05 // ADVERTORIAL WRITING
Advertorials are where you can go deep without looking like an ad.
The trick: write like editorial, sell like direct response. If it reads like an advertorial, you already lost. If it reads like a blog post until the CTA, you win.
Here's the framework.
Editorial Voice vs. Sales Copy
Most affiliates write advertorials that sound like long ads. That's not an advertorial. That's a sales page with extra paragraphs.
A real advertorial earns trust before it asks for anything. The reader should be 60-70% through the article before they even realize there's a product being mentioned.
What makes it editorial:
- Third-person or first-person journalistic tone
- Cites sources (studies, experts, trends)
- Explores the problem before revealing the solution
- Objective tone, not cheerleading
- Longer form (800-1500 words)
What makes it convert:
- CTA at the end (and only at the end)
- Product mention in the second half, not the first
- Benefit-driven language woven into the education
- Soft close, not hard pitch
The ratio:
- 60% editorial content (problem, context, mechanism, education)
- 30% solution introduction (product enters naturally)
- 10% CTA (soft recommendation, self-selecting language)
If you flip that ratio, you have a sales page. If you hit it, you have an advertorial that converts because the reader trusts you by the time they see the offer.
Building Credibility Before the Pitch
The first half of your advertorial does one thing: make the reader believe you know what you're talking about. No product mention. No selling. Just credibility.
Four techniques that work:
1. Cite Studies
Even general citations add massive credibility. You're not writing a research paper. You're establishing that real science backs up the problem you're describing.
"A 2024 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found
that 95% of people who lose weight through caloric restriction gain
it back within five years."
The reader's brain registers "this person did research" and trust goes up. It doesn't matter that they don't check the citation. The specificity signals credibility.
2. Interview/Expert Format
Quoting a doctor or expert (even generally) positions your article as journalism, not advertising.
"According to Dr. Sarah Mitchell, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins,
'The problem isn't willpower. The problem is that your body has a
biological set point that it actively defends.'"
3. Trend Reporting
Frame the product as part of a larger trend. Now you're reporting news, not selling.
"A growing number of primary care physicians are now prescribing
GLP-1 receptor agonists as a first-line treatment for patients with
chronic weight cycling. It's a shift that would have been unthinkable
five years ago."
4. Personal Story (First-Person Format)
If you're writing a first-person advertorial, the credibility comes from specificity and vulnerability.
"I spent six years on every diet you can name. Keto lasted three
months. Whole30 lasted six weeks. Weight Watchers lasted until I
couldn't stand counting points anymore. Each time, I lost 15-20
pounds. Each time, it came back. Plus a few extra."
The common thread: All four techniques delay the product. They spend time on the problem. By the time the reader gets to the solution, they're already nodding.
Soft CTA Progression
Hard CTAs kill advertorials. The whole point is that the reader doesn't feel sold to. Your CTA should feel like a natural next step, not a pitch.
The progression:
- Problem acknowledgment (they're here because this resonates)
- Solution education (GLP-1 explained, mechanism understood)
- Qualification (is this right for you? not everyone needs this)
- Next steps (soft CTA, information framing)
What this looks like:
If you've tried multiple diets and keep regaining the weight, it's
worth talking to a doctor about whether GLP-1 might be appropriate
for you.
SlimRx offers telehealth consultations where you can discuss your
history with a licensed physician and determine if semaglutide is
a fit.
[Learn more about SlimRx here]
Why this works:
- Self-selecting ("if you've tried multiple diets")
- Positioned as information, not sales
- Doctor gatekeeping reduces skepticism ("licensed physician")
- "Determine if it's a fit" implies not everyone qualifies
What to avoid:
"Click here to buy now and start your transformation!"
This undoes everything your advertorial built. 800 words of trust, destroyed by one pushy CTA.
GLP-1 Example: Full Advertorial Outline + Opening
Here's a complete advertorial structure with the full opening section written out.
The Headline
"I Need To Tell You Something About GLP-1 Therapy That's Going To
Piss Off Every Longevity Clinic In America"
Why it works: Controversial, specific, creates an enemy, implies insider knowledge. The reader clicks to find out the secret.
The Subhead
Why the weight loss solution doctors are prescribing isn't what you
think, and what that means if you've failed every diet you've tried.
Why it works: Challenges assumption ("isn't what you think"), qualifies the audience ("failed every diet"), creates curiosity gap.
The Outline
1. Opening: Personal story (6 years of diet failure)
2. The Industry Problem: Why diets don't work (biological explanation)
3. What Changed: GLP-1 mechanism introduction
4. The Ozempic Question: Address the elephant in the room
5. Who This Is For: Qualification criteria (not everyone)
6. How It Works: SlimRx telehealth process
7. The Truth: It's not magic, but it's different
8. Next Steps: Soft CTA
Notice: SlimRx doesn't appear until section 6. That's 70% of the article spent on education and credibility.
The Opening Section (Full Text)
I Need To Tell You Something About GLP-1 Therapy That's Going To
Piss Off Every Longevity Clinic In America
I spent six years losing and regaining the same 20 pounds.
Keto. Whole30. Paleo. Intermittent fasting. I tried all of it. And
for a while, each one worked. I'd drop the weight, feel great, post
the progress pics. Then three months later, I'd be right back where
I started.
Every time it happened, I felt like more of a failure.
The narrative we hear is simple: calories in, calories out. If you
regain the weight, it's because you lack discipline. You got lazy.
You went back to old habits.
Turns out, that's not how human biology works.
A 2024 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found
that 95% of people who lose weight through caloric restriction gain
it back within five years. Not because they lack willpower. Because
their bodies actively fight to restore the original weight.
When you restrict calories, your body increases ghrelin (the hunger
hormone) and decreases leptin (the satiety hormone). This isn't a
character flaw. It's a survival mechanism. Your body thinks you're
starving, so it makes you hungry and slows your metabolism.
Which is why the same 20 pounds keeps coming back.
And why every diet makes the next one harder.
This is where GLP-1 medications, drugs like semaglutide, the active
ingredient in Ozempic and Wegovy, change the equation entirely.
[Article continues...]
Why This Opening Works
| Element | Technique | Effect | |---------|-----------|--------| | "Six years losing and regaining" | Specific timeline | Establishes lived experience | | "Keto. Whole30. Paleo. Intermittent fasting." | Specific names | Reader recognizes their own story | | "Post the progress pics" | Specific detail | Shows the cycle everyone knows | | "Felt like more of a failure" | Vulnerability | Builds trust through admission | | "Calories in, calories out" | Common belief | Sets up the reframe | | "That's not how human biology works" | Pattern interrupt | Challenges what they've been told | | NEJM study | Citation | Credibility spike | | Ghrelin/leptin explanation | Mechanism | Education that removes shame | | "Survival mechanism" | Reframe | It's not you, it's biology | | "GLP-1 medications" intro | Natural transition | Product enters through education, not pitch |
The product doesn't show up until the last line. And even then, it's framed as a category (GLP-1 medications), not a brand (SlimRx). The brand comes later. That's the advertorial game.
Template Prompts for Advertorials
Template 1: Listicle Format
Best for: top-of-funnel, shareable content, lower commitment read.
You are a health journalist writing an educational article for a
mainstream health blog.
Write an 800-word listicle:
Title: "5 Signs Your [Problem] Isn't About [Common Misconception]"
Audience: [demographics, psychographic profile]
Tone: Empathetic, educational, not salesy
Product mention: Introduce [product] in sign #4, expand in conclusion
Structure each sign as:
- Subhead (specific, relatable situation)
- Explanation (2-3 sentences on the biological/psychological mechanism)
- Example scenario (one specific, detailed example)
Credibility elements:
- Cite at least one study or expert in signs #1 and #3
- Use specific numbers in every sign
- Explain mechanisms, don't just name problems
CTA:
- Soft recommendation in conclusion
- Self-selecting language ("if you've experienced 3 or more of
these signs...")
- Link to [product] framed as "learn more," not "buy now"
Avoid:
- Mentioning the product before sign #4
- "Game-changing" or "revolutionary" language
- Hard CTA
- Cheerleading tone
Template 2: Expert Interview Format
Best for: high-credibility verticals, skeptical audiences, health/finance.
You are a health writer conducting an expert interview for an online
health publication.
Write a 1000-word Q&A article:
Title: "Why [Expert Type] Is Now Recommending [Solution Category]
for [Problem]"
Format as interview:
- Intro paragraph (who the expert is, why this topic matters now,
2-3 sentences max)
- 5-7 Q&A pairs covering:
* Why the traditional approach fails (biological/systemic reason)
* What [solution category] does differently (mechanism)
* Who it's appropriate for (qualification criteria)
* Common misconceptions (address skepticism directly)
* What realistic expectations look like (honest, not cheerleading)
* How someone gets started (practical next steps)
- Conclusion: 2-3 sentences, soft mention of [product] as one
telehealth option for readers interested in learning more
Tone: Journalistic, credible, curious. The interviewer asks tough
questions. The expert gives honest answers, including downsides.
Avoid:
- Product mention before the conclusion
- Promotional language from the "expert"
- Dodging the hard questions (cost, side effects, who it's NOT for)
- Generic praise
Template 3: Personal Story / Case Study
Best for: emotional verticals, health, finance, relationship to the struggle.
You are a freelance health writer sharing a personal experience
for an online publication.
Write a 1200-word first-person article:
Title: [Confessional hook about the struggle, not the solution]
Structure:
- Opening (2 paragraphs): Specific timeline of struggle. Names of
things tried. Emotional cost. No product mention.
- The breaking point (1 paragraph): The specific moment something
had to change. Make it vivid and particular.
- Discovery (2 paragraphs): How they found out about [solution
category]. Through a doctor, not an ad. Initial skepticism.
- Research (2 paragraphs): What they learned about the mechanism.
Cite one study. Explain in plain language.
- The decision (1 paragraph): Why they decided to try it despite
skepticism. What pushed them over the edge.
- Experience (2 paragraphs): What using it actually feels like
day to day. Honest. Include a downside.
- Results (1 paragraph): Specific outcome. Understated, not hype.
"I'm just not as hungry" over "my life is transformed."
- Conclusion (1 paragraph): Soft CTA. "If you're in the same
place I was..." Self-selecting. Mention [product] as the
specific option they used.
Include:
- Specific numbers in every section (weights, timelines, costs)
- At least two self-deprecating moments
- Skepticism addressed honestly (not dismissed)
- One honest downside of the solution
- Conversational asides
Avoid:
- Perfect success story (too good to be true kills trust)
- Medical claims or guarantees
- "Miracle" / "game-changer" / "transformation"
- Product mention before the Discovery section
- Hard CTA
Advertorials work because they don't look like ads until the reader is already bought in. Lead with value. Build credibility through education. End with a soft recommendation.
The reader should finish thinking "huh, I should look into that" not "someone just tried to sell me something."
Next up: landing pages.