When I got my first job in business-to-business marketing in 1979, the most important marcom tools were, in this order:

A. Product brochures.
B. Corporate capabilities brochure.
C. Product data sheets.
D. Bylined articles in trade journals.
E. Application briefs.
F. Case studies.
G. Ads in trade journals.
H. Trade show exhibits.

Today, A and B seem to have vanished, but C through F still exist — if not in print than at least online. G and H also exist, but seem diminished in importance and effectiveness.

If I were to attempt to compile a list of the most effective B2B marketing communications today, it might look something like this:

A. Company Web site.
B. Search engine optimization.
C. Online ads.
D. White papers.

Would you modify my list above? What am I missing? What REALLY works like gangbusters in your B2B marketing today?

A recent radio commercial selling land in Florida informs us that “monthly payments are as low as $300 a month.”

It’s clear and factual. But of course, it’s redundant. If the payments are “$300 a month,” you should call them “payments” and not “monthly payments.”

It’s a small matter, but as a professional writer, I tend to notice — and am bothered by — these little mistakes.

But are you? More importantly, are your prospects?

Does inferior writing convey an impression of an inferior company selling an inferior product?

Or are readers today too busy and illiterate to care?

With all the increased emphasis on copywriting education today, it’s amazing how much bad copy gets written.

Case in point: the headline on a recent ad selling a book on big band music, which said:

“Swing has never gone out of style!”

It fails because it is so clearly in opposition to the truth, which is that swing HAS gone out of style.

The big bands survive as a shadow of their former selves. Many famous band leaders now perform with smaller groups, since the modest ticket sales don’t cover the costs of a full orchestra. One big band trumpet star was even reduced to giving private lessons to supplement his performing income!

The headline is also off base because it assumes that we big band aficianados CARE that our music is out of style.

We don’t. We love listening to swing, and pride ourselves on the superiority of our eclectic taste in music.

Really, the copywriter was aiming at the wrong audience.

He was trying to get general book readers to buy a book on big bands by making the case — false and not believable — that swing is still hot.

What he SHOULD have done is forget those readers and concentrate on the real market for a book on the big bands: people who love big band music — don’t you agree?

The school of thought that says advertising claims should be bold agreed with Samuel Johnson, who said “Promise, big promise, is the soul of an advertisement.”

But there’s an opposing school of thought that believes advertising claims should be more modest, because then, they will be more credible.

For instance, I am writing a book to explain basic chemistry concepts to high school students and parents who want to be able to help them with their homework.

Possible titles include:

A. How to make sure your child passes chemistry.
B. Make sure you child doesn’t fail chemistry!
C. Help your child get an A in chemistry.

“C” is the biggest and most positive claim. So you think it’d be best.

But at least one teacher pointed out to me: “These kids aren’t looking for an A. They are close to failing now, and if they get a C or B they will be thrilled. ”

So which title is better — A, B, or C?

Or can you help me write an even better title?

And which school of copywriting do you belong to — big promise or small but more believable claims?

BB, an old ad agency veteran whom I always liked and respected, resurfaced in my life via e-mail … but not in a pleasant way.

He starts off nicely enough, asking if I remember him and giving me a nice compliment about my being a smart guy.

But then, he says: “But I get annoyed at the get-rich-quick schemes you lend your name to on the Internet” — referring to my endorsement of Matt Feury’s upcoming seminar on e-mail copywriting.

“It is really beyond the pale. There most be a more appropriate way to earn a commission. Jeez…”

Here’s just a partial list of my problems with BB’e e-mail:

First, Matt Feury is the real deal. The guy spends 15 minutes typing out a personal e-mail, broadcasts it to his list with a mouse click, and makes about $10,000 a day.

He is not a “hustle.” He knows how to make money online, and more important, can teach us how to do so.

Second, BB’s e-mail implies that all Internet marketing is sleazy.

Hey, BB, you were a Madison Avenue ad guy. Who are you to talk about sleazy?

Third, BB also implies that I am a low-life by selling information online.

Is there something inherently wrong or low-class about marketing information online?

Tell that to the New York Times … the Wall Street Journal … Harvard Business School Publishing … Better Homes & Gardens … and thousands of other publishers, small and large, who make great profits selling useful content their buyers love online!

What perhaps is more of a hustle, BB, is trying to convince sucker clients that pouring millions into big print and TV ad campaigns, that can’t be measured and win awards for creativity but not sales, is a smart way to invest one’s money.

You’ve been doing that for years — after all, you’re a smart guy too.

Right, old friend?

But I’m really not angry at BB. Just his ignorance and misconceptions, which so many people share.

If I saw him again, the first beer would be on me — with a warm handshake and a smile….

Two things blogging evangelists tell me make blogs a superior communicatino medium:

1. Unfiltered content — straight from the writer to the reader … no pesky editor, proofreader, or fact checker.

2. Instant communication — have a thought, make it available online to millions in seconds.

But do we really need information in the blink of an eye … especially at the expense of accuracy?

With blogging, that happens all the time.

Example: when Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was slow to rise after a recent hearing, a blogger instantly noted Ginsburg’s seeming frailty on her blog — giving rise to rumors that the judge was will and would soon retire.

Had the blogger, an ABC legal reporter, bothered to ask Ginsburg about the incident before reporting it, should would have discovered the truth: the judge’s shoe had slipped off under the table, and she couldn’t find it!

An article in The Week (4/27/07, p. 14) observes that speed of the Internet is forcing people “to make important decisions without any time to think and reflect.”

Result: a flood of false assumptions and rash words “now flashes around the world in a nanosecond.”

How about you, dear reader?

Do you want your news, facts, and analysis fast — or do you want it good?

Which of the following is most likely to make you rich?

1. What you know.
2. Who you know.
3. How hard you work.

In Russia, they believe it’s #2.

A recent poll showed that 45% of Russians think “having influential connections” is the key to becoming wealthy.

Only 32% picked “hard work.”

How would you have voted? And why?

P.S. Among Russians over 60, “stealing” was the top-rated path to wealth.

Source: The Week, 4/27/07, p. 9.

One of the easiest — and most effective — copywriting techniques for bonding with the reader is to show that you are like him.

For instance, you can simply begin the letter: “Are you like me?” And then list the things you believe you have in common.

Another method: have the person signing the letter be in the same group as the person reading the letter, e.g., when writing to doctors, have an M.D. sign the letter.

Why does this work?

Because people like, feel comfortable with, and respond to people who are like them.

Conversely, they don’t like, and want to avoid dealing with, people they think are fundamentally different.

You know this to be true.

Convervative hate liberals … poor people hate rich people … the elderly dislike the young … and vice versa.

Proof: according to a CBS New Poll cited in The Week (4/27/07, p. 19), 43% of Americans ages 18 to 44 are rooting for Barry Bonds to break Hank Aaron’s career home run record this season.

But of adults 45 or older, only 27% want Bonds to succeed. These older fans are rooting for the older guy precisely because they too are the “older guy.”

By the way, racial prejudice, the latest example of which is the ethnic slur that got Imus fired, is just another example of this notion of preferring one’s own to others — albeit, taken to an unpleasant, even sick, extreme.

Is there any other way to see it?

Have you ever had success in marketing doing anything but empathizing with the prospect — and showing that you understand him, are on his side, and are even like him?

I’ve seen it done. But it’s pretty rare.