The Copywriter Code

Jane – thanks for your thoughtful comments.

The Code is intended to be a simple statement of intent, rather than a prescriptive and exhaustive framework of professional behaviour. Hence the suggestions of behaviours rather than definitions.

It’s also a self-certification. A future accreditation scheme would involve assessing professionals to ensure they meet a defined standard.

Having said that, membership can be revoked if members are found to be seriously in breach of the spirit of the Code.

We’ve deliberately kept “clients” out of the language given how many copywriters have employers rather than clients.

Thanks again!

Thanks for all your efforts with this, Leif. It’s no easy task bringing together comments from a large number of copywriters (a bunch who like to tinker with copy!!)

I think the three main points in the intro (where you describe the purpose of the code) would be clearer as bullet points.

My main comment at this stage is about the shift from ‘we’ to the third person (‘a copywriter might…’) in the section with the three columns (Master the craft etc). It seems a bit strange and detached to me.

It also seems odd to say that a copywriter might ‘act with professionalism, empathy and understanding in all commercial relationships’ and that copywriters might learn their craft. You could replace ‘For example, a copywriter might..’ with ‘Our guiding principles’ or something similar.

However, I wasn’t involved in the Discord chat about this or the call you had (only the earlier document review). So apologies if I’m late to the party and this has already been debated endlessly! It’s just an observation.

Hi Leif,

Looking good!

Just a couple of things, which I’ve probably mentioned before but want to make sure. My understanding of bullet points is that should only have a full stop if they form a full sentence. So, those under “The Copywriter Code serves several purposes:” don’t need them.

I think using cloud storage is too prescriptive (“Protect client data and assets by using cloud storage and backups”). This sentence sounds like we commit to using cloud storage and there are other ways to do things, which are compliant and safe (according to an IT professional).

Thanks,

Katy

Thanks Katy! I agree. We got a bit tangled up in specifics there. And thanks also for the bullet point correction.

This is almost there, but I personally wouldn’t sign anything saying that ‘I understand’ all laws and will protect data and assets 100%, as it leaves me open legally and is not physically possible. I can only do this to the best of my knowledge, and the client should always be responsible for guiding on policies and training. This code of conduct needs more legal protection so it is not used in evidence should a copywriter be challenged.

Thanks Sarah – the code of conduct won’t be legally binding. It’s a professional code of conduct rather than a legal commitment. It’s designed to be part of a framework for professional standards. You would still have specific agreements and contracts with clients and employers. We’ve deliberately framed the Code as things you should do, because some stipulations won’t apply in some circumstances. The greatest penalty for contravening the Code would be the loss of ProCopywriters membership, and even that would be used in extreme cases. Thanks again for your feedback – we’ll certainly consider your perspective when we begin work on the next version.

Thank you for pulling this together. I’d be happy to sign this version. A minor point is use of AI coming above agreeing clear project deliverables etc. in the list of bullet points about acting with integrity. I think it’s important to reference gen AI and I’m guessing that the bullets aren’t necessarily intended to be in priority order, however I’d be tempted to place it after the other two points.

[Swaps hats from feedback-gatherer to feedback-giver]

This is definitely moving in the right direction, and I like the clarity, simplicity and power-of-three going on. However, I do now wonder if having been trimmed back it lacks a little gravitas and weight? As if each section should have a more detailed bit that only 10% of people will ever read, but brings a bit more explanation and depth… and what we see here is the big, non-small-print summary (that is the only thing most people read anyway)? Otherwise it might feel we’re signing up to something that’s less significant than this code really is?

Also… I wonder if the examples could be “might” or “could” (or similar) instead of “should”, which would make it possible to use clearer, more concrete examples without seeming like we’re being prescriptive for every situation?

For instance, as it stands, “Master the craft” effectively says we should invest in learning four times, and then says about process – because it’s hard to say what we *should* do, or what skills we should develop and how, when it applies to everyone.

Likewise, that might also answer some of the worries about what legal regulations we do or don’t know (I’d argue this might be something we should all take a few minutes to learn at least a basic level though?)… and maybe give a little more room to be bolder about, for example, saying we won’t write copy that’s misleading? (I can imagine having that in black and white would be helpful when pushing back on some clients/employers.)

David – thanks for your comment! There’s definitely a discussion to be had around the question of detail. Adding detail might provide helpful guidance for copywriters, but it might also lead us into trying to define everything a copywriter should and should not do – and generally that detail belongs in contracts, T&Cs, a competency framework, and a code of practice. Something to think about, certainly.

Where do I sign? 😉

John – thanks for your enthusiasm! The broadly positive comments suggest we’re nearly there with this version, so hopefully we’ll be able to launch the live version in the next few months.

This looks excellent. I’d be happy to sign up to it.

First, well done for continuing to work on the code and getting it closer to realisation – your efforts really are appreciated!

Second, what does ‘processes’ mean in ‘Use processes to create concepts and copy’? It needs defining and not left to a client’s imagination.

Third, like others who have responded, I agree the code is almost right – but I go along with Sarah Powers about the importance of the code not being used in evidence, perhaps by a ‘clever’ lawyer twisting the meaning of the code. I also go along with David McGuire’s points, especially not writing misleading copy; would saying ‘We abide by the Trades Description Act.’ be simpler and clearer than ‘Understand the legal frameworks…’?

Fourth, is the code too one sided? It’s all very well saying we will ‘Protect our partners’, but should the code also be clear to clients we will challenge claims they insist are okay?

Thanks for sharing version 4.0 of the Copywriter Code. I appreciate the enormous effort that’s gone into this over the past year, and I recognise the real problems you’re trying to solve. After reading through the code and FAQ carefully, I wanted to share some thoughts as a senior content practitioner with nearly four decades of experience.

My main concern is the code’s voluntary nature. If we’re trying to distinguish professional copywriters in a crowded market, creating a voluntary badge risks becoming something anyone can opt into without meaningful commitment. The people most likely to sign up are probably already operating ethically, while those causing reputational damage to our profession won’t care about voluntary standards.

The enforcement mechanism feels particularly weak. A reporting system that’s mainly for “supporting members to improve” won’t protect clients or elevate professional standards in any meaningful way. Without teeth, this risks becoming another badge for websites rather than genuine professionalisation.

I’m also concerned about how we’re framing the AI conversation. The code mentions transparency around AI use, which is good but feels surface-level. The real questions about AI in our profession are more nuanced. How do we maintain voice and strategic thinking when using AI tools? What’s our responsibility when AI suggests something questionable? How do we credit ideas that emerge from AI collaboration? Every professional writer I know uses tools, from Hemingway Editor and Grammarly to Claude and ChatGPT. The difference between professional and amateur writing has never been about the tools; it’s about understanding audiences, crafting the right message and knowing what works. What really matters is the result. Reducing this to a transparency checkbox misses an opportunity for deeper, more helpful guidance.

The three pillars sound reasonable, but they’re so broad they could mean almost anything. According to the FAQ, qualification can be achieved through any mixture of training, experience, self-directed learning and formal education. That’s essentially saying “if you think you’re qualified, you are”. How does this help clients identify genuine professionals?

There are significant gaps too. Where’s the mention of fair pricing practices, diversity and inclusion, environmental responsibility or handling conflicts of interest? What about copywriters’ rights, protection from scope creep, or fair payment terms? The code seems entirely focused on what copywriters owe clients, with no reciprocal expectations or acknowledgement of power dynamics in our industry.

I understand the desire to keep things brief, but brevity without substance doesn’t help anyone. The real challenges facing our profession include clients not understanding the value of strategic thinking, the race to the bottom on pricing and the broader devaluation of writing as a craft. A voluntary badge scheme doesn’t address any of these fundamental issues.

I worry this well-intentioned effort might actually make things worse by creating another tier of “certified” writers that clients have to navigate, without providing meaningful differentiation or protection for anyone involved.

If we want to truly professionalise copywriting, we need something more substantial. Either commit to creating a proper professional framework with mandatory education requirements, continuous professional development and clear, specific standards or acknowledge that this is a voluntary pledge that won’t solve the problems identified. The current version sits uncomfortably in the middle, neither accessible enough to include everyone doing good work nor rigorous enough to provide meaningful professional standards.

I genuinely want this to succeed because our profession needs it. But in its current form, I fear it’s addressing symptoms rather than causes. We need grown-up discussions about the future of our profession that go beyond who’s using which tools or who’s signed which pledge. We must discuss value, ethics, sustainability and what professional copywriting means in a rapidly changing landscape.

I hope this feedback is helpful. I’m happy to be part of the continued conversation about how we can create something that genuinely serves our profession and the people who rely on our work. Perhaps one day it could be an integral part of the membership conditions?

Adrie van der Luijt – nice thoughts, so / but what would your version of the code say?

Fair enough, Peter. It’s easy enough to identify problems, but considerably harder to propose workable solutions that acknowledge the realities of how this profession actually operates.

So I’ve written what a copywriter code might look like if it started from a different premise entirely. Instead of focusing primarily on what copywriters owe clients, this version assumes that professional relationships work both ways. Instead of voluntary pledges that rely on people’s better angels, it acknowledges the commercial pressures and power dynamics that shape our daily working lives.

This isn’t the final word on anything, and it certainly isn’t perfect. But it does attempt to grapple with questions that often get sidestepped in these discussions. What does fair pricing actually mean when clients expect strategic thinking but budget for typing? How do we maintain professional boundaries when saying no might mean losing work? What are reasonable expectations for both sides of the client relationship?

I’ve tried to write something that experienced practitioners might actually use in contract negotiations and difficult conversations, rather than something that looks good on websites but doesn’t translate to real-world application. Whether it succeeds at that is for others to judge.

Unlike voluntary codes that rely on self-selection and good intentions, this version would operate as a mandatory condition of professional membership. You couldn’t join the organisation without committing to these standards and you couldn’t maintain membership without upholding them. This isn’t about offering another badge for websites but about establishing what it actually means to be part of a professional community.

This approach recognises that voluntary standards create a fundamental problem. The people who most need professional guidance are least likely to volunteer for it, while those already operating ethically carry badges that don’t meaningfully differentiate them from anyone else calling themselves a copywriter. Making membership conditional on professional standards changes the entire dynamic.

Clients working with members would know they’re engaging someone who’s committed to specific practices around fair pricing, clear communication and professional accountability. More importantly, they’d know these aren’t just aspirational statements but enforceable standards backed by membership consequences.

This doesn’t solve every problem facing commercial writers, but it does create genuine professional differentiation in a way that voluntary pledges simply cannot. It means choosing to be part of a professional community rather than just displaying professional intentions.

The goal here isn’t to compete with what ProCopywriters has created, but to contribute to the broader conversation about what professional copywriting could become. If this version provokes useful discussion about the practical realities of building sustainable careers in commercial writing, then it’s served its purpose.

I’m sharing this because I think we need more voices in this conversation, not fewer. The challenges facing our profession are complex enough that they need multiple perspectives and approaches. This is mine:

The professional copywriter code

This code acknowledges that copywriting is skilled intellectual work that deserves fair compensation, professional respect and ethical practice standards. It recognises the complex relationship between copywriters, clients and society, establishing expectations that protect all parties whilst elevating the profession.

Our professional foundation

Professional copywriters demonstrate competence through measurable experience, continued learning and ethical practice. We define competence as having completed substantial paid work for multiple clients over at least two years, or equivalent experience gained through formal training programmes, internships or mentored practice.

We commit to ongoing professional development through structured learning, peer review and staying current with legal, ethical and technological developments affecting our work. This includes understanding advertising standards, data protection laws, accessibility requirements and emerging AI applications.

We maintain professional boundaries by working within our areas of genuine expertise and referring clients to specialists when projects exceed our competence. We acknowledge when we don’t know something and seek appropriate guidance rather than improvising solutions that could harm client outcomes.

Sustainable practice standards

We establish clear, fair pricing that reflects the strategic value of our work, not just the time spent writing. We educate clients about the research, planning and revision stages that create effective copy and we price accordingly.

We define project scope precisely before commencing work, including what constitutes reasonable revision requests versus scope expansion. We charge appropriately for additional work beyond the agreed brief and maintain clear boundaries around unlimited revision requests.

We honour agreed timelines whilst maintaining quality standards and promptly communicate when circumstances affect delivery schedules. We don’t accept unrealistic deadlines that compromise work quality or our professional wellbeing.

Technology and collaboration

We use AI tools transparently and responsibly as part of our professional toolkit, maintaining human oversight and strategic thinking throughout the creative process. We remain accountable for all work delivered under our name, regardless of which tools assisted in its creation.

We credit collaborative contributions appropriately, whether from AI, other creatives, subject matter experts or client input. We don’t claim sole authorship of genuinely collaborative work, nor do we minimise our strategic contribution when tools assist with execution.

We stay informed about AI capabilities and limitations, using these tools to enhance rather than replace professional judgement, audience understanding and strategic thinking.

Client relationships and mutual respect

We communicate honestly about what’s achievable within given budgets and timelines. We don’t promise miraculous results or guarantee specific business outcomes beyond our control, but we do commit to delivering strategically sound work based on agreed objectives.

We maintain confidentiality regarding client information, strategies and proprietary data. We don’t use confidential client information for our benefit or share it inappropriately with other clients or third parties.

We challenge client requests that could be harmful, misleading or legally problematic, offering alternative approaches that ethically achieve their objectives. We don’t simply execute poor strategies without raising concerns about potential consequences.

What we expect in return

Clients who engage professional copywriters should provide clear project briefs, relevant background information and reasonable access to subject matter experts or stakeholders which are needed for successful project completion.

We expect fair payment terms that don’t treat copywriters as banks financing client operations. Payment within 30 days should be standard, with immediate payment for small projects under £500.

We expect clients to respect our professional expertise by engaging genuinely with our strategic recommendations rather than treating us as typing services. This includes considering our advice about messaging, targeting and approach, even when it differs from initial assumptions.

We expect reasonable revision processes that focus on achieving agreed objectives rather than subjective preference changes. We expect clients to consolidate feedback from their internal teams rather than subjecting us to conflicting direction from multiple stakeholders.

Industry responsibility

We actively work to elevate professional standards by supporting emerging practitioners through mentoring, honest feedback and knowledge sharing. We don’t deliberately undermine other professionals through unfair pricing or unprofessional conduct.

We consider the broader impact of our work on society, declining projects that promote harmful stereotypes, misleading claims or discriminatory practices. When asked to create genuinely harmful content, we don’t hide behind “just following client instructions”.

We contribute to a more sustainable industry by advocating for fair practices, supporting diversity and inclusion initiatives, and considering environmental impact in our recommendations and working practices.

Accountability and enforcement

This code means nothing without genuine accountability mechanisms. Professional copywriters operating under this code commit to peer review processes, continued professional development requirements and transparent dispute resolution procedures.

We support the establishment of professional standards that go beyond voluntary pledges, including accreditation systems with meaningful requirements and ongoing obligations. We recognise that true professionalisation requires more than voluntary badges.

We accept that professional status comes with professional responsibilities, including the obligation to maintain standards even when it’s commercially inconvenient or when clients pressure us to compromise our professional judgement.

Adrie – thanks for sharing this. I agree that we need different perspectives and I value your contribution. My first impression is that your code offers some new ideas that are probably worth including. Some of the content, in which we attempt to define what clients do, likely belongs in contracts. We’ll review all the comments, and your version of the code, with the committee (which you are welcome to join).

Leif – thank you. I would be very happy to join the committee.

Thank you for creating this – I haven’t been involved so far, except for the initial confirmation that I would be happy to sign up to a voluntary code (my fault, obviously!). Just a few thoughts and apologies if any of this seems obvious, or if the points have already been addressed.

Firstly, let me say that I was interested to read Adrie’s version of what he feels the code should include. In light of his point regarding the code being voluntary, I think adherence should be mandatory for all paid ProCopywriters members.

I’m not sure about the sentence, “Copywriters displaying the Copywriter Code badge are committed to excellence in every element of their professional life.” Yes, we might be, but this sounds a bit old-fashioned to me. I would also use the phrase ‘Committing to the Copywriter Code’ rather than ‘Signing the Copywriter Code is a commitment to’, as it lends more weight. I also think the badge could be clearer – I didn’t even notice the words, I follow, until the third or fourth look. I would put that at the top, aligned with the other text and in the PC blue. Again, perhaps it could say, I’ve committed to, rather than I follow.

I, too, have concerns around the issue of AI. In my terms and conditions, I state that I may use AI tools for ideation, iteration, refinement, and analysis, however, purely AI-generated copy will never be provided to clients. I’m aware of a few copywriters who are just using the tools to create copy and provide it straight to clients. Provided they are telling clients that’s what they’re doing, we are both offering transparency, but I’m not sure where that sits with enhancing the reputation of copywriting as a profession?

The ‘Protect our Partners’ section could be beefed up regarding the laws and guidelines that we follow, particularly GDPR and ASA/CAP guidelines, as I believe there are writers out there who don’t know what these things are and don’t really care. These are the people that we are distinguishing ourselves from. I don’t generally do B2C/D2C copywriting, but I’ve made sure that I have a basic overview of the rules, and know where to go to get further knowledge if I need it. There are also other issues, such as professional indemnity insurance. I know personally of two freelance copywriters who are not insured, which to me seems a bit mad. I want people to know that I take my business seriously and I’ve taken the steps (and paid the money) to protect all parties. But… I don’t know how that works with employed or agency writers.

I also agree with Adrie that I would like to see bit more clarification, if this is going to be a meaningful thing. It is vague and whilst we don’t have to cater to every single copywriter because we all do things differently, the point should be that we are committing to a minimum set of professional standards. I don’t think it’s gone quite far enough in doing that, but I’m very grateful that we have the opportunity to be at the stage we’re at and thanks once again for doing this.

There’s a lot of helpful stuff in Adrie’s suggestions. On Vikkie’s point about making adherence mandatory for all paid ProCopywriters members, that would rather nullify the discourse. You can be pro-ProCopywriters without necessarily being pro The Code – I get that mandating it seems like an easy fix for the issue of it being toothless, but not sure making it a requirement of membership is the answer.