Last week I wrote about rant blog posts. How they work and why they work.
Big fat coincidence:
This week I feel a rant coming on.
My first rule of writing is this: respect your readers. It's about trust. If you make a promise, keep it.
And did you know that your headline is your promise?
I remember once, some time ago (okay, it was a long time ago because Lucille Ball, AKA Lucy Ricardo, was still alive), I saw a National Enquirer headline when I was in line with my mom at Scott's Market. In big old black letters it said:
"Lucille Ball throws her life away!"
Of course, my mom was beside herself.
"What? Lucille Ball killed herself?" she said.
It was the only time I saw her buy a National Enquirer. She thumbed through the pages quickly until she found the article, way at the back (why are they always way in the back?). There it was—a tiny blurb: A Life Magazine had been found in the trash bin outside Lucille Ball's home.
A Life Magazine.
So, yes, technically she had thrown her life away.
Now I admit. From a paper that later would print stories like, "I Cut Her Heart Out and Stomped on It" and "Mom Boiled Her Baby and Ate Her," this was nothing.
Though I was small—years away from being a writer—I never forgot that story—and how it made me feel. I'd been tricked. Even back then, I had this fierce sense of justice that bounced around inside my brain. It wasn't fair.
The sneaky headline writer
Have we become so jaded that we only pay attention to outrageous headlines? And we don't care if they were a lie or, at best, trickery?
This week, on a social networking site I belong to, a marketing consultant submitted an article. It was called, "Why No Business Should Be Involved in Online Social Networking. "
That's right. He promised to tell us why we shouldn't network online.
Would you click through to read an article with a headline like that? Of course. In fact 9,116 people did just that.
But this writer broke the cardinal rule: Deliver what your headline promises.
Eight paragraphs into his article he tells us that it's time to stop referring to it as "social networking." We should really call it "social marketing."
Huh? You got me invested in an article with a sensational headline: No business should be involved in online social networking.
Only to tell me that the reason is that you'd rather call it "social marketing"?
Why do we have to be so gimmicky? Is it that we are afraid that content won't stand up on its own merit? Do we think our readers are stupid?
A headline can generate interest without deceiving the reader
When we write with honesty, we build trust with our readers. If we break the trust, it can be more difficult to keep our audience. And if we do it over and over again, well, they may stop reading our stuff.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for catchy titles. I am especially fond of analogies and visual imagery.
Yesterday, the headline to Scott Ginsberg's guest post on the Duct Tape Marketing blog was, "6 Ways to Be More Referable than Edward Scissorhands at a Lawn and Garden Convention." Great title, unique imagery, and he followed through with six practical, actionable tips to get more referrals.
I wrote an article a few months ago.
The headline was, "Swedish Cowboys and Scuba-diving Brides: 8 Reasons You Should Have a Niche." It got a lot of click-throughs, I am sure it was because of the Swedish cowboys and scuba-diving brides.
But I followed through in the article, wondering aloud how small of a niche would still be profitable and whether those two market niches are too limiting. (Some of my readers disagreed with me on that.)
In each of these two cases, the writer did not go for tricking the reader with their headline. Yet it was still interesting. Memorable. And it motivated the reader to read on.
What do you think? Are you bothered by "trick" headlines that don't deliver what they promised? Or does it not matter to you if you still get something out of the article?
Please. Tell me what you think. I'm curious.
Comments