This NYT article does not bode well for me. It suggests that Groupon’s success is down to how engaging the text is—i.e., if the copy is great, you’ll buy the deal even if it’s literally a bag of shit.
I’ve been a Groupon subscriber since March and have bought 4 deals completely based on the product/service being offered.
So if this article is accurate, it either means that I’m a jaded writer/editor/marketer, who sees through what is supposed to be clever copy. Or it means I’m a jaded writer/editor/marketer, who can’t hold a candle to a 23-year-old who is “in touch” with today’s buying psyche.