I agree with Tony…in a print ad (or electronic ad with visual), context is everything. The analysis samples you’ve shown are truly great headlines. They worked. That’s the test. They not only worked, we’re still talking about them. Take THAT, analysis algorithm! That’s the problem with any automated tool. It has no soul.

I totally agree about the context. There is no one-size-fits all. Even best practices don’t always work best in every situation.

Thanks for commenting Peter.

That right there is one of the biggest reasons to be skeptical. Matching the right copy to the right audience is so vital.

But pleasing clients is important, too. They pay the bills. So kudos.

So… good news and bad news: for a blog post telling the story of a man who used the client’s product to beat osteoporosis, I scored 100%! (The headline was, “Meet David. He Beat Osteoporosis”)

The bad news? Well, at AMI, I have to choose a “category” such as Health & Medicine, Automotive or Shopping before you get a score. I chose Health and Medicine.

Then I ran the headline with some other categories — and each one gave it a 100%.

So, I guess it does not really matter to AMI who the audience/target is – every headline works for every market.

Peter T. Britton
The Write Answers

PS: I got another 100% a few days later for a different blog post.

Engagement often comes from enticement or intrigue. In an age when audience attention spans are virtually non-existent, longer headlines are rarely better. That is supported by the statistics which show the lack of time spent reading body copy.

The outdoor advertising rule holds pretty true. That’s why “great” headline/concept are so rare that they become timeless, transcending media and generation. Less IS More!