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.

In today’s issue of AWAI’s e-newsletter, The Golden Thread, my friend Will Newman wrote an article on how to be a better copywriter.

One of Will’s pieces of advice was to read the National Enquirer.

This is old advice for copywriters: Milt Pierce, from whom I took a copywriting class in 1983, told us: “Read the National Enquirer.”

The idea is that, to be a good copywriter, you have to understand how the “common man” thinks … and that’s who reads the Enquirer.

But … and here’s a confession … I don’t spend a lot of time reading the National Enquirer — even though they once did a 2-page feature article about me (but that’s another story).

I mean, one of my specialties is writing DM copy to sell enterprise software … and I don’t think many of my readers (IT professionals) are reading the Enquirer.

I also write a lot of copy to sell high-end trading services, courses, and systems … and I am not sure how many traders turn to the Enquirer. So instead I read the Wall Street Journal.

How about you?

Do you read the National Enquirer to get a good feel for your market?

Or do you think that’s aiming a little too low?

When you write copy for a product, do you do a better job if you are a true believer in the product … or a cynical skeptic?

It’s been said that the copywriter must be enthusiastic, because enthusiasm for a product — or its lack — is transmitted in the writing.

On the other hand, if the copywriter is NOT sold on the product, he will have to sell himself on it before he can sell others.

That means he is more likely than the rapidly enthusiastic copywriter to come up with objections, which anticipate the objections prospects will have, and work out powerful, logical arguments to overcome them.

Therefore, the copy he writes will in theory be stronger than the copywriter who is a “cheerleader” for the product — enthusiastic, yes, not not really questioning its claims.

So when you write copy … or hire a copywriter … which are you looking for?

Enthusiasm?

Or a hard-nosed “show me” attitude?

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?

In his latest column in Target Marketing (1/07, p. 58), Denny Hatch repeats the old advice that in direct marketing, ugly sells.

He quotes Bob Hacker, who states “ugly works,” and Lew Smith, who says, “Neatness rejects involvement.”

But is the idea that “ugly sells” still on target?

Or is today’s more sophisticated consumer … in an age where branding is much revered … likely to reject a poorly designed mailing as amateurish and unprofessional?

What about you?

When you create a direct mail package, do you hire a top-flight graphic designer to make it look as clean, neat, colorful, and glossy as an annual report?

Or do you too believe that “ugly sells”?

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).