Sales letters

[lootmaker]

Ive been reading a few books aon writing the perfect sales letter they seem to suggest that writing in courier fint pulls in the best...now to me it looks really tacky and its supposed to giev the idea of a typewriter look but perhaps this is was app;licable in the 70s. any thoughts these books are supposed to be up to date written by marketing gurus like dan kenedy

[january_bug]

Maybe it looks more personal in courier font because it looks less like a mail merge. 

Did the books say with which age/income categories this font proved most successful?!  What about men vs women!?

[joko]

It could also look amateurish, like you are using a word processor or typewriter and typing and photocopying rather than printing

[january_bug]

Which is surely what lootmaker was implying!?

[lushkayt]

Courier - yuk!

I like comic sans ms, though I don't know whether it's good for sales letters or not. I'm of the opinion that these books by so-called "gurus" are either blindingly obvious common sense or else just ridiculous "buzzword of the week" affairs. However I'm very cynical.

Regardless of the font, I think the best letters are the ones that are actually spelt correctly, and it's amazing how many aren't. I also hate it when people say.write "yourself" instead of "you" - it's just bad English!

[january_bug]

Or worse still "you yourself" - as if you're some sort of schizo and have different "you"s!

Bad grammar is the biggest turn off - stray APOSTROPHE'S (sic) drive me mad!!

[joko]

january-bug - I took lootmaker's post to mean the font gave the retro look of a typewriter, because it apparently looks good.

My point was that retro only looks good if it's deliberate.

The look could be misconstrued as cheap and amateur as though the writer was actually using a real typewriter as opposed to a computer's fancy font.

Some technophobes do still use typewriters you know!

I got a typewritten critique a few years ago.

I had paid for it and, although the critique was good, it looked shoddy and amateurish and I felt I didn't fully trust the writers words.

I felt that, as professionals, they should have used a computer - or even a word processor!

To some it may seem 'comforting' to others cheap.

[january_bug]

Again - I'm not a total retard.  I do realise that people use typewriters, and I do understand that retro only looks good in certain circumstances.  Rather like tea-dyed menus in Ye Olde Tea Shoppe just looking crap, rather than old.  But hey, thanks for explaining it all to be.  Oh, and by the way, I'm not 12 either. 

[Mistopheles]

Personally I'm a Times New Roman girl - smart, neat, and not outlandish.

[joko]

stop acting like it then...

I was clarifying what I meant my original post - you were the only one who didn't get it first time around and needed it explaining - if you have a chip on your shoulder about feeling young and stupid, thats your problem.

[january_bug]

joko - I did get it the first time actually.  And I'm not stupid - and I have the papers to proove it.  So there! :-p

I do just prefer it if people don't state the bleeding obvious like other people can't think of it themselves.  It does come across like you think all other users are less intelligent or less perceptive than you.  Ok so I quickly stopped to your level, and I apologise for that, it was immature.  But please do think about it before you post, it was fairly condescending and whilst I might be one of the few (or the only) one to pipe up about it, I think others don't post for fear that people will treat them like a child, as many posts around here do.  This "lecture" isn't aimed at you specifically, and I don't mean to have a go, I'm just trying to ask nicely, that other users watch the level of patronising that's crept up recently. 

Sorry I acted like an idiot before though, it was frustration from another post spiling over, and unwarranted!

Good job lootmaker's not watching his/her post, eh?

[joko]

If you'd understood first time you wouldn't have made your post. It seems you still don't get it!
I don't really see what's patronising about the following sentence...
"It could also look amateurish, like you are using a word processor or typewriter & typing & photocopying rather than printing "
It was a comment, an add on, joining in, as I believe what I said wasn�t what lootmaker said. He asked why some people feel this font is good, & I said why I felt it was bad.
The 2nd post may have seemed patronising to you, but when someone doesn't understand plain english, there's no point in replying in plain english.
People on this site vary in intelligence & age & when someone misunderstands an innocent post & gets cocky about it, you have to explain in a way you think they'll understand, to ensure there's no further misunderstanding.
I repeat - my post was about people thinking you REALLY ARE using a REAL typewriter, because you haven't got a computer so you're not a professional - NOT because you've specifically CHOSEN a retro style font for effect.
It�s one thing to look retro by choice, quite another because you simply can't look any other way! - that was all I said! It's really quite a simple point.
In the 2nd post, all I did was clarify what I meant in my 1st post & tell a story of my own experience in the matter - the apparently professional writer had used a REAL TYPWRITER, NOT A COMPUTER & I had felt it looked bad.
I wasn't being condescending or superior. You clearly have an issue with feeling your intelligence is being challenged, as you've mentioned it a few times.
You started with the sarky comments & I responded accordingly, so in fact it was me stooping to your level, not the other way round.
Anyway, let's leave it there because we'll just go round in circles & I'd rather not get into a big debate & fall out about it. Lets agree to disagree
Regards
joko