Web copywriter or content writer: Is there a difference?
March 19, 2010 • Glenn Murray
An aspiring copywriter emailed me today with a question. I thought my answer might be useful to others. (Sorry, I’ve done this twice in a row now!)
The Question
Is web content writing different from web copywriting? Are there different skill sets involved?
My Answer
Thanks for your email. Unfortunately the answer is yes.
Some people are starting to think of web content writing as the writing of content for search engines. Whereas they think of copywriting as writing of content for people (with an implicit agenda to sell).
I don’t differentiate (most of the time). If content isn’t worth reading, it’s unlikely to have much impact on your search rankings (‘cos no-one will link to it). Having said that, Google does like to see a volume of content related to a specific subject — that tells Google your site is ABOUT that subject, it doesn’t just MENTION that subject. But this is more for indexing. For the most part, it won’t help you rank better, but it will help ensure your pages are indexed appropriately (and will appear in the right searches).
So it’s understandable that some businesses might think it’s worth their while to pay a content writer for ‘non-visitor-critical pages’ and a copywriter for ‘visitor-critical pages’. But I see that as just another kind of spam.
So given the above definitions, I see copywriting as a much more skilled task. Content writing can be simply a matter of writing a boring, quite ordinary article, knowing that no-one will read it, and that you don’t have to impress, persuade or instruct anyone to do anything.
Also, as with keyword stuffing, I think content writing (by the above definition) won’t last long. Google will figure out a clever way of assessing the quality of those pieces. If they’re clearly written as keyword filler, they’ll be devalued, and customers will stop investing in them.
Writers, what do you think?
You copywriters and content writers out there, what do you think? Am I right or wrong? Please comment. (If you say I’m wrong, though, there’ll be no soup for you! 😉
Kimota wrote on March 19th, 2010
D'oh, no soup for me then! Although I agree there is a distinct difference between copywriting and web content writing, I would debate the definitions, especially the SEO focus which should only ever be one aspect of any web copy. i agree that copywriting is for 'customer' pages, complete with calls to action to generate a sale. But content writing is far more than creating bland filler articles for SEO juice. This blog is content, rather than copy and I'm sure you have it for reasons other than just SEO. (And it's far from bland and unread.) A web content writer understands how to create content that attracts traffic - whether through blogs, articles, news centres and even videos, slideshows, podcasts and other forms of content (that often still requires the skills of a writer at some point). Producing content that has the desired effect, of encouraging traffic, creating a relationship with the reader and generating a positive reflection on the brand through association is very much a skill - and an underrated one at that! Sure there are plenty of filler articles out there and writers churning them out for chump change. But then the same is true of copywriters churning out crap product webpages that fail to convert. So, copywriting is a sales process with calls to action, and content writing is any other content designed to attract and engage the target marekt and bring them to the site. can I have some soup now?
Reply
James Bull wrote on March 19th, 2010
The way I try to describe the difference is that "web content writing" is copywriting with additional considerations, for example information architecture and the differences between reading printed and online information. Writing boring material and expecting no-one to read it is neither copywriting nor web content writng. It's bad writing.
Reply
Glenn Murray wrote on March 19th, 2010
@kimota and @James Bull, you can both have soup, because we simply disagree on the definition. I DEFINITELY don't see my blog as content writing. It's copywriting all the way through. Yes, it attracts traffic, creates a relationship with the reader and reflects well on my brand. But it also sells something: my brand, my writing skills and, ultimately, my services. And by BOTH those definitions, it is, in fact, copywriting, not content writing. This is actually something I've been discussing with Darren Rowse a lot recently (stay tuned for more on that), and he agrees: good blogging IS copywriting. I'm not just drawing an arbitrary distinction here, either. Unfortunately, I'm talking about a service a very common service. The client asks: "We don't want you to write customer-facing copy. We're only interested in search engines."
Reply
James Bull wrote on March 19th, 2010
Seems to be another one of those things for which people in the web industry are yet to develop a clear, universally accepted definition. No wonder our clients sometimes get confused. Now I'm off to make my soup.
Reply
Franki Nguyen wrote on March 19th, 2010
Though I'm no writer, I tend to agree with James on the definition of web content writing. People just don't read the same way on screen compared to print, and this is the main difference. Most "Writers" (at least the ones I've dealt with) tend to think that every word on a web page will be read, from top left to bottom right, but this is hardly ever the case regardless of how compelling the copy may be.
Reply
Franki Nguyen wrote on March 19th, 2010
as a side note, I've not brought SEO, marketing, et al related into the topic as these needs to be tackle on a per strategy basis.
Reply
Aprill Allen wrote on March 19th, 2010
Interesting debate. I see copywriting as being any form of writing where the end goal is selling something. Whether it's an artist statement (that sells the artist), a case study, item descriptions, etc. Web content - I see that as articles, blogs, and any other sort of writing on the web that doesn't have a commercial purpose. I see my own personal blog as web content but it isn't boring or naff, I hope. It's definitely read, according to feedburner, but it isn't used to generate income. Some blogs have a commercial purpose and that's where I'm a bit up in the air - it's a bit of both.
Reply
Micky Stuivenberg wrote on March 19th, 2010
Well, as a specialised web copywriter who operates under the name 'Content Writer' (and my website is even www.contentwriter.com.au) I really have to disagree with you here, Glenn. I do not distinguish between "web copywriter" and "content writer" but I do see a clear difference between copywriting for print and for the web. Yes, there are lots of people who call themselves "content writers" who only care about creating content for search engines. And much of it is quite bad and uninteresting or stuffed with keywords. But please don't put all content writers in the same box and try to make out that the words "content writer" by themselves mean anything less than "web copywriter". I focus on quality copy/content for people's websites - content that is clear, concise, interesting, persuasive and everything else good web copy needs to be. It focuses on the benefits to the customer, just like in 'normal' copywriting. And it includes clear calls to action. And yes, if my clients care about SEO, I incorporate their targeted keyword phrases in their content and their Title tags and I can even do the keyword research for them if they want. But please understand that 99% of people who contact me to have content written for their website are business people who take their websites very seriously and don't just want some random words on there just to get better rankings. They want quality content/web copy that appeals to their target market and leads people to buy or contact them with enquiries. And that is what I, as their professional web content writer, will write for them. You may make that distinction for yourself and proudly call yourself a copywriter if you think that content writer is somehow degrading, but I quite resent you trying to persuade others to agree that a "content writer" by definition delivers inferior quality copy. There, I had my say! :-)
Reply
Adam Franklin wrote on March 19th, 2010
It’s an interesting debate over the definitions. I share Glenn’s belief that unless copy adds value, Google will out-smart spammy articles quite quickly. I also came across this stat in a presentation by @nickf and @rainaterror called 10 Commandments of User Experience: “95% of your web users do not read 80% of your content.” According to them, this makes your content even more important! In my mind, regardless of how you argue the toss over the definitions of content writing and copywriting, good copy is vital whether it's sales or relationship focussed (and usually these go hand in hand anyway).
Reply
Maree Kimberley wrote on March 19th, 2010
The goal, for me, is always good writing that achieves its purpose. Whether I'm writing web content (that's the term I prefer to use) for my personal blog or for a client's website, I focus on writing engaging copy (yes, I use that word too!) that will help the target audience complete a task. I incorporate a range of elements into that writing, including keywords, calls to action, appropriate and meaningful headings and links - all the elements that make up good web writing. Whether you call it content or copy is really beside the point. What you need to focus on is good writing.
Reply
Glenn Murray wrote on March 20th, 2010
NO ONE GETS SOUP! Except Maree! ;-) Wow! This was just an off-the-cuff email that became a blog post, for want of time. I think a few of the comments show it too! Ultimately, I think we all agree. There's good writing and bad. We all think we do the good stuff. Yeah? So the only question remaining is what do we call the bad stuff? As per the second para of my answer above, that's is the distinction I'm talking about: the writing of content for search engines verus the writing of content for people (with an implicit agenda to sell). We have a name for the second. I obviously got the name for the first wrong. What should we call it then? I called it 'content writing' 'cos I was sure I'd seen the distinction floating around before. I certainly didn't call it that because I see my writing as any different from @Micky's or @kimota's. Micky, you're probably the best person to ask: Is there any accepted definition of 'content writing'? To me, what you do is copywriting. It seems my definition is way off base. To be honest, I don't give two hoots what we call it, so long as I get soup! (Unless, of course, it potentially undermines someone's business name and domain -- sorry for that Micky -- completely unintentional.) :-)
Reply
Glenn Murray wrote on March 20th, 2010
Oh, and if you want your avatar to display here (we'd love to see your pretty smiling faces), you can create a Gravatar and will automatically appear here if you use the same email address. Go to http://en.gravatar.com/.
Reply
Micky Stuivenberg wrote on March 21st, 2010
Thanks Glenn, apologies accepted. :-) I don't think it's possible to get the whole world to agree on exactly which words mean what. Different people will always interpret things differently anyway. To me, content writing = web content writing = web copywriting. No difference. But just "copywriting" lacks the web component. I see myself as a copywriter for those who need e.g. brochures written but a web copywriter or content writer for people who need website copy/content. Then what about that (bad) type of writing of content that is mostly just for search engines? I don't know. How about: * SEO article writing; or * bulk content writing? Because most people who are after the cheap stuff just to increase their rankings usually want articles rather than content for their main web pages and they want a lot of it (bulk).
Reply
Rachel wrote on March 22nd, 2010
I'm late to the party as usual. And I think all the soup is gone. My definition of web content is all the stuff that goes on websites (to educate, to inform, to sell, to persuade). I don't think web content is limited to words, either (but that's a topic for another day). I think of web copywriting as a subset of web content writing; sales or persuasive web content writing. Some web content is crap. It is crap because it is not planned, not well-written, is wrong or irrelevant. Some of it is crap because it is generated by machines, or people who can't write, solely for the "benefit" of search engines. I call that crap Search Engine Optimised Spam or SEOS for short.
Reply
James Bull wrote on March 22nd, 2010
I'm going to go a bit off-topic here.... I think that content/copy writers like us should be collaborating to develop some industry-standard definitions and explanations of "content", "copy" etc., their applications and how to tell good from bad. Perhaps we could do this under the umbrella of the AWIA. It's in our professional interests, and ultimately the interests of our clients too, to have an educated market. I really think that developing a common vocabulary would help us all. I don't think we're very far away from it at the moment. Any differences of opinion I've read above seem to be the result of trying to compress various ideas into a brief blog post and even briefer comments.
Reply
Rachel wrote on March 22nd, 2010
Hi James You may or may not know I've been making noise over at AWIA about industry standards. While I think it is difficult to enforce standard terms we can certainly make things clearer than they are now! This probably isn't the place for it but I'd like to chat about it further. Maybe I'll catch you on the Port 80 forums?
Reply
Glenn (Owner) wrote on March 22nd, 2010
Thanks for the suggestion James. Happy to chat about it here (or somewhere else). I certainly think it'd be helpful to have some standard terms. (If only so I don't offend anyone else! ;-) Mind you, I wonder how much of an influence AWIA has over the majority of copywriting clients. I find most of the people who have no idea are smaller businesses. I'd wager most have never heard of AIWA...?
Reply
Rachel wrote on March 22nd, 2010
Glenn, I think you're right in that AWIA won't necessarily directly influence our clients' understanding of terms. However if we (as members of AWIA) agree on terms we can also prepare info sheets and resources to give our clients. Much like the great SEO resource someone wrote...I can't remember who that was... *ahem*
Reply
Glenn (Owner) wrote on March 22nd, 2010
Ah yes, good point. (That WAS a great resource, wasn't it?!)
Reply
James Bull wrote on March 22nd, 2010
@Rachel: Fantastic. I'll send you an email and take it from there. @Glenn: I agree with you. I would say that AWIA has no influence over clients, and little influence in the industry at large. The reason I suggested AWIA is because it's there (although so is WIPA). If, say, the AWIA website had a document with some definitions and explanations it would be a central resource to which anybody in the industry could refer, include in client proposals, etc. In the long run, this should benefit AWIA by helping to make it more relevant to more people.
Reply
Aprill Allen wrote on March 22nd, 2010
I think industry standards and definitions are a great idea for those of us involved in it. I agree that clients wouldn't be fussed but it would help if they could talk to more than one copywriter, or content writer, and hear the same answer from each one. Less confusion overall.
Reply
Glenn Murray wrote on March 23rd, 2010
As mentioned by Rachel above, there's now a discussion covering this issue at the Australian Web Industry Association's (AIWA) port80 forum: http://forums.port80.asn.au/showthread.php?p=104147. I've offered my 2 cents' worth. You?
Reply
Charles Cuninghame wrote on March 25th, 2010
This is how I see it... Content is a generic, catch-all term for everything that appears inside a web page template i.e. text, images, video, audio, etc. (Although you could easily argue that elements of the template, such as navigation labels, page headers, taglines, logos, etc., are also content.) Copywriting is selling in print (and in video and audio). Therefore all website copywriting is content but not all website content (I’m talking about just the text here) is copywriting. For example an online customer user manual is not copywriting, but it is content. In my book there's no such thing as 'non-visitor-critical pages'. I call that 'site bloat'. It should be pruned immediately.
Reply
Karri Flatla wrote on March 26th, 2010
It's semantics, yes? And the client doesn't care much about our incestuous arguments over one definition versus another. The client just wants results. HOWEVER, our job as service providers is to coach our client toward deeper understanding and ultimately ownership of the marketing process. That includes an educational component. I'll happily own that piece and deliver it in a way that fits the client's current understanding and paradigms. Will the client read and embrace "industry definitions?" Mmm, doubtful. No more than I'd read my accountant's glossary of terms or whatever. Cheers :) Karri PS: Are crazy Canucks welcome at the AWIA Forum? :)
Reply
James Bull wrote on March 29th, 2010
@Karri: You're right, customers won't (and neither should they) care about our incestuous arguments over definitions. I can't speak for others who've contributed to this discussion, but from my point of view it's got a lot to do with getting us all singing from the same hymn book. I see that as an important step towards the education of the market and an improved awareness among potential clients of the nature and value our work. I wouldn't read my accountant's glossary of terms either. However, I can be pretty sure that any accountant to whom I speak will use the same terminology. As April said above: "I agree that clients wouldn’t be fussed but it would help if they could talk to more than one copywriter, or content writer, and hear the same answer from each one." Feel free to join the discussion at http://forums.port80.asn.au/showthread.php?p=104147
Reply
Shae wrote on April 8th, 2010
Wow. I didn't realise when I asked the question it would cause such debate it would stir. Great feedback. Thankyou.
Reply
Glenn Murray wrote on April 8th, 2010
Hi Shae. Yeah, definitely no soup for YOU! ;-) Seriously, though, your question sparked a conversation that obviously needed to be had. So thank YOU!
Reply
Glenn (Owner) wrote on April 8th, 2010
*chuckle* This is a timely snapshot taken by Kristina Halvorson: http://img718.yfrog.com/i/c6n.jpg/ Harper's Magazine is 100% content free!
Reply
My thoughts on ’sausage-factory’ content: Let’s set some things straight wrote on May 27th, 2010
[...] I’ve argued that writing content purely for search engines is not copywriting. [...]
Reply
Christine Miranda wrote on September 27th, 2011
I agree with the distinctions of the two, the only thing that I disagree with is the fact that content writer's work is boring. I am both a copywriter and content writer and I really find content writing enjoyable. Maybe the decision if it is boring or not is with the one who do it.
Reply
Kat @ WCR SEO Perth wrote on October 25th, 2011
From an SEO experts point of view, there is a big difference between a copywriter and a writer that purposely writes content for the net. The latter needs to bear in mind the relevent search terms that people are using when searching the net as well as the user experience itself. I guess there are also two categories of web content writers, one who does work with seo experts considering the right keywords and the other.
Reply
Keshav Arora wrote on February 28th, 2013
Hi! I hope that most of my seniors here are wrong. I believe in basics so I think the copy means 'A thing made to be similar or identical to another' as stated by Google search. And the same Google identifies the 'Content' as "The things that are held or included in something". It concludes Content Writing is much better than Copywriting as the latter includes creating something identical. You all guys have just assumed what to say instead of researching and that is the biggest part that makes Content Writing much better than the Copywriting as it includes research, innovation. I am working as a Team Leader (Content Writers) and I have a lot of guidelines laid down in my current company. Starting from researching to writing an effective content, addition of keywords in a better way without distracting the readers, and following the norms like Grammar Check, QA, and editing followed by a QA Score Card and Feedback; I have all items in place. When we order online for freelancing the content writers are required to create the original content not created earlier in any format or language, whereas the copywriters are required to rewrite the content in such a way that avoids plagiarism.
Reply
Peter | SEO Malta wrote on April 30th, 2013
If you write boring content just to get traffic, your users will get bored and click away. It's always best to write good content because that way you'll have nothing to worry about. If you're buying content/links on some dodgy blog, then you can get away with writing boring rubbish because it's not going to get you any traffic.
Reply
Christophe wrote on June 16th, 2013
Have great web copy is just as important giving good information. The web is all about information and from an seo point of view it also means that it must read legibly and not just be for the spider bots to get more traffic. Getting more traffic is one thing but if its reads like a 4 year old wrote then your bounce rate is going to skyrocket..
Reply
Mark from Malta wrote on October 23rd, 2013
More than copy writing, I would look for professional local content writers. Localization these days play a major role in search engine ranking and you need a professional person who knows the subject inside-out especially for in-depth articles!
Reply
Barbara wrote on November 21st, 2013
I think the problem is with the overused buzzword "content." Content is used to mean both "whatever is contained in and delivered via digital media" and "everything that isn't specifically an advertisement." I think the best way to avoid the problem is referring to "content" as what it actually IS. E.g., you can put "sales copy" on a Web page or you can have "an article," "a white paper," etc. The word "content" subtracts meaning rather than adding it.
Reply
Glenn Murray wrote on November 21st, 2013
Yeah, I agree, Barbara. I wrote about that in my article for Chief Content Officer magazine: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/junta42/201107aus_cco/#/24
Reply
My thoughts on 'sausage-factory' copywriting wrote on April 13th, 2015
[…] I’ve argued that writing copywriting purely for search engines is not copywriting. […]
Reply
https://www.liamborg.com/ wrote on March 30th, 2024
Well, it's a tricky one, isn't it? I reckon there's some truth to what Glenn's saying, but at the end of the day, quality matters. And let's be real, if Google's onto those keyword-stuffed pieces, they'll tank faster than you can say "SEO." So, yeah, I'd say both content and copywriting need that human touch to really hit the mark.
Reply
Glenn Murray wrote on April 2nd, 2024
I agree. But I think most people who are after 'content' would disagree. Well, they'd agree in principle, but they wouldn't want to pay for the human touch.
Reply