Why An Emotional Copy Converts Better
There are almost as many ways to appeal to your readers as there are readers and writers. But time and time again, emotional copy does a better job of converting readers to people who take the action that you want them to take. That might be buying your product or service, or signing up for a newsletter, or just understanding and maybe adopting your point of view. If you want to change readers to converts, you will increase your chances by using copy with an emotional approach.
Why does an emotional approach work better than other approaches? Well, first of all it doesn’t! At least not for everyone and every writer. Writing with emotional appeal has to be done with skill and care or it will sound fake and melodramatic. Most readers can spot fake sincerity from a long distance, and they will not trust you. So if you are going to use this powerful tool, make sure you can use it well!
An emotional appeal works better for two main reasons. The first is that if you appeal to someone on an emotional level, they will feel like they are making a connection with you. They will feel like you understand them on a personal level. It will be almost as if you wrote that particular piece of copy just for them! When you appeal to someone on that kind of level, they are much more inclined to act on what you have to say.
The other reason that emotional appeals work to convert readers is that so much of what we are faced with every day is not personalized. Even the mail we receive that is personalized is spit out by a machine. We talk to our friends over the computer instead of in person. We get our news from the television or radio, and we spend hours in our car commuting to work alone.
We all want to feel important, and when you reach someone on that emotional level you have made them feel important. That will make them like you and what you have to say and the reader will be more likely to take the action you want.
Plagiarism vs Copyright Infringement: Know the difference
Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement actually refer to entirely different concepts, though they are both regularly confused, and, confusingly, regularly overlap!
Let’s first get a simple definition of both, so that we can clearly mark out the difference between them:
Plagiarism, broadly, is taking the work of somebody else, in some sphere, and trying to pass it off as one’s own. That is, misleading others so as to convince them that the work in question is from yourself rather than its originator. This covers taking an original work, and, even as altering its specific words and phrases, preserving its gist such as to express the idea as one’s own.
Copyright Infringement, on the other hand, is using the work of somebody else – be it a group of words, a phrase, or a whole passage – in a context that one isn’t authorised to use it in, for example, making somebody else’s music available online for free without having permission to do so. Copyright (and its relevant law(s)) does not cover the idea, but the expression of a given idea; i.e. its form.
As mentioned, the two often go hand-in-hand, because in plagiarising something with commercial ends in mind (or merely plagiarising whilst preserving the original work), one is also often committing copyright infringement. Conversely, they are separate things, as with the case of illegal file sharing, whereby the sharer does not purport to be the creator of the work (indeed, they wish to express that this is the work of X artist) – and so copyright infringement has been committed, but no plagiarism. Plagiarism can also be committed, for example by passing off the content/work of an academic paper (which isn’t usually subject to copyright) as one’s own when one did not produce it.
Copyright also differs slightly in its categorisations from country to country, whereas plagiarism is generally recognised as referring to the same thing worldwide. In the UK, copyright is an automatic right. When somebody produces a written, drawn or photographic piece of work, they automatically have copyright over it. This means, in practise, that they are protected from this work from being reproduced (in any context) without their permission (this act being known as ‘Copyright Infringement’), and furthermore, are free to exploit this work for their own profit. This is the right of the originator.
Material protected by Copyright is automatically afforded this status upon creation. Although many people are keen to use a Copyright symbol: ©, this is not necessary and does not alter the rights in any way. If one does not possess the Copyright to a given work, they are not free to reproduce it in any form without express permission from the Copyright holder – doing this is Copyright Infringement.
It should be noted that some works being used without permission do not result in Copyright Infringement. “Creative Commons” material is that which the author has allowed to be shared, free of charge (but with a reference to the originator). Using this without permission is fine, but using this without a citation is still plagiarism.