Read the “old school” master copywriters such as Claude Hopkins or John Caples. They sold tons of product without any false claims or BS.

Under promise but over deliver, as Ted Nicholas says.

I agree that hype is making a bold statement without proof.

I don’t quite agree with Ian – although I think his statement definitely has merit. However, it would be almost impossible to backup any claim with a double blind study.

It would take decades to create ANY product!

When I write copy I try to make a bold statement, followed by proof PLUS specific details.

Instead of saying “Joe made “X” number of dollars by using my system” and showing a testimonial – I think it’s better to write something like “Joe made “X” number of dollars by doing this, this, and this – which he learned from my system”

Jeremy Reeves
http://www.controlbeatingcopy.com

Even though much of what we loosely refer to as hype, isn’t, at least, not in the strictest sense of the word …

even when there is sufficient proof (if not scientifically-proven) to justify a claim … IMO there can/often is a lot of ‘over the top’ language employed.

Certainly, in the case of Internet marketers selling to other Internet marketers, the ‘hyper-language’ abounds, doesn’t it??? :)

Just a tad under these guys are the oodles of DR for B2C — across all industries, from financial publishing to alternative health — laying it on THICK!

We see the copy thankfully-calmed-down quite a bit in B2B communications.

So, aside from the greed factor and escaping another slap, with some kind of proof, there’s another factor at play here, methinks.

Playing to your audience. The use of scarcity and urgency is playing on the fear factor. But, when we know/hope our audience is afraid of being left out, we all know to use it.

Often, a copywriter’s job is to make something awful, or at least ho-hum, sound fantastic … so people will buy it.

We’re not war-mongers, we’re word-mongers, aren’t we?

And sometimes, we actually get a chance to write about a truly beneficial product. So, at those times, we have the opportunity to redeem ourselves and to chip away at the calcified monger-aholic we’ve become.

I must go, lest I wax too philosophical about this topic! (That’s definitely a hyperbole.) :)

Ciao,

Carolyn

@Ian – I agree “substantial evidence” may be more accurate. But to say “real proof” is a scientific experiment or double blind clinical study is a bit much.

Princeton Wordnet defines proof as: “Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something.”

So proof doesn’t have to be conclusive.

Is it a fact? Does it help to establish the truth of something?

Then it is proof.

As you point out, though, there are differences in the quality of proof.

I believe that “substantial evidence” may be a more accurate (though less catchy) term than proof.

In reality, almost no ads contain proof. They contain testimonials, case studies and examples. But these are not proof. Real proof is a scientific experiment or a statistically significant double blinded clinical study. But real proof rarely works in advertising – it’s dry and dull. People are persuaded not by statistics, but by human interest stories.

Ian

Wow, I used an exclamation point. It must be hype.

As you correctly interpreted my humorous take on Hypercopyitis, it is all about greed.