Recently a Twitterer described an unfortunate experience. She read a New York Times article about the lack of efficacy of vitamin therapy. She then tweeted something about “crappy news for vitamins.” Following a flurry of responses, she wrote an article for the Huffington Post, concluding that some sentiments just can’t be expressed in 140 characters.
I think she didn’t use good Twitter Copywriting Tips. I would avoid words like “crappy,” “sucks,” and similar borderline offensive terms. There’s nothing wrong with those words for private conversation. But I find them disturbing because they’re lazy and imprecise.
Her tweets weren’t clear. She could have tweeted something like, “NYT reports vitamins don’t offer promised benefits.” She could even quote the headline, “New York Times reports news getting worse for vitamins.” Then the burden would be on the NY Times, not her. She could have said, “I always mistrusted vitamins and here’s support.”
But if I were tweeting about that article, I’d point out that even the sainted Times doesn’t always get it right. The Times opened with
=====================================================
News Keeps Getting Worse for Vitamins
The best efforts of the scientific community to prove the health benefits of vitamins keep falling short.
=====================================================
But has it? Here’s what the Times reported:
“[Vitamin C] vitamin was linked with a 50 percent reduction in colds among people who engaged in extreme activities, such as marathon runners, skiers and soldiers, who were exposed to significant cold or physical stress. The data also suggested vitamin C use was linked with less severe and slightly shorter colds.”
Sounds like support for vitamins as far as I’m concerned!
The Journal of Clinical Oncology published a study of 540 patients with head and neck cancer who were being treated with radiation therapy. Vitamin E reduced side effects, but cancer recurrence rates among the vitamin users were higher, although the increase didn’t reach statistical significance [Italics added]
Sorry, folks. Not statistically significant? Let’s move on…
This week, researchers reported the disappointing results from a large clinical trial of almost 15,000 male doctors taking vitamins E and C for a decade. The study showed no meaningful effect on cancer rates.
Okay, but are these vitamins just good for cancer?
And there’s the study with 72,ooo participants and anotoher with 1 35,000, showing slightly higher death rates among vitamin consumers. When you have huge numbers, you will find correlations that often turn out to be meaningless.
So I’m going to be kind and omit the original Tweeter’s name. She meant well. In this case, she should be embarrassed both by inappropriate Tweets and by praising a source that turns out to be flawed.
My upcoming course will include a section on copywriting for social marketing to attract clients. Learn more here.