I mentioned that we have started up a copywriting business. What is that?
You may not be sure about the term copywriter - and what they do. The term has evolved over the years. It was first used in the middle of the 19th century to describe the people who wrote ads, primarily for newspapers. Today it means far more.
What Do They Do?
Copywriters today may write sales letters to sell a product, or persuade readers to take some other action. They may do similar things in the rapidly growing area of web marketing. They write business letters, white papers to convey information, case studies of successful application of products, press releases to communicate to the outside world, business letters for busy executives. Sometimes they are hired to describe complicated business issues or technologies in a clear and understandable manner.
Content vs. Direct Response
One simple view is to divide copywriting into content writing and direct response writing. Good content copywriters are skilled at gathering information and writing concise and insightful copy that educates and tells a good story. Good content writers may be writing as part of larger effort to promote a company or a product, but many times the pieces they write are primarily for information. Today we understand that consumers are always in search of useful information, and providing that is an important part of building a relationship with them.
Direct response copywriting, however, is focused on strongly leading the reader to a response. That response might be a direct purchase, or it might be the first step of a multi-step purchasing decision. Good copywriters are attuned to the emotional modes that attend to persuasion.
Our Work
We are comfortable in moving back and forth between content and direct response, and we strive to write in the voice you want to convey to your audience.
One clear trend in organizations is that more and more are recognizing the importance of strong communications, both internal and external. At the same time the growing trend of organizations to outsource has led to an expanded use of freelance copywriters to aid communications.
It may be time for your organization to examine the possibilities for using freelance copywriting to improve your communications in both content and direct response.
Contact us now at Ervin Copywriting. A consultation on possible copywriting projects is free.
Please call at 512-431-2954 or E-Mail at ErvinCopyWriting@austin.rr.com
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Employment Misunderstandings
One of the things that bothers me in watching (only occasionally) the economic pundits on the nightly news is their total focus on large companies and their hand-wringing worries when any large company slows in growth, loses any profitability, or horrors, has a layoff.
A fundamental fact of the U.S. economy that these pundits seemed to have missed for the last 40 years is that the U.S. economy has been steadily strengthening by transitioning the work force from big companies to mid-size and small companies - with an emphasis on small ones.
If you could draw a circle around the Fortune 500 companies and call it MegaCompany, then look at it's metrics you would find that MegaCompany may have grown in (inflated) dollars, but has been steadily dropping in head-count. Relentlessly.
The fact of job losses in big companies is not news. It is an economic necessity for survival. The survivors have learned that it is most efficient to define what they do best and staff for that, then outsource the rest. When they outsource new jobs are created elsewhere. the work gets done more effectively, national productivity goes up, and everyone in the economy benefits.
Meanwhile entire new technologies get created and new job opportunities appear. And most of that happens in small and medium companies.
When a pundit states that "12,000 jobs were lost this month", without also stating how many new ones have appeared it is dishonest reporting, intended to deceive. On more than one occasion I have read reports on monthly job losses in months in which the unemployment rate declined. But the unemployment rate was not reported.
I spent a long tenure in one of those "large" companies. It is still doing very well, but is only about 60% of the head-count compared to the year I left. And although I really value my time there, and my learning, if starting over today I would look in the direction of smaller companies. That is where the action is in job creation.
I can already hear your objection. "But you are missing the human element - what about those workers in the large companies who just lost their job - it's not fair?"
We can talk about what you mean by fair later, but if you want to participate in the greatest economy in the world you have to be prepared to change not only jobs but careers multiple times. It is the nature of the beast.
Statists and technocrats want a planned economy in which everyone stays in the same safe jobs. Several hundred years of real experience shows that those types of economies maximize human misery.
A fundamental fact of the U.S. economy that these pundits seemed to have missed for the last 40 years is that the U.S. economy has been steadily strengthening by transitioning the work force from big companies to mid-size and small companies - with an emphasis on small ones.
If you could draw a circle around the Fortune 500 companies and call it MegaCompany, then look at it's metrics you would find that MegaCompany may have grown in (inflated) dollars, but has been steadily dropping in head-count. Relentlessly.
The fact of job losses in big companies is not news. It is an economic necessity for survival. The survivors have learned that it is most efficient to define what they do best and staff for that, then outsource the rest. When they outsource new jobs are created elsewhere. the work gets done more effectively, national productivity goes up, and everyone in the economy benefits.
Meanwhile entire new technologies get created and new job opportunities appear. And most of that happens in small and medium companies.
When a pundit states that "12,000 jobs were lost this month", without also stating how many new ones have appeared it is dishonest reporting, intended to deceive. On more than one occasion I have read reports on monthly job losses in months in which the unemployment rate declined. But the unemployment rate was not reported.
I spent a long tenure in one of those "large" companies. It is still doing very well, but is only about 60% of the head-count compared to the year I left. And although I really value my time there, and my learning, if starting over today I would look in the direction of smaller companies. That is where the action is in job creation.
I can already hear your objection. "But you are missing the human element - what about those workers in the large companies who just lost their job - it's not fair?"
We can talk about what you mean by fair later, but if you want to participate in the greatest economy in the world you have to be prepared to change not only jobs but careers multiple times. It is the nature of the beast.
Statists and technocrats want a planned economy in which everyone stays in the same safe jobs. Several hundred years of real experience shows that those types of economies maximize human misery.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
A New Business
Well well. After many many months of no posts I am back. And I am back to post actively. Where have I been? For the last two years I was roped (without too much complaint) into doing a great deal of management consulting for E. I. Du Pont. With their safety business - Du Pont Safety Resources. It was 100% travel and 100% in California. A long way from Texas. I spent an average of two weeks each month in California. I had to cut back on the patent business to pull it off.
It was challenging, it was fun, and it was profitable. But that much travel and being away from the family finally did me in. I have one more trip to California in March and it is over.
The new news is that I have launched a new business. And because this is a blog about small businesses I intend to talk about it. Occasionally.
The new business is called Ervin Copywriting. I still have my patent business (M.A. Ervin & Associates) and it is doing fine- thank you. Although I need to grow it back to where it was. Unlike the patent business, which has been pretty much a one person show, Ervin Copywriting is a joint venture with my daughter Jennifer. I view copywriting as a natural extension of what I have been doing - first of all both are basically writing businesses, and second, both are focused on providing good services to small businesses. I still prefer working with small businesses.
Jennifer is new to helping run a small business, but is catching on fast. We are in the second month of business launch and are moving into a heavy marketing phase to create those people who pay the bills - clients. I will tell you more about copywriting in future posts - because if you are not familiar with it you should be.
It was challenging, it was fun, and it was profitable. But that much travel and being away from the family finally did me in. I have one more trip to California in March and it is over.
The new news is that I have launched a new business. And because this is a blog about small businesses I intend to talk about it. Occasionally.
The new business is called Ervin Copywriting. I still have my patent business (M.A. Ervin & Associates) and it is doing fine- thank you. Although I need to grow it back to where it was. Unlike the patent business, which has been pretty much a one person show, Ervin Copywriting is a joint venture with my daughter Jennifer. I view copywriting as a natural extension of what I have been doing - first of all both are basically writing businesses, and second, both are focused on providing good services to small businesses. I still prefer working with small businesses.
Jennifer is new to helping run a small business, but is catching on fast. We are in the second month of business launch and are moving into a heavy marketing phase to create those people who pay the bills - clients. I will tell you more about copywriting in future posts - because if you are not familiar with it you should be.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
What am I?
Anyone reading a new blog that opines on financial and business matters will try to quickly figure out where this person is coming from. Is he a liberal, conservative, libertarian, statist, communist, socialist or what?
I guess I should be up front on this issue. But the problem is I am not sure what I am. When I take one of those quizzes that asks a bunch of questions about financial and social issues - I always come out pretty strong as a libertarian. Now that has always made sense to me because if you look at the Cato Institute guidelines for a libertarian they include a basic belief in:
- The freedom of the individual
- Limited government
- Free markets
- Peace (who is not for peace?)
Then I go to some libertarian web sites and read some of the verbiage and scratch my head. That is not always me. And too many libertarians are trying to get stronger politically so they can elect their kind and then impose their thinking on everyone.
So I am a little confused on this question. But let me be clear. I am absolutely rock solid firm on a belief that the best system for the most people includes ideas like limited government (much more limited than we now have in the U.S.A.), individual freedom, and free markets.
Although technocrats always believe that a government of smart people can plan a much better economy, the evidence of that is completely missing. In fact the historical evidence is overwhelming that it does not work.
One of the reasons it cannot be done is that economic technocrats are oblivious to the fact that all economies are in fact local, not national or global. And the richest, most vibrant part of all economies are centered in small businesses, making local and rapid decisions about pricing, supply, demand, inventory, marketing, etc. Yes, there is a national economy that is the sum of all the local economies, but you simply cannot plan it, because you are not smart enough.
There is evidence however, that when you free up those small businesses to make their own decisions, and make it possible to reinvest most of their cash flow back into their growth (read -low taxes), then marvelous things happen. In fact, as pointed out in an earlier post, that is where all the job growth is. Job growth in the big corporations has been negative.
By the way, in this type of system, a high percentage of those small businesses are going belly up every year. So what - the people in those businesses get up, dust themselves off, and get involved in another business - and they are a little smarter the next time.
But this is what government planners (technocrats) really hate. They want a system that is predictable, where everyone knows how much growth there will be each year, where jobs are stable (meaning people work for the same companies year after year) and where planning will provide the right kind of workers in the right locations in future years. When you really think about it - it is laughable. It is also socialism.
And yes - I am unabashedly a capitalist. Capitalism works - for everyone. One of my favorite thinkers, G.K. Chesterson, wrote years ago that he was impressed with capitalism because it had done so much for people, but in the long run it would fail people because the obvious long term result would be that the economy would gradually be taken over by a few mega corporations that would dominate everything. How wrong he was - capitalism actually leads to the opposite. The long term effect of capitalism and free markets seems to be the triumph of small businesses.
So I guess I am sort of a libertarian - maybe.
So, am I a Democrat or a Republican? I am decidedly an independent. But when it comes to elections you have to realize that an election is not about principles or beliefs per say. In a two party system an election is a binary event. You look at two candidates and hold your nose and vote against the one who is further from your views. And the people who are further from my views on limited government and individual freedom and free markets are the Democrats. So in most instances I hold my nose and vote Republican. However I have never given a dime to either party and never will, because on those key issues of limited government and individual freedom and free markets the Democrats are only slightly better than the current Republican party. And lately both parties are shifting more toward growing the size and power of government - an ominous trend.
O.K - now you know. Sort of.
I guess I should be up front on this issue. But the problem is I am not sure what I am. When I take one of those quizzes that asks a bunch of questions about financial and social issues - I always come out pretty strong as a libertarian. Now that has always made sense to me because if you look at the Cato Institute guidelines for a libertarian they include a basic belief in:
- The freedom of the individual
- Limited government
- Free markets
- Peace (who is not for peace?)
Then I go to some libertarian web sites and read some of the verbiage and scratch my head. That is not always me. And too many libertarians are trying to get stronger politically so they can elect their kind and then impose their thinking on everyone.
So I am a little confused on this question. But let me be clear. I am absolutely rock solid firm on a belief that the best system for the most people includes ideas like limited government (much more limited than we now have in the U.S.A.), individual freedom, and free markets.
Although technocrats always believe that a government of smart people can plan a much better economy, the evidence of that is completely missing. In fact the historical evidence is overwhelming that it does not work.
One of the reasons it cannot be done is that economic technocrats are oblivious to the fact that all economies are in fact local, not national or global. And the richest, most vibrant part of all economies are centered in small businesses, making local and rapid decisions about pricing, supply, demand, inventory, marketing, etc. Yes, there is a national economy that is the sum of all the local economies, but you simply cannot plan it, because you are not smart enough.
There is evidence however, that when you free up those small businesses to make their own decisions, and make it possible to reinvest most of their cash flow back into their growth (read -low taxes), then marvelous things happen. In fact, as pointed out in an earlier post, that is where all the job growth is. Job growth in the big corporations has been negative.
By the way, in this type of system, a high percentage of those small businesses are going belly up every year. So what - the people in those businesses get up, dust themselves off, and get involved in another business - and they are a little smarter the next time.
But this is what government planners (technocrats) really hate. They want a system that is predictable, where everyone knows how much growth there will be each year, where jobs are stable (meaning people work for the same companies year after year) and where planning will provide the right kind of workers in the right locations in future years. When you really think about it - it is laughable. It is also socialism.
And yes - I am unabashedly a capitalist. Capitalism works - for everyone. One of my favorite thinkers, G.K. Chesterson, wrote years ago that he was impressed with capitalism because it had done so much for people, but in the long run it would fail people because the obvious long term result would be that the economy would gradually be taken over by a few mega corporations that would dominate everything. How wrong he was - capitalism actually leads to the opposite. The long term effect of capitalism and free markets seems to be the triumph of small businesses.
So I guess I am sort of a libertarian - maybe.
So, am I a Democrat or a Republican? I am decidedly an independent. But when it comes to elections you have to realize that an election is not about principles or beliefs per say. In a two party system an election is a binary event. You look at two candidates and hold your nose and vote against the one who is further from your views. And the people who are further from my views on limited government and individual freedom and free markets are the Democrats. So in most instances I hold my nose and vote Republican. However I have never given a dime to either party and never will, because on those key issues of limited government and individual freedom and free markets the Democrats are only slightly better than the current Republican party. And lately both parties are shifting more toward growing the size and power of government - an ominous trend.
O.K - now you know. Sort of.
Monday, January 1, 2007
Differences - small and large businesses?
I went from working in an R&D (product development) organization in which I had 1400 people around the world working for me to one in which there were about 30 people in product development - all in a small building.
In reflecting on the differences I was most stuck by the similarities. People in product development tend to think alike and the quality of the individual engineers and scientists were comparable. Also the type of technical challenges were the same.
One clear difference that was evident from the beginning though was decision making time. In DuPont our product decisions had to be reviewed by all effected around the world. This often resulted in endless debates about what the product specifications should be. This was not bureaucratic people trying to delay things - it was good people with different views who wanted to influence the decision and to be sure the resulting product would sell well in their markets. The net result was incredibly sluggish though. And because I grew up in that environment i was not aware of how terribly slow it was. I am talking about one to three month delays at making decisions.
Then I began working at DTM Corporation in Austin - a start-up with total employees of about 100. The CEO and Vice-Presidents as well as the engineers and marketers were bumping into each other daily. Very important decisions could be made in one day - sometimes by a group standing in a hallway drinking coffee. What a delight that was. And what a competitive advantage!
Were the decisions as good? I could not see that much difference at first. But over time we learned how to improve product development decisions at DTM (the small company) by gradually installing a structured and disciplined decision making process. And that process improved the product introduction cycle time significantly. I may discuss that process in a future post. One of my fundamental beliefs is that even very small businesses need disciplined decision making processes. And a good decision making process does not slow things down - it can improve cycle times.
In reflecting on the differences I was most stuck by the similarities. People in product development tend to think alike and the quality of the individual engineers and scientists were comparable. Also the type of technical challenges were the same.
One clear difference that was evident from the beginning though was decision making time. In DuPont our product decisions had to be reviewed by all effected around the world. This often resulted in endless debates about what the product specifications should be. This was not bureaucratic people trying to delay things - it was good people with different views who wanted to influence the decision and to be sure the resulting product would sell well in their markets. The net result was incredibly sluggish though. And because I grew up in that environment i was not aware of how terribly slow it was. I am talking about one to three month delays at making decisions.
Then I began working at DTM Corporation in Austin - a start-up with total employees of about 100. The CEO and Vice-Presidents as well as the engineers and marketers were bumping into each other daily. Very important decisions could be made in one day - sometimes by a group standing in a hallway drinking coffee. What a delight that was. And what a competitive advantage!
Were the decisions as good? I could not see that much difference at first. But over time we learned how to improve product development decisions at DTM (the small company) by gradually installing a structured and disciplined decision making process. And that process improved the product introduction cycle time significantly. I may discuss that process in a future post. One of my fundamental beliefs is that even very small businesses need disciplined decision making processes. And a good decision making process does not slow things down - it can improve cycle times.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Why the interest in small business?
I had a wonderful career in a big business (E. I. DuPont). And I owe much to that experience. A big company can give you many growth experiences. But I also really enjoyed the life of a start-up company (DTM Corporation - Austin). In the final analysis though I believe that the heart of all viable economic systems is in small business. Small business is the major provider of jobs. Peter Drucker wrote not long ago that if you lumped the Fortune 500 companies together and looked at the employee count it has been dropping for decades. So where is the vibrant growth of jobs in the American economy coming from? It is in small business. Not medium or large but small.
Another statistic I recently saw was that the top job provider is most economies around the world is businesses with less than 10 employees. Businesses with 10 or more but less than 20 employees comes in second, and those with 20 or more but less than 50 employees comes in third. Need I say more.
My business focus in my patent consulting is small business. The United States patent office defines small business as less than 500 employees. All of my patent clients fit that and several are less than 10 employees.
Another statistic I recently saw was that the top job provider is most economies around the world is businesses with less than 10 employees. Businesses with 10 or more but less than 20 employees comes in second, and those with 20 or more but less than 50 employees comes in third. Need I say more.
My business focus in my patent consulting is small business. The United States patent office defines small business as less than 500 employees. All of my patent clients fit that and several are less than 10 employees.
Welcome
Welcome - my name is Mike Ervin - a resident of Austin,Texas. This little blog is my attempt to write about what is on my mind. My interests are varied but focus primarily in the areas like small business activities, some philosophy (economic, political, and life in general), occasional forays into business strategies. I read a lot (too much) and may occasionally give a book review. I have major interests in technology (in general) and intellectual property (which I practice for a living.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)