Did you know that even today in advertising circles, many arguments still rage about the merits of 'long' body copy over 'short' body copy? You would have thought that after all these years, the thing would have been resolved. Maybe I should resolve it right now. Long copy, I am given to understand, is anything over fifty words, short is anything under.
Why do they quibble? Well, some say that nobody reads copy anyway. Others say that copy is a mandatory part of every ad.
They are both wrong on both counts. People do, and it isn't. And if you think I'm being contradictory, you're right - but also wrong.
There exists a line of opinion which maintains that no ad is complete without a stick of body copy in it. A stick of body copy, therefore, is what their ads invariably get - never mind whether they have anything worth saying or not.
On the other hand, there are those who set their faces sternly against copy - long or short - again irrespective of whether the story they have to tell demands copy (long or short).
Both parties, again, are equally in error.
Copy for copy's sake, without life, without sparkle, without interest and without story is less than useless. If you have nothing of any interest to say to the reader, either don't say it, or at least say it in a manner that the style itself will disguise the basic lack of real content. Conversely, no copy for no copy's sake might just leave your audience, your potential customers, hopping from foot to foot with a dozen questions; and there's nothing to provide the answers. Even worse, the general public being what it is, simple, but very shrewd and certainly not stupid, will walk away from the ad with two thoughts. 1. That the whole thing is some kind of con, and if they do make the effort to contact the advertiser an unwholesome sack of rats will be let loose upon them. 2. That maybe they'll get around to finding out more when they have the time. Like next week, maybe.
Not unexpectedly, I am a great believer in copy. Enough copy, that is, to satisfy anyone who wants to know more. I also believe that it can be done without when the occasion demands.
Even so, those no copy ads should contain more than no copy. Don't rush off with the idea that all you have to do in these instances is make a simple headline statement, drop in a pic and a logo, and the job's done. I find these ads both curious and depressing. And, as I'm sure you know, there are enough of them about to make me so. Anyone who goes in for this kind of advertising presumes too much. If an ad says nothing, it is tacitly admitting that it has nothing worth saying. And nothing worth selling.
As for believing that nobody reads copy - nonsense! Any person, when he or she is in the market for a new car or a new set of golf clubs, will read everything on new cars and golf clubs that happens to come their respective ways. You do, I do. Isn't that right? But, you'll also agree, only when:
1. They have been induced to do so via the headline, the illustration, or both.
2. The copy is sufficiently well written to make it worth reading.
3. The copy tells them something, or reminds them of something worth knowing.
Alas, these three criteria are so seldom fulfilled that, when they are, one's heart leaps as Wordsworth's must have done when he clapped eyes on all those daffodils. The cold, lifeless soup served up in so many ads - especially industrial ads - is so moribund that you wonder whether the people concerned would have gained more satisfaction from putting the money on a three-legged nag at the local track.
END 
