Novelist Ian McEwan doesn’t like the fact that you can post your opinion of his books on Amazon.com.

“I don’t have much time for the kind of site where readers do all the reviewing,” says McEwan in an interview with Time magazine (6/18/07, p. 6).

“Reviewing takes expertise, wisdom, and judgment,” he says. “I am not much fond of the notion that anyone’s view is as good as anyone else’s.”

Which do YOU value most — a thoughtful review by a professional reviewer or writer in the New York Times Book Review, or reader reviews on Amazon.com?

Do you think McEwan is right — that reviewing takes expertise and should be done only by professionals, and not by amateurs?

Do you — or don’t you — think that, as Amazon.com and other review sites seem to believe, anyone’s view is as good as anyone else’s?

It’s trendy today to say that traditional marketing doesn’t work anymore.

The “new marketing” gurus tell us that, instead of “marketing speak” (traditional sales materials), we should use one of two things to do our selling.

One is giving away valuable free content.

The other is Web 2.0, social networking, forums, wikis, and other forms of “conversation.”

But … isn’t there some point where you have to leave the cozy world of publishing free content and chatting — and actually get down to some selling?

Don’t we have to — especially for products prospects want instead of need (e.g., nutritional supplements, investment newsletters) — tap into the prospect’s fears and desires — and get him to focus on our product as the solution?

Don’t we have to prove our product’s value … explain its benefits … demonstrate its superiority over competing offers … overcome objections … and close the order?

In other words, don’t we have to convince the consumer — with copy that sells — to buy what we are selling?

Or can we eliminate old-fashioned “sales copy” (e.g., direct mail, e-mail, and other forms of intrusion marketing) … and just educate prospects with free content — and then engage them in conversation — and get them to buy that way?

Or is marketing today really a combination of the “old” rules of marketing (ads, direct mail, trade shows, PR) and the “new” rules (content, conversation, RSS feeds, blogging)?

If it’s a combination, why do so many blogging evangelists and other social media advocates feel the need to build up what they offer by bashing conventional marketing? Why do they badmouth it in everything they write?

According to an article in Internet Marketing Report (5/25/07), 52% of U.S. adults never read a blog, and 16% don’t even know what a blog is.

The article concludes that investing a lot of your marketing budget in blogging “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”

Do you agree with that conclusion? Disagree? Why?

I just heard a radio commercial for Corona Light beer, and the unique selling proposition (USP) was clearly articulated: “It’s the only light beer that’s also a Corona.”

My instant reaction was favorable because:

1. The tone implies that “of course, you know that Corona is a great beer” — and therefore, Corona Light must be the best light beer, because it is the only light beer with Corona quality.

2. It is unassailable — no other brewer can say, “Our light beer is also like a Corona.”

What do YOU think of Corona Light’s USP, “the only light beer that’s also a Corona” — good, bad, or terrible? And why?

I’ve been raked over the coals by blogging evangelists and branding consultants all over the Internet.

They call me a “dinosaur” because I am a direct mail guy — derisively referring to direct marketing as “intrusion marketing,” implying it is old hat and ineffective, and stating that blogging, branding, and the like are what’s in and what’s working in B2B marketing today.

Not so, according to an article in BtoB (5/7/07, p. 3.), which notes that 42.9% of B2B marketers’ total budgets go to direct marketing — while only 16.1% is allocated to brand advertising.

Within direct response, direct mail receives the largest budget share — 27.5%.

The smallest share of total budget, a mere 1.5%, goes to “new media — RSS, blogs, and the like.”

Does this mean that branding and blogging don’t really work for B2B … or that they DO work, but B2B marcom managers haven’t gotten up to speed in these areas yet?

Are you surprised that B2B marketers spend more on good old-fashioned paper DM than they do on online marketing?

Could it be that B2B prospects are so bombarded online with blogs, e-mails, ads, and other Internet content, that a piece of paper in the mail breaks through the clutter?

It’s a small thing, but it bugs me.

Continental Airlines, in their commercials in inflight video, talk about how their dedication to service includes “meals at mealtime.”

First of all, it sounds redundant. When else would one serve meals?

Second, it’s odd, old-fashioned phrasing.

At various times of the day, I get hungry, and think it’s time for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.

But I never mentally say to myself — “It’s mealtime.”

Why does this matter?

Because copy should be written the way people think and speak.

To me, Continental’s wording is oddly jarring, which distracts from the message and makes one aware that one is heading scripted commercial copy.

Do you agree that “meals at mealtime” doesn’t exactly flow off the tongue?

Or am I being too much of a nitpicker on this one?

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?