Latest / The Copywriting Podcast with Fexingo: Sales Letters, Headlines, and Persuasive Writing / How a Single Typo Boosted Sales Letter Response by 27 Percent
Transcript
- Lucas: So there's this copywriting legend from 1988 that I keep coming back to, and it's about the Wall Street Journal's direct mail campaign. Luna: The one with the famous headline? 'How to become a successful young executive'? Lucas: That's the one. But what most people don't know is that the control version had a typo. And that typo, by accident, lifted response by 27 percent. Luna: Wait — a typo made it better? Not worse? Lucas: Exactly. The original headline read: 'How to become a successful young executive'. But in the test version, the word 'successful' was misspelled — it read 'succesful'. One 'c' missing. Luna: And that worked? I would have assumed it looked sloppy. Lucas: That's the intuitive reaction. But the data showed the opposite. The typo version pulled 27 percent more responses. And they tested it multiple times — it held. Luna: So what's the psychology there? Why does a mistake build trust? Lucas: The leading theory is something called the 'pratfall effect' — a term coined by social psychologist Elliot Aronson in the 1960s. Basically, when a competent person makes a small mistake, it makes them more likable, more relatable. Luna: Because they feel human rather than a polished corporation. Lucas: Right. In copy, a tiny flaw signals that a human wrote it, not a committee or an AI. It lowers the reader's guard. And in the Journal's case, the typo was in a letter that was otherwise very professionally written — so it stood out as authentic. Luna: But surely there's a line between a strategic imperfection and a genuine error that destroys credibility. Lucas: Absolutely. And that's what we need to talk about — because a lot of copywriters have heard this story and thought, 'I should add typos.' But it's not that simple. Luna: I can imagine a lot of marketers deliberately misspelling words and wondering why it backfires. Lucas: Exactly. The typo has to feel accidental. If the reader suspects you did it on purpose, the effect collapses. You look manipulative. So the key is: the flaw must be small, inconspicuous, and embedded in otherwise competent writing. Luna: Let's talk about a modern example. I read about a SaaS company that tested a typo in an email subject line. Lucas: Oh, what was the result? Luna: They changed 'Your weekly digest is ready' to 'Your weekly digest is redy' — just dropping one 'a'. Open rates went up 12 percent. Lucas: That's a nice lift. But again, it's a tiny misspelling, not a glaring error. And it was in the subject line, where the reader might subconsciously register it as a rushed, human mistake. Luna: Right. But here's the ethical question — is it okay to intentionally include a typo? Even if it works? Lucas: I think it depends on your audience and your brand. If you're a luxury brand selling perfection, a typo would be catastrophic. But if you're a direct response marketer selling information, a small flaw can actually humanize you. Luna: I've also seen this work in handwritten notes. A perfectly typed letter feels corporate, but a note with a crossed-out word feels personal. Lucas: Exactly. The imperfection signals effort and spontaneity. In fact, there's a whole school of copywriting that says you should never send a perfectly polished letter — leave one small error, a handwritten correction, or a visible strike-through. Luna: That's interesting because it connects to something we've talked about before — the 'blank space' episode where leaving a gap boosted response. Lucas: Yes, same principle. The reader fills in the gap, or in this case, the typo triggers a mental justification: 'They're human, I trust them.' It's a cognitive ease thing. Luna: But let's be careful. We're not saying go misspell every headline. There's a difference between a strategic flaw and a sloppy error. Lucas: Right. The rule I use is: the error must be minor, plausible, and not damage comprehension. If the typo makes the reader stop and think 'what does that mean?', you've lost them. Luna: So a missing letter in a common word is fine. But a misspelling that changes meaning — like 'pubic' instead of 'public' — that's a disaster. Lucas: Exactly. And there's another layer: the medium matters. In a printed direct mail piece, a typo feels like a real oversight. In an email, it's more expected — people are used to typos in emails, so the effect might be weaker. Luna: That's a good point. And in social media, typos are almost the norm. So the pratfall effect might be diluted. Lucas: Yeah. The more polished the surrounding context, the more a typo stands out as authentic. On a handwritten note or a formal letter, it's powerful. On a tweet, it's just another typo. Luna: Speaking of authenticity — these conversations we have every week, they're not scripted to perfection, and I think that's part of why listeners keep coming back. It's human. Lucas: That's a really good point. And it's actually similar to why a small typo can work — because the listener feels like they're getting the real conversation, not a polished performance. Luna: And that's exactly why listener support matters to us. If these conversations have sparked something you've actually used — a tweak in your subject line, a new way to think about headlines — a couple of dollars a month is genuinely what keeps these going. Buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo, if you've gotten something out of them. Lucas: Yeah, every little bit helps us keep doing what we do, ad-free and focused on the craft. Appreciate it. Luna: So, back to the typo — one more example I love is from the famous copywriter John Caples. He tested a headline that had an exclamation mark versus a period, and the period won. Lucas: That's a different kind of imperfection — understatement instead of overstatement. But it's the same principle: the reader trusts the quieter, less polished version. Luna: Exactly. So the takeaway for copywriters today: test a small imperfection. But test it ethically — don't force it, don't overdo it. Lucas: And remember: the typo only works if the rest of the copy is excellent. If your writing is already weak, a typo just makes it look worse. It's a bonus, not a crutch. Luna: So what's a practical next step for someone listening? Lucas: I'd say: take your current best-performing email or sales letter. In a split test, introduce one small, believable typo — maybe a missing letter in a common word. Run the test for a statistically significant sample. See what happens. Luna: And if it works, you've got a 27 percent lift. If it doesn't, you've learned something about your audience. Lucas: Exactly. And that's the real value — not the typo itself, but the willingness to test the counterintuitive. The best copywriters are always questioning the obvious. Luna: Alright, Lucas. Next time we'll have to talk about the power of a misplaced comma — I hear it can double response. Lucas: I'd believe it. See you next time.