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 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.
February 14, 2025
Three reasons why Republican politicians should write short press releases.
February 7, 2025
Writing is a grind... but consistency compounds.
January 31, 2025
This is of the harshest but most essential lessons young writers must learn to become better, more persuasive and creative writers: No one cares what you think. Learning this lesson in school is almost impossible. For our first 15 years as writers, our audiences — our teachers — are literally paid to closely read everything we write. So we grow up intuiting that our authorship as such makes something worth reading. This is not the case after graduation. No one outside your closest circle of friends and family will ever read your stuff just ‘cuz. They will only read what is worth their time to read. People read for themselves, not for authors’ sakes. (Don’t believe me? Think for a moment how you ruthlessly delete 98% of your emails mere seconds after receiving them.)  Good writers, then, strive to make their compositions good to read: informative, interesting, entertaining, and always clear. Once a writer overcomes this psychological hurdle — no one cares what I think — the actual work of writing comes into much sharper focus. You’ll start to see your writing through the eyes of your audience. All of a sudden, evidence is not there simply to support your argument, but to convince your reader. Word choice and phrasing and cadence don’t just express your inner thoughts; they capture your audience. Paragraphing becomes less about textual organization and more about reader momentum. Things like the passive voice, overwriting, and overlong sentences become easier to spot and correct. You become better at identifying and avoiding digressions. You stop showing off. You quit trying to write and start trying to connect and inform and frame and persuade — which is what we really mean by good writing in the first place. Authorial humility is a paradoxical superpower. The sooner you accept your readers’ indifference to your opinions, the better you’ll be at convincing them your opinions are right. Until next week… keep writing!
More Posts
Share by: