The first round of debate was conducted without anyone really bothering to test the site to assess the quality of the work. A lot of people made comments about the site, and the quality of the copy, which amounted to little more than assumption.

Hopefully this blog goes some way to disproving this theory that the quality of content from Copify is much less than that of a traditional freelancer.

As for the Copify and NuBlue are bedfellows argument, this isn’t strictly true. In fact, Rob left NuBlue (albeit on good terms) to set up a rival company, so it’s not easy to see why they would be so keen to do us a favour.

1) You’re based in the same building as Copify
2) One of the Copify founders used to work for you
3) At no point in your supposedly unbiased and fair review do you point out either of the above.

Why are Copify so desperate for me to give them their blessing, to the point that they’ll get some sock puppet account to send me that link on Twitter, then leave two comments about it on my blog? I don’t really like their concept. Getting their mates to write a glowing review (which amounts to “Copify produced something that we say is as good as an un-named freelancer we picked from Google, but were cheaper and quicker because they guy did 4 hours of research) isn’t going to make me change my mind.

I’m not going to give them a big ol’ hug and apologise for not having faith in them.

I too took issue with the “changing the way people think..” point. To me, that statement shows what Copify is truly about, not what they have been saying in their blogs and responses.
.-= Stephen Da Cambra´s last blog ..Whatever You Do, Remember Your Brand =-.

I appreciate the polite tone you’re adopting, but your point is disingenuous at best. Only today, you’ve blogged these words:

“Different businesses charge differently for providing the same services. The same principle applies to Copify. You will find plenty of copywriters who will happily charge you 3, 4 or even 5x the amount you would pay from us. Would the quality of work or the end result reflect this? Probably not.”

Rather than ‘acknowledging’ the difference between the ‘personal touch’ and the ‘cost-effective service’, you’re explicitly saying that both offerings are exactly the same, except that yours is far cheaper.

The point, as I’ve exhaustively explained elsewhere, is that a pro copywriter brings a lot more to the table than words on the page. Copywriters naturally object to the implication that research, consultation, discussion and consideration (which account for higher prices) are utterly worthless.

It’s a bit like saying a doctor should just get on with the operation – the hands-on bit – and forget all that tedious diagnosis beforehand.

I don’t really blame you though. If I was promoting your service, it’s probably the line I would take. You can always position yourself as the customer’s champion if you sell on ‘best price’. But bear in mind that if someone cheaper comes along, your USP goes down the pan.
.-= Tom Albrighton´s last blog ..What copywriting clients won’t get from content mills =-.

We acknowledge that some people will want the personal touch that you offer, while others will want the more cost-effective approach that we offer.