Why ‘Lazy’ Curses Hurt Copywriting, According to Justin Oberman

In a recent LinkedIn post, Justin Oberman delves into the common practice of using curse words in copywriting, arguing that such language is often a crutch for weak writing rather than a genuine source of impact. Oberman frames the use of profanity not as a sign of boldness, but as a shortcut that can undermine the actual message and alienate potential clients.

Oberman begins by drawing an analogy to a child using curse words to get attention. Initially, the shock value works, but it quickly becomes tiresome and childish. He writes:

“A five-year-old thinks the bad word made the sentence powerful. A Copy Hunter/copywriter knows better.”

This analogy, Oberman suggests, is directly applicable to copywriting. He contends that writers often mistake the ‘heat’ generated by an unexpected curse word for a strong idea. While profanity can grab attention, especially in an era saturated with AI-generated content, it also carries significant risks.

The Perils of Profanity in Professional Copy

According to Justin Oberman, the primary issue with liberally using curse words in copy is their potential to offend. This risk is particularly pronounced when targeting high-net-worth individuals or even a broader audience. Oberman questions the necessity of such risks, stating:

“Why risk it? Most curse words in copy are not ideas. Most are lazy intensifiers writers grab when the sentence itself isn’t strong enough.”

He provides several examples of common phrases that rely on profanity for emphasis, such as “This strategy is f*cking powerful” or “We don’t tolerate bullsh*t.” Oberman argues that removing the curse words reveals that the underlying message lacks substance.

Replacing Curses with Compelling Content

Beyond Professionalism: Enhancing Impact

Oberman emphasizes that the solution isn’t simply to swap profanity for more formal-sounding adjectives, which he believes often results in equally weak sentences. Instead, he advocates for replacing the curse word with the underlying reason for its use. This approach, which he refers to as the ‘Copy Hunting technique,’ involves identifying the emotional force behind the word and substituting it with a more potent and specific expression.

For instance, Oberman suggests transforming:

• “We don’t tolerate bullsh*t” into “Lie to us once, and the meeting is over.”
• “When sh*t hits the fan” into “When the room catches fire, and everyone else reaches for the org chart.”
• “We give a sh*t about our customers” into “If your problem keeps you awake, it keeps us awake.”

These revised phrases, Oberman points out, are not necessarily softer; in some cases, they are more brutal and impactful. He elaborates on the technique:

“Hunt for offending words and ask: ‘What kind of force is this word adding?’ If it adds anger, replace it with an accusation. If it adds urgency, replace it with a consequence. If it adds aggression, replace it with a threat.”

Ultimately, Justin Oberman’s analysis on LinkedIn underscores the importance of strong, idea-driven copy over the fleeting impact of profanity. He encourages writers to dig deeper, replacing lazy intensifiers with the actual substance and power of their message.