Reading about the 5 paragraph essay earlier today and thinking about my just completed ad class got me thinking about writing.

When you write an essay you usually follow the standard thesis, supporting points, conclusion format. You assume that your reader will read the whole thing.

In an ad you not only assume that your reader won’t read your copy, but you assume that he will be actively hostile toward it and will go out of his way to avoid it. You have to grab his attention with an interesting headline, visual or combination of the two, draw him into your text and make sure he comes out with a positive impression of your product.

However, they are both attempts to persuade the reader. To get your point across.

This is just the type of writing Calpundit mentions as fitting the 5 paragraph (or really 5 section) essay.

The whole format is geared toward making a persuasive case, and how often does that come up in real life?

He says while ironically making a persuasive case as he does several times a day, very well, on his blog.

In some sense all writing is persuasive; even an instruction manual is trying to persuade you to operate your new machine correctly.

He also gives this advice:

…ignore anyone who tells you to write like you talk. This is possibly the worst writing advice ever to gain wide popularity. Honest.

This is indeed the first piece of advice I have seen about writing advertising copy and it isn’t wrong. It doesn’t mean to literally write the words as you would speak them. If you actually listen of a recording of a real conversation you would probably be amazed just how incoherent it sounds. But you have to listen to a recording or read a transcript for it to look confusing. When you are having a conversation it sounds natural and makes sense.

Writing like you talk means that your reader should feel as though she is listening to a conversation. It means you should avoid sounding stilted or confusing. Your writing should flow. It should be easy to understand and get your point across clearly. It should not sound like the typical academic paper or corporate memo.

Calpundit does this well. When I read him, I feel like I am listening to a persuasive argument, not wading my way through a policy statement.

The best advice I have heard on this comes from the copywriter Luke Sullivan:

Write like you talk.
Write with a smooth, easy rhythm that sounds natural. Obey the rules of grammar and go easy on the adjectives. Short sentences are best. One-word sentences? Fine. End with a preposition if you want to. And if it feels right, begin a sentence with “and.” Just be clear.

This is from Sullivan’s excellent book on creating advertising.

I am trying to be an Art Director, not a Copywriter, but I feel it is very important to understand writing ads if I plan on going into advertising.

In discussing how Texas’ public education is not only not a good as the government is claiming, but is indeed quite awful, Jeannine D’Arc mentions the “five paragraph essay.” I had never heard of it before. It is apparently an outdated method for teaching essay writing using a strict structure. As you can see from her example and Calpundit (from whom I found her entry).

From this blog, you surely realize that I am not a great writer, but after going to a fairly prestigious university, I have certainly done my share of expository writing. I was taught that you should begin with your thesis, bring up supporting points and then conclude. But 5 paragraphs and such a rigid style? Like any even vaguely creative endeavor the structure of an essay is infinitely variable and dependent on the tone and content of the piece.

Apparently kids in Texas are graded on how well they follow this structure on their standardized tests. Eek!

I remember in high school everyone was required to write a research paper before they graduated. Everyone from the near drop outs to the folks about to go to Harvard wrote one of these “Senior Papers.” I think it’s a great idea. Not all these papers were good (I know mine sucked although the subject matter was fascinating), but I think any BHS student would be better prepared to write in college or life than Rosa Arevelo, a Texas student in this article mentioned by Jeannine.

I am totally against the smoking ban here in New York. Bar owners should be the only ones to decide whether or not to allow smoking in their places of business. I don’t smoke, but I fully expect bars to be smokey and I can make the decision of whether or not to patronize them. I mean it’s a bar, it almost seems wrong for it not to be smokey. There is only one problem with the law.

It’s kinda nice

There are definite advantages to coming home not smelling like an ashtray when you go out at night. Many bars have become a more pleasant place to have a drink with friends. All the people outside smoking give the streets some more life. A lot of people have commented on how nice going out in the city is now, and I am forced to agree with them.

I am still of course firmly opposed to the ban. It should be repealed, tomorrow if possible. But I do benefit personally from it.

It feels weird to be opposed to something like this only on principle. Most of the political beliefs I hold would generally benefit me, even if that isn’t why I believe them. I like having welfare because I hope it helps needy families, but I think it benefits me directly by creating fewer desperate people on the streets, making them safer for me. I opposed the Iraq war in part because I think that I am personally more vulnerable to a terrorist attack now that we have radicalized even more muslims. I rarely support an action that won’t benefit me or at least not affect me. This is one exception.

Of course crap like this reminds me why I still oppose the ban. Via Radley.