Latest / The Copywriting Podcast with Fexingo: Sales Letters, Headlines, and Persuasive Writing / How Direct Mail Copy Used Scarcity Before Amazon Made It a Clickbait
Transcript
- Lucas: Scarcity is one of the oldest levers in marketing — but somewhere between the Mad Men era and the modern popup, it got a little... cheap. Luna: Cheap how? Like the 'only 3 left in stock' notifications on every Shopify store? I assume that's where you're going. Lucas: Exactly that. The problem isn't the principle — scarcity works. The problem is that when every product is 'almost gone,' nothing is. And the listener's brain knows it. Luna: So what's the fix? Go back to the original playbook? Lucas: That's exactly what I want to do today. I dug up a specific direct mail piece from 1974 — a renewal letter for a niche magazine called The Writer. Not a huge campaign, but the copywriter made one change to the scarcity framing and got a 37 percent lift in response. Luna: One change. That's the kind of number you want to hear. What was the change? Lucas: The original letter said something like 'Our print run is limited, so we can only offer this to the first 500 subscribers.' Standard limited-supply language. The revised version changed it to: 'We have set aside exactly 500 copies for this offer. When they are gone, the offer is gone. Not because we want to be difficult — but because we cannot print more without raising the price.' Luna: I see the difference. The first one sounds like a generic warning. The second one gives a reason. It explains why the limit exists. Lucas: Right. The copywriter anchored the scarcity in a structural constraint — the economics of print. That made it believable. And when the reader believes the limit is real, the offer becomes more valuable. Luna: Plus they used the word 'exactly 500 copies.' That specificity — it's not 'about 500' or 'up to 500.' It's exactly. That alone probably added credibility. Lucas: I think so. Robert Cialdini would call that the scarcity principle combined with authority of reason. The reader thinks, 'They must know their business if they can name the exact number.' Now, compare that to a modern popup I saw last week on a DTC supplement brand: 'Hurry — only 7 left!' And I know for a fact they drop-ship. Luna: Yeah, that's the cheap version. No reason, no specificity that matters, no consequence. The brand is essentially telling you they're lying. Lucas: Exactly. And the worst part is, it probably worked once — maybe lifted conversion by 10 or 15 percent on a test. But over time, it trains the audience to ignore scarcity entirely. Luna: So what's the principle we can steal from 1974 and apply today? Give a structural reason for the limit. Make it specific. And don't cry wolf. Lucas: That's the whole episode in three bullet points. But let's go deeper on the specific reason piece, because I think that's the most overlooked. Luna: Good. Give me an example that isn't print-related. Most of us aren't printing magazines anymore. Lucas: Sure. Let's say you run a high-ticket coaching program and you limit enrollment to 10 people per cohort. Instead of saying 'Only 10 spots left,' say something like: 'I personally review every application and do a 30-minute call with each accepted member. That takes about 5 hours per cohort, which is why I cap it at 10. Once those 10 are filled, I cannot add another without cutting into the quality for everyone.' Luna: That's a reason. And it actually makes the offer more attractive because it signals quality. The limit isn't arbitrary — it's a feature of the product. Lucas: Exactly. Now, here's where it gets interesting. There's a subtle psychological shift between 'limited availability' and 'limited production.' The first is about the customer's window to act. The second is about the seller's capacity to deliver. Both are scarcity, but the second one feels more honest and less manipulative. Luna: I want to test that distinction in an email campaign. Maybe an A/B test with a SaaS free trial — one version says 'Trial ends in 7 days' and the other says 'We limit trials to maintain support quality; only 50 new trials open this month.' Lucas: That's a great test. And I'd bet the second one doesn't just convert better — it also attracts better-fit customers, because the people who sign up under production scarcity are more likely to value the product. Luna: You mentioned the 1974 letter had a 37 percent lift. Do we have any data on how that played out over time? Did they keep using that approach? Lucas: The magazine ran that version for three renewal cycles. Each time it outperformed the control by at least 28 percent. Then they got complacent and tried a different tactic — a price increase framing — and response dropped. They went back to the scarcity angle. Luna: That's the thing about a well-built scarcity argument — it's not a one-time gimmick. It's part of the positioning. If you keep the reason true, you can use it indefinitely. Lucas: I think that's the main takeaway. Scarcity works when it's real and the copy gives the reader enough information to verify it in their own mind. The moment it feels like a trick, you lose trust — and trust is much harder to rebuild than a response rate. Luna: And since we're talking about copy that people actually find valuable... I want to say something. If these marketing conversations have sparked something you've actually used — maybe you tested a subject line or rewrote a sales page — and you want to keep this show ad-free, honestly, if today was worth a coffee to you, that's the link. It's buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure. Just a way to say this kind of deep-dive matters. Lucas: Yeah. We don't run ads on this show, and listener support is what keeps it that way. So if you've gotten value from any of the past 16 episodes, that's the place. And now — back to the 1974 letter. There's one more detail I want to highlight. Luna: Please. Lucas: The letter didn't just state the scarcity — it reinforced it in the postscript. The P.S. said: 'As of this writing, only 217 of the 500 copies remain. I cannot hold one for you.' Luna: That's genius. The specificity again — 217, not 'about half.' And the phrase 'I cannot hold one for you' — it's personal. It's the writer saying, 'I'd like to help, but I physically can't.' Lucas: Right. That P.S. probably accounted for a disproportionate share of the lift. Because by the time someone reads the P.S., they've already absorbed the main argument. The P.S. is the nudge. And it doesn't say 'hurry' — it just states a fact. Luna: So the rule for a scarcity P.S. might be: state the remaining number exactly, and use a phrase that implies the limit is beyond the seller's control. Lucas: I think that's perfect. 'I cannot hold one for you' is polite but firm. Compare that to 'Don't miss out!' — which sounds desperate. The 1974 version respects the reader's intelligence. Luna: Let's bring it full circle. If a listener today is writing an email or a landing page with a scarcity angle, what's the one thing they should check before hitting send? Lucas: Ask yourself: would this scarcity claim hold up if a customer asked me about it directly? If you can't give a straight answer — like 'We can only produce 500 because our supplier has a minimum order quantity' — then don't use it. Find a real constraint. Or don't use scarcity at all. Luna: That's a good litmus test. I think a lot of marketers would benefit from running their copy through that filter before publishing. Lucas: And if you want to test the principle yourself, try rewriting one of your current scarcity lines with a specific reason and a specific number. Even a small A/B test might surprise you. Luna: I'm going to do that this week for a client's webinar registration page. They currently say 'Seats are limited' — which is vague. I'll test 'We keep webinars interactive by capping at 50 attendees. Only 23 seats remain.' Lucas: That's a perfect application. And honestly, if that test lifts conversion by even 10 percent, it's worth more than a hundred generic scarcity popups. The difference is believability. Luna: All right — so next time you see an 'Only 3 left' notification, just remember the 1974 copywriter who sold with 217 copies and a P.S. that actually meant it. Lucas: That's the episode. Go test a real scarcity line.