In the world of copywriting, there seems to be a large number of people in the industry who believe that the deadline, not the quality of copy, is king. A lot of self-styled news agencies may pride themselves on being able to achieve solid results with sheer quantity, yet as Google’s Panda update proved, it’s certainly the quality and its connections that will deliver first place in rankings – and it looks like that’s the way it’ll stay.
Of course, it’s a bit of a moral argument too; who wants a poorly-copied story on their page? Well, the Daily Mail, for one. The ever-excellent Tabloid Watch, which has constantly been on the backs of newspapers for lazy and unethical journalism for a number of years (alongside countless others, such as Angry Mob and Minority Thought), recently found that 96 per cent of a press release was copied into a story after it tripped over its own criticism following a recent misguided attack on the BBC’s use of BC/AD and BCE/CE.
In MacGuffin’s coverage of the Mail’s faux pas, he used a wonderful and established tool that sorts the expert writers from the rookies: Churnalism.com. This fantastic resource allows you to enter an article found online, then compares it to original press releases or stories to show you just how lackadaisical writers can be.
The basic tools provided by Churnalism.com highlight not only passages that are copied, but the structure itself. In the end, you get a score out of 100% – the higher the total, the more is copied directly. Obviously, press releases in particular are still there to be used, so a low score of up to 30 per cent should not be in line for major criticism; common phrases and, of course, quotes cannot really be changed. Still, 96 per cent? That’s absolutely shocking.
Like newspapers, copywriters will often copy one another. As a copywriter, I’ve often found it utterly frustrating to adapt news into valuable and meaningful content for clients. However, this is one of the most exciting and challenging things about the job; you don’t get satisfaction from copying content, but by making something yours.
Drawing together sources to create a balanced and fresh account to match the desires of the customer delivers personal gratification just as much as it gives value for money for the client; a two-minute bastardisation of a source is not fair on standards for any party. Sometimes clients of certain companies may not understand that 400 words cannot be written in five or ten minutes – then again, the employers themselves should never expect that of their writers, either.
In the quantity vs quality content debate, I’ve always been a fan of videogame first-person shooter tactics to highlight my own perspective. Picking up a minigun and taking a spray-and-pray attitude to a yard full of people may give you two or three kills before your inevitable death – sure. However, sitting back as a sniper not only gives you valuable perspective when surveying everything, but also provides a clear shot at perfection. You may have to wait, but the payoff is big.
Many news agencies are happy to storm onto the interwebs on behalf of their clients and represent them with reams of stale content that essentially gives a masterclass in how to use a thesaurus. Proud and competent writers, however, will follow Fleetwood Mac’s advice and go their own way.
Besides, people are too aware of content farms and will naturally run a mile when they see one, meaning links will go unclicked and content will continue to be ignored; it’s even worse when the use of keywords becomes clear for all to see. There’s no point in writing news that won’t be interesting if it’s read; it’s why diligent copywriters will keep their work as high-quality as possible, as if it’s the feature on Time Magazine.
The rules of engagement are constantly changing for the better, and writers must learn that they play an integral part in all of this. Hopefully, many of their employers and clients will learn this too.