[copywriting]
Writing for this industry is harder than it looks. The words can be perfectly good and the substance still wrong, because a challenge is not an account and a drawdown rule is not a fee. Traders pick that up fast, and it costs you trust before it costs you a sale.
A good writer can make almost anything sound persuasive. What takes longer to learn is that a consistency rule can be the reason people abandon checkout, or that a payout page is answering a question nobody actually asked.
There is a trust problem too. Traders arrive already wary, usually because of something another firm did. Copy that oversells confirms the worry instead of settling it. Copy that is plain and specific does the opposite.
I work in this industry most weeks, so I start from the product rather than from a template. Background is on the about page, and most of my thinking is on the blog if you want to read some before we talk.
Challenge pages, funded account pages, pricing and comparison pages. Where the decision actually happens.
Drawdown, consistency, payout and eligibility, written so a trader understands them before buying rather than arguing about them after. Clear rules cut support load.
Articles built to rank and to be quoted. This overlaps with SEO copywriting, and the two work well together.
What a trader reads after they fund, after they breach, and after they go quiet for a month.
Homepage and about copy that sounds like you. If your description would also fit four rivals, that is the job.
For the platforms, payment providers and tools selling into operators. A different buyer and a longer cycle.
You send me the page or the brief, whatever compliance will not allow, and whatever you already know about where it is falling short. I come back with scope and a fixed price before starting.
Drafts come with the reasoning attached, so you can argue with the decision rather than just the wording. Two rounds of revisions are included. If a fact cannot be checked, I flag it rather than smooth over it.
Sometimes it is not. If the wrong pages rank, or the structure looks like the issue rather than the sentences, start with an audit. I would rather tell you that than take a brief that will not help.
Tell me what it is meant to do and where you think it is falling short. I will come back with what I would change, a fixed price and a timeline.
Yes, and they need different copy. A prop firm sells a challenge fee and a rulebook, so the job is making the rules clear and the value obvious. A broker sells execution and safety over a much longer relationship.
That is the normal case rather than the exception. Send me the restricted list at the start instead of at review, and you save a round of edits. Your compliance team keeps the final word.
I use it for research and checking, not for the sentences. Copy that repeats an old payout rule or a licence claim that does not apply is worse than no copy at all. Every fact I write is either sourced or flagged to you as unchecked.
Then I might be more useful briefing them than replacing them. What in-house writers usually lack is not writing ability. It is knowing which page should exist and what the searcher actually wants from it.
Yes, and it is usually the sensible way to start. One page, a rewrite, or a set of rule explainers tells you whether we work well together before anyone commits to a monthly retainer.
Send them over. I research everything I write, and I will tell you upfront how much reading a new area needs so you can decide if it is worth my time and your money.