Long copy isn't back

I saw this tweet yesterday from DesignTaxi about Apple adopting a long-copy approach in its new ad campaign. 

I admit to feeling a sense of anticipation when I saw it. Something told me this was going to be great. For one thing, long copy is due a proper return. It has occasionally reared its head over the years, but it always felt like it would take a major brand like Apple to do something on a par with the greats of the past. Not just a retro imitation, but a proper reinvention that works on its own terms.

And there’s something especially intriguing about Apple doing it. They’re such a minimal brand – all white space and understated cool. What a change in direction it would be to see lots of words coming from them. Especially when they’ve got so much to say.

The timing is also interesting. Right now, it feels like more and more people are questioning Apple’s claim to superiority. Maybe this was Apple about to come out and tell a few home truths. Remind us exactly how great their products are and why. Make us fall in love with them again. I clicked on the link.

You can enlarge the image to see the copy, but here it is in full:

This is it. 
This is what matters. 
The experience of a product. 
How it makes someone feel. 
When you start by imagining 
What that might be like, 
You step back. 
You think. 

Who will this help? 
Will it make life better? 
Does this deserve to exist? 
If you are busy making everything, 
How can you perfect anything? 

We don't believe in coincidence. 
Or dumb luck. 
There are a thousand "no's" 
For every "yes." 
We spend a lot of time 
On a few great things. 
Until every idea we touch 
Enhances each life it touches. 

We're engineers and artists. 
Craftsmen and inventors. 
We sign our work. 
You may rarely look at it. 
But you'll always feel it. 
This is our signature. 
And it means everything. 

Designed by Apple in California

This isn’t intended to be one of those ranty blog posts (although it’s going to be anyway), but this copy is woeful. Vacuous, boring, self-regarding and counter-productive. It starts with a glimmer of promise – the point about designing things with the user in mind – but then goes precisely nowhere with it.

Arguably the worst thing is that it’s entirely free of information. The point is too obvious to need labouring, but look briefly at one of the old classics:

Put aside the clever headline, sharp tone and expertly crafted momentum that carries you to the end – and look at the actual information being conveyed. 32 miles to the gallon. Five pints of oil. No need for anti-freeze. 40,000 miles per set of tyres. Smaller parking spots. Lower insurance. Cheaper repairs. 

The same goes for one of the other old classics. 

This one has dated in terms of social attitudes, and maybe the ‘warpath’ ending is a bit formulaic. But again, look how hard the copy is working. You learn all about the details of how the shoes are made. Not just the inspiration for the design and the philosophy behind it, but the nerdy details of how the design has been subtly improved over the years. And the details are interesting. Strip away the jokes and the rhetorical tricks and the tone of voice and you’re left with a pile of solid, irreducible facts. 

With the Apple ad, you get nothing. You search in vain for a single detail or piece of evidence. Something that demonstrates how they design from the point of view of the user. Any small detail that signals artistry, craft and invention without simply proclaiming it. 

Of course, there’s one difference that Apple could use to defend itself. Unlike Think Small or Timberland, this isn’t a product ad. It’s a brand ad. It’s not about explaining the details of a particular product to you, but giving a more general sense of Apple and its values and philosophy. We’re not in the era of hard sell any more; it’s more sophisticated these days. 

It’s at this point I begin to lose the power of rational argument and feel like throwing things at hard surfaces. First of all, I can’t think of a better ‘brand ad’ for VW or Timberland than the ones above. Each of them leaves me with a pretty good impression of the brand, its philosophy and its values. Secondly, I can’t think of a worse brand ad for Apple than this one. Has no one ever told them that you don’t convince people you’re cool by going on about how cool you are? They start the ad by saying they think about everything from the user’s point of view, then spend the rest talking relentlessly about themselves. The final lines are a veritable orgasm of self-regard. You put your logo on your product? That is a massively uninteresting thing to tell me. (It might conceivably be interesting if Apple didn’t put their logo on their products, but relied on people working it out for themselves because they’re so brilliantly designed – that would at least be a story to tell in a long copy ad.)

Life is too short to analyse all the other vacuities and non-sequiturs, but it gets particularly acute in the second-to-third ‘stanzas’.

If you are busy making everything, 
How can you perfect anything? 

We don't believe in coincidence. 
Or dumb luck. 
There are a thousand "no's" 
For every "yes."  

What are you talking about? Why did you just jump from perfecting things to coincidences? What’s dumb about luck? Don't luck and serendipity play a part in the design process? I get that you’re talking about being perfectionists and thinking about things, but give me an example. Anything. This reads like a succession of those vaguely New Age quotes that people stick on Facebook with a picture of a sunset. 

Possibly the most excruciating thing about the advert is that it contains its own damning critique, right here:

Who will this help? 
Will it make life better? 
Does this deserve to exist? 

Did anyone ask the same questions about this copy or this campaign? (Campaign may be stretching it – there are four executions, each featuring a different image but exactly the same copy.)

Finally, there are the line breaks.  It’s become a worrying trend in long copy ads to lay them out like poetry. Tesco did the same thing with its recent (pre-George Osborne) apology ad:

It’s tangentially interesting that both Tesco and Apple make use of the phrase This is it in their copy. The similarity is telling – it’s one of those emphatic phrases that is pure tone and no meaning. The kind of thing you say to convince yourself something is happening when it isn’t. If you find yourself including it in a piece of copy, you know something has gone wrong.

The line break trend is annoying to anyone who likes poetry, where line breaks are intrinsic to the meaning and not just a decorative feature (at least in any half-decent poetry). But there’s something particularly annoying about it in the context of these brand ads. It’s being done for a reason – to elevate the tone and lend an air of preciousness and high-brow appeal. If it looks clean and vaguely classy, maybe it will give the copy an aura of intelligence it otherwise lacks. Maybe you won’t notice it’s saying nothing if you’re too busy admiring how it looks.

So what’s the positive alternative I'm advocating? Well, it could be one of two things. You could do a faithful return to the traditional long-copy ad – why not? If Timberland can talk at length about what makes its latest shoe so great, surely Apple has plenty to say about its latest product? I’m sure there’s mileage in writing a brilliant ad packed full of product details that demonstrate Apple’s philosophy and ‘values’. 

But equally, I don’t think you have to return slavishly to the old USP-driven model. You could write a more high-level brand ad, but one that says something. Being a brand ad doesn’t let you off the hook. You still need a message. Every word has to earn its place. And it’s not like there’s nothing to say. You’re talking about one of the most interesting and impressive companies in the world. Whatever angle you choose to take, you should have trouble fitting it into a full-page ad. This one is padding from the first line. 

I suspect there will be a few people hailing the return of long copy when they see this ad, but it’s a hollow and lifeless return. Like watching a hologram of David Ogilvy. This is long copy drained of all the things that make long copy worth doing. Static and soulless and empty. The written equivalent of a mood board. 

Long copy remains officially deceased. Long, ranty blog posts are evidently alive and well. 

DesignTaxi post here.

PS: I've only just realised they also turned this into a film, but I can’t write any more. 

 

Update: A slightly extended (if you can believe that) version of this post has since appeared on Creative Review.

Comments

[Stuart Watson]

If you're going to do a 'ranty' post, then this, for me, is how to do it.

Offer a solution.

I feel strangely inspired.

Brand ads today are seen as frivolous and self-indulgent by clients and they tend to stay well clear of them. Rightly so in the case of Apple. But it doesn't have to be this way. I think we sometimes let design get in the way of story telling.

I love the idea of a return to long copy ads. And feels the right time to do it as people need more than a shiny logo (or, in this case, shiny copy) to believe.

[Grrrreen]

And it's "nos" or "noes", not "no's".

Tut.

[Johnny]

Nick, you've made my day. An excellent post.

Your argument had me nodding from the start (the classic copywriting test).

If this is you being ranty, then please rant again soon.

Keep up the good work

[Tom Albrighton]

Brilliant post.

The way to fix these ads is already there in the image - talk about the product. The story of how any one of Apple's products was 'designed by Apple' would be fascinating, and would give ample opportunity to demonstrate its brand values rather than weakly asserting them.

It would also add some badly needed narrative drive, while implicitly affirming that Apple is still on course - still doing the same 'insanely great' things it's always done.

[Nick Asbury]

Thanks for the nice comments – reassuring to know I'm not frothing at the wall on my own.

As Chris Myers has pointed out on Twitter, the ad is based partly on Apple's new mission statement, which they unveiled earlier this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VpZmIiIXuZ0#at=18

The film is at least an example of the words and visuals working harder to communicate something. But the mission statement itself remains pretty vacuous. It was apparently produced to show the company hasn't lost its way since the passing of Steve Jobs. For me, the fact they're spending their time producing mission statements and brand films is a sure sign that they have.

[Jackie Mackay]

This is a really great piece of communication whatever you tag it with. Thanks - most refreshing and revealing. You strip off the veils of in-crowdness of the agency hives. This ad showed that the emperor's clothes were... - oh ... er what emperor?

I hope the skateboarders with pony tails can catch their breathless self agarandisement for long enough to read it several times.... in between Dilbert and South park.

It's like Apple manuals - all can do and not much HOW to do. Don't get me wrong - I love Apple's OO tech and solid state top-rate programming. I love Apple's immaculate GUI and TASTE which is invisible enough that the meaning comes through. I love Apple's loyalty to the people who use it - only the ads you show are an exception. They give no credit to the intelligence of Apple users.

Jackie Mackay

[Integral]

Great post, Nick.

You also qualify for bonus points, as your article saved me having to think up an argument of my own when a colleague trotted over a moment ago and said: "Have you *seen* these fab new Apple ads?" So thanks for that.

Oh, and @Grrrreen: you can use apostrophes to pluralise certain, tricky words. Such as:

"Mind your p's and q's."

You don't even have to take my word for it. Says so right there in 'The Good Word Guide'. So at least Apple got one thing right.

Rules of the Interweb disclaimer: Since I'm posting a comment whingeing about someone else's grasp of grammar/punctuation, I will doubtless have made several mistakes of my own. (Here's one for a start).