In USA Today (2/23/07), wine writer Jerry Shriver recommends a 2005 Barton & Guestier “Bistro Wine” Pinot Noir.

He says: “The fruit is restrained, the texture is soft, and there’s a smidgen of that ethereal ‘Sideways’ character lurking in the bottle.”

Now, is it just me, or is this an example of terrible writing?

To me, it seems meaningless: what specific information does a reference to a movie character communicate to the reader about the taste of the wine being discussed?

It’s even less meaningful if you, like me, haven’t seen the movie and don’t know what it’s about or who the character is.

So Jerry’s writing strikes me as unclear and uninformative.

But I don’t drink wine — or see many movies.

How would YOU rate this little bit of wine criticism by Jerry — good, bad, or terrible?

And why?

Alan Shawn Feinstein, one of the deans of mail order in the pre-Internet era, once ran a full-page ad in the New York Times with the headline:

“Yours Free — My Gift to You.”

But JW, a subscriber to my e-zine The Direct Response Letter, thinks “free gifts” is bad writing.

“Free gifts … is there any other kind?” he asks.

I replied:

“JW, your argument is that ‘free gift’ is redundant — like ‘armed gunmen.’

But, tests prove that in direct marketing, omitting the word ‘free’ and just saying ‘gift’ actually depresses response.

“I teach in business writing classes to avoid redundancy … but I am not sure that’s always good advice.

“The reason for redundancy is that some people need to read a thing several times before it sinks in….”

Where do you stand on this issue of good grammar vs. good selling?

Is “free gift” bad English … or just effective marketing?

Just got a direct mail package selling subscriptions to Out magazine, which seems to be for gays.

One of the headlines reads: “Is the Pope Gay?”

My first reaction: this is really inappropriate and offensive.

I mean, unless they have an investigative report proving that the Pope is gay, it’s totally speculation … and maybe libel.

Even if they do have such a report (the mailing wasn’t clear about this issue) … why do this to a beloved religious leader?

It’s just sensationalism.

But on the other hand: there are gay priests who are coming out.

There is nothing wrong with being gay.

If the Pope is gay, then he’s gay … right? Why hide it?

So after my initial disgust, now I’m not sure whether Out should be using this headline to sell subscriptions.

What’s your opinion?

A TV commercial for Quiznos says that if you do not like the sandwich they serve you, they will give you another sandwich free.

Picture walking into a sub shop. You order a sandwich. You really don’t like it. In fact, you gag on it.

Do you really want them to give you a second sandwich made at that same sub shop?

Or at that point, have you lost your appetite — and would you rather have a refund?

Yes, I know that the idea is if you don’t like their roast beef, maybe you will like their tuna.

But somehow, the idea of ordering more food from a restaurant whose food you don’t like seems unappealing.

Which offer do you think Quiznos should make?

A. No guarantee. If I don’t like my meal, tough. After all, Subway doesn’t guarantee their subs.

B. If I am not satisfied, I get a second sandwich free, just like the commercial says.

C. Forget the sandwich; I want my money back!

D. They should give me something else of equivalent value — chips, cookies, coffee, soda, soup, chili.

A couple of months ago, I joined the opt-in e-list of a semi-obscure entertainer whose CDs I enjoy.

By mid-afternoon of that day, I had received three e-mail marketing messages from him.

When a fourth arrived around 5pm, I hollered “enough!” — and unsubscribed from his list.

That got me thinking about the question: how much e-mail is too much?

Say you subscribe to a company’s monthly e-newsletter.

In addition to that monthly e-letter, will you tolerate additional e-mail messages from them?

If so, how many?

One a week … one a day … somewhere in between?

How much e-mail is too much?

Internet users who don’t like online marketing let us online marketers know it — in loud, often abusive, profanity filled e-mails — when they don’t like our promotions.

I never really understood this: I mean, how much are you really being harmed getting an e-mail you don’t want?

Now, a recent article in Time may cause some anti-spammers to tone down their righteous indignation a bit before screaming at e-mail marketers.

When anti-spammer Mark Mumma got a few e-mails he didn’t like from Cruise.com, he posted photos of Cruise.com’s founders on his Web site and called them “spammers.”

To his surprise, Cruise.com sued Mumma for besmirching their reputations.

The case is heading for trial, and Mumma could end up paying Cruise.com $3.8 million in damages.

You may not like e-mail marketing, and if you don’t, just unsubscribe from the list sending you the e-mail you don’t want.

But as the Mumma case demonstrates, getting an e-mail you THINK may be spam does not give you carte blanche to say or do anything you please in response — even though, as a legitimate e-mail marketer, I can tell you that many people out there think it does.

Source: “A Spammer’s Revenge,” TIme, 1/15/07, p. 62.

Branding and online marketing types, as a rule, get enthused by creativity, innovation, originality, and new ideas.

We direct marketers don’t.

What excites us is making the cash register ring … not being original or “creative.”

If we can knock off a winning promo and make it work for our product — we’re as happy as a clam.

Being a pioneer — in a new media, a new market, a new technology — can sometimes be profitable.

But more often, it can be the most costly mistake you ever make.

According to an article in MarketSmart (11/06, p. 12.), innovation fails to pay back its cost of capital more than 90% of the time.

So beware of gurus and creative types with new ideas.

Embrace what’s been tested and proven to work.

You won’t win advertising awards.

But you will get a greater ROMD (return on marketing dollars).

Of 1,472 managers surveyed by the American Management Association, 70% said their organizations experienced disruptive change within the last year.

And more than 80% said that the pace of change is speeding up all over the world.

That’s especially true in marketing.

Every time I look around, there’s some new-fangled thing I have to learn to stay current:

Podcasting … blogging … Google Adwords … SEO copywriting … My Space … You Tube … you name it.

Of the new marketing technologies out there, which do you think is the most important … and why?

And does all this change make you rub your hands with glee — or throw them up in despair?