FAQ: "Can We Review Your Portfolio"

I'm in a small niche where many companies know each other, and clients can sometimes overlap.

Therefore my clients want to keep me under the radar screen without revealing where their sales and marketing copies come from. Let's face it, copy gives them an edge.

A pretty keen edge I would add. And not because I'm a genius or because I'm a former embalmer assistant or practising homestead butcher and have a good idea about keen edges.

But because many IT companies have their secretaries, receptionists, available technical people, that is, laypeople, write their collateral materials.

And one doesn't need to be a genius to out-write receptionists and secretaries simply because I write copy every day, but they don't.

And as secrecy is a damn good tactic in warfare, it's an equally good tactic in business too.

And if we decide to work together, you will receive the same level of privileged treatment of confidentiality. Your identity remains top secret and 100% confidential.

But There Is This Other Problem

The time was 1988. Massachusetts Governor, Mike Dukakis, was the Democratic presidential nominee. Unfortunately for good ol' Mike, he was harshly criticised for his weakness on defence issues.

So, the great American PR machine went to work and conjured up a mind-menglingly splendiferous plan, so cunning that if you put a tail on it, then it would become a weasel.

The idea was to put the Dukakis into a tough environment that would prop up Mike's weaknesses on defence.

So, let's have him ride a tank. That will beef up his image.

So, the great photo was shot, and what happened? Hm? Nothing. Not a sausage. The tank didn't make a dickybird of a difference.

Sadly the cunning PR plan miserably flopped, and George H.W. Bush used the picture as evidence to prove that Dukakis, in spite of sitting on a tank, was far too weak for the double role of US president and Commander-in-Chief.

Some people thought it was the tank to blame, but it wasn't.

In 1986, British Prime Minister and world-renowned handbag wielder, Margaret Thatcher was riding on a Challenger tank.

For some reason she achieved the total opposite of what Dukakis would achieve two years later. She was perceived as a strong leader.

So, what was the difference?

Dukakis used the tank as a tool, the proverbial penis extension, to help him to appear to be a strong leader. Maggie actually was a strong leader.

Without the tank Dukakis was a rabbit but Maggie was a lion. Well, lioness.

Dukakis needed a tank to conceal his weakness on defence matters. Maggie had a strong character with or without a tank. Even with or without a handbag, mind you.

Are You Evaluating The Tank Or The Outcome Of The Battle?

When you look at a copywriter's portfolio and read the copy in isolation, and, staying with the previous example, you're evaluating the tank. But a tank alone, without competent command, battle crew, maintenance crew, fuel and ammunition, is as useless as a cat flap on the elephant house.

All you can judge is whether or not you like the way the tank looks. If you're a skilled tank man, you can judge a bit deeper, but you're still missing some key points, so your judgement will be falsified.

When you look at portfolio work, you can decide whether or not you like the copy. But you have no idea about...

• The market that the copy was written for


• The goals and objectives the copy supported


• The overall strategy the copy fitted into


• The products/services the company was selling


• The seller company's market positioning, brand and culture

Copy is about 10% of your overall success. The other 90% are your prospect list, your products/services, your company's reputation, your ability to implement, etc.

All in all, you don't know the performance of the copy.

And to top it all off, with all respect, you're not a copywriter. How do you want to judge something that you don't understand?

Hiring copywriters based on portfolio is just as retarded as hiring employees based on resumes. Conventional wisdom specifies four hiring criteria for employees...

• Fits into the job description - direct match between schooling required by employer and schooling offered by candidate


• Fits into the boss' expectations - properly subservient and willing to grovel at the boss' feet


• Fits into the team - willing to do the proverbial latrine duty of a newcomer and take all the verbal abuse from the old hats


• Fits into the company's culture - willing to play the company's political games and tolerate increasing amounts of abuse from management

Cynical? Perhaps. A tiny bit. True? In far too many cases, absolutely.

Where is the problem?

This is the description of people who have no hope in hell to become outstanding performers but look amazing on paper. They are obedient cogs in the corporate machine, but that's all.

Following HR best practices, companies hire for obedience and servitude not for performance capability.

Following conventional wisdom, IT companies hire copywriters based on executives' personal liking of the copy itself, whatever "liking" means. How idiotic.

Hire a good copywriter and build a good working relationship with him. The miracle is in the collaboration not in the portfolio.

Back to main FAQ page.