They say that if you have to explain a joke, it hasn’t worked. And one can see the argument: humour is either self-dependent, or it’s nothing. Rationalisation is self-defeating. So I hesitated before publishing this ‘final word’; remarks which are, essentially, a rationalisation. I decided to do so, though, because it seems to me that there is a difference between a joke and this website. The former is there for its own sake; it begins and ends with its own humour. But my site has a purpose beyond humour (if humour is what it is): it has a serious point to make. I have simply chosen to project this point through a mildly frivolous tone. Which, of course, begs the question: why? If the point is serious, why not make it seriously?
Well, for one thing, it’s a kind of sublimation of the natural rebel in me, an instinctive revisionism. The internet is packed, or seems to be, with ‘writers’ and ‘copywriters’, and many, perhaps even most, are perfectly competent. Yet, if my own (admittedly limited) ‘research’ is anything to go by, you’d be hard-pushed to guess it from their websites. These – in the main – are stiff and serious affairs, crammed with empty corporatisms and worthy but turgidly familiar language that hardly even hints at the creativity and expertise they unfailingly promise. Somehow, their owners miss the irony of using cliché to sell originality. Or perhaps they don’t; perhaps it’s simply that they’ve learned the hard way that it’s an approach that works. I don’t know. But, effective or not, one thing’s for sure: it’s a very dull approach. And I suppose, in some small way, this website is my protest against the tyranny of that dullness.
But it’s more than just a protest. It’s a demonstration. Whatever the merits, or lack of them, of the ‘conventional’ sales style (for selling is what we’re doing) that I’ve just criticised, one thing is unarguably true: it’s a style that depends, almost entirely, on assertion. That is, the owners of these websites are content merely to assert that they can, on your behalf, engage your audience; they are content to tell you that they are capable of assuming an appropriate ‘voice’ well enough to command your (potential) customer’s attention. They hope you’ll believe them. But all you have is their word. And their word is, as I’ve already argued, expressed in a language which seems to refute the very promise they’re making. So I decided to do things differently. Proof, I decided, not by assertion, but by demonstration. I’m aware it’s risky. Some have very linear minds: frivolity of tone must mean frivolity of purpose. I’m hoping that this is a minority.
So. Has it worked? Hard to say. I know for a fact that’s it’s worked for some. But – and this is the important question – has it worked for you? And the answer is: it depends. There’s a reasonable chance that this page is the first you’ve looked at, like someone who reads the last page of a novel first. If so, you’re a rare breed. But if not, and you’ve arrived here after reading several, or all, of the other pages, probably with no other purpose than to see what further weirdness they contain, then I’d argue that yes, I have succeeded. I’ve engaged you. For whatever reason, I’ve got you to this point. Which was my intention. I’ve deliberately adopted a ‘voice’ to engage my potential customers. And if I can do it for myself, there’s a good chance I can do it for you. Proof, not by assertion, but by demonstration. Go to my Hit me up page (or see below) for contact details.