea of the “advertorial” to its logical conclusion, then your ad copy would be best to include human interest stuff or … Tell a story.

And we know that stories sell. But I think ads with benefit-laden headlines are far less inclined to tell a story.

Much of today’s direct marketing orthodoxy has sprung from Jay Abraham … either directly from Jay … or through him, from those before … or from those were taught by Jay … or from others who saw how well Jay did selling his experience, and decided to compete with him.

I met Jay at his weeklong Protégé Seminar in 1989. He told us the reason he wrote long headlines was, he didn’t have enough confidence to write short ones. (If you know Jay, you probably don’t believe he’d ever say such a thing. But I swear on a stack of YMGAW!s and FYMEO!s, it’s true.)

False modesty on Jay’s part? Probably. But there is another possibility: it could be the truth.

I wonder if Jay really did extensive testing, or just tried a couple of curiousity heads that didn’t work … and since then, everyone he’s taught has spread the message.

There’s certainly a lot of logic to it.

Other than it isn’t true, of course.

Richard Dennis

PS - THIS may bring out the real Michael Ross.