Nib #041 — Benefits, not Features

Persuasive writing is all about communicating the value of your idea to your audience. 


That’s the insight behind one of copywriting’s many mantras: “Benefits, not Features.” That is, don’t write about why a product or service is good or interesting or ingenious. Instead, focus on how it will help the customer.


The same principle applies to writing about politics and policy. No one is going to support your plan to reform the veterans health system or Pentagon procurement programs until they believe it will help them.


Political debates are not like school, where the audience — the teacher — was literally paid to read and care about what you wrote. In the real world, where people mostly ignore uninteresting debates, the job of the staffer, the activist, or the lobbyist is to make their debates interesting. And not in some abstract, Platonic sense, but interesting specifically to their targeted audience.


Why will higher or lower taxes help them? Why will more or less spending on a certain social program help them? Why will military intervention or nonintervention help them?


This is not a warning against wonkery. Arguments designed to persuade policy experts should be wonky, because that’s how to reach that audience. Just as arguments targeting ideologues, donors, politicians, young people, retirees, or journalists should cater to each group’s particular interests, identities, and opinions.


So next time you have to write a speech, letter, memo or oped about a bill or amendment, think less about why your boss voted Yea or Nay and think more about why the boss’s position helps your audience.


Until next week… keep writing!

April 25, 2025
Five quick tips for polishing your prose.
April 18, 2025
A good poem for Good Friday.
April 11, 2025
James Michael Curley's list of must-haves for public speakers (and speechwriters).
April 4, 2025
Two essays point to a generational opportunity for young writers.
March 28, 2025
Honest Abe was a great writer -- especially the one time he wasn't.
March 21, 2025
Not today, Satan.
March 14, 2025
The official Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s big speech before Congress last week offered the country not only a contrast of political visions, but of rhetorical strategies. Trump’s address was defined by — and indeed, succeeded on — the strength of its concrete details: specific programs cut, specific heroes lauded, specific private-sector investments announced (See Nib #61 ). Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin’s nationally televised speech immediately following Trump was, too. But not obviously. Most of the specific details of the speech were biographical, in the first 100 words. After that, Slotkin glazed over issues with airbrushed generalities: “We need to bring down the price of things we spend the most money on…” “… change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe…” “Today’s world is deeply interconnected…” “We are a nation of strivers.” The climax of Slotkin’s speech was almost a parody of homogenized political banalities. The two things we need to overcome today’s challenges, according to Slotkin and her speechwriters: “Engaged citizens and principled leaders.” Woof. On the other hand, Democrats know this poll-tested pap won’t move the needle. So what’s really going on here? The most likely answer is what boxers call the “rope-a-dope.” That is, Slotkin’s — and by extension her party’s — plan here is to put up perfunctory, superficial resistance to bait Trump into overreaching or punching himself out. This is what Muhammed Ali famously did to George Foreman in 1974.
March 7, 2025
Tuesday night's address was a speechwriting masterclass in the power of specific detail.
February 28, 2025
How to use, and not use, intensifiers.
February 21, 2025
Why an old-school writing exercise may be more valuable than ever.
More Posts