Resultados obtenidos y literatura relacionada

Every advertiser says: "I want more bang for my buck." But what does this really mean? In general advertising the real impact is tough to accurately measure. Not so when you are coding every order. The direct marketer can trace the source of each and every order including the publication or other specific media. In direct marketing, a more accurate phrase is "More sales for your buck."

As a successful direct marketer, you constantly must seek a higher level of response and/or increased profitability from your advertising investment.

Two paths to greater profitability

1. Reduce costs (to be covered in a future chapter).

2. Produce higher response from your ads through better copy and strategy.

In this chapter I’ll focus on copy and strategy. Learning from real world examples is best accomplished through studying actual ads. I’ll review a few ads and comment on them.

How to "model" successful ads

An important point to grasp is how to incorporate good ideas others are using into your own ads. This is known as "modeling." I’m not referring to copying other advertisers’ actual words and appearance in your ads. If you copy, you can be charged with plagiarism. This is a serious crime. You can be held liable for damages and fines. So be very careful not to violate another's intellectual property. (Of course, if anyone copies your work you can lawfully block the further use of it and collect damages, etc.) Your goal should be to do better - rise above others’ works!

Appeal to the emotions of your prospects or brag about yourself. Which do you think is better? 95% of all dollars spent in advertising are wasted in my opinion. One big reason is so-called image ads. Results cannot be tracked. Experienced direct marketers know they don’t produce sales.

Why? Image ads contain a "me" message. For your advertising to be measured in the real world and to be profitable, it must offer a "You" message

You’ve seen plenty of "me" message ads. A few examples include most advertising for buying watches,

automobiles, and even franchise lead generating ads. Examine the Thursday section of the Wall Street Journal Mart.

"Me" message ads are basically all the same. They contain the logo of the advertiser as large as possible. The copy states the following:

We are the best. We have been in business since 1937. We have won awards. We employ the world famous designers. We have a long tradition of quality.

There is one problem with such ads. They do not produce sales.

You probably have a beautiful company logo ad. All the statements about your company may be accurate. But no one cares! Except you. If a prospect bothers to read your entire ad message - and a few will - an image ad violates two of the basic direct marketing success rules.

Your headline does not:

1. attract attention

2. offer a benefit to the reader.

And you do not answer the all important question in everyone’s mind and heart when any ad is read. "So what’s in it for me?"

Most ad agencies love creating "me" ads. They are quick and easy to prepare. They do not have to produce sales. And no one can measure their effectiveness.

Madison Avenue type ad agencies often quote surveys to support the power of their ads. The problem is

marketing surveys have no relationship to reality in my experience. The only objective reality-based measure of any ad is sales from and attributable to the ad. An effective ad must appeal to the "you" in the heart and mind of a prospect.

AD#1 - The first example of a Before and After ad is originally prepared by Ricoh. It is shown as it appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

Before:

After:

A few comments about Ricoh’s approach:

* The entire ad breaks my first rule as a "me" message. Who cares about a "Cannata Report" which virtually no one has ever heard of. Have you?

* The headline contains no clear benefit for the prospect who is being asked to read the ad.

* Body copy is mostly "me" message.

The "you" approach should be self-evident in the After ad I’ve written.

To which would you respond - Ad A or B?

AD#2 - The Before ad was written by a client of mine, Leslie Brice, President of Gateways, a prominent tape publisher in Ojai, CA. The After ad was prepared by me. These ads illustrate the marked contrast between a

good basic ad and the more emotional editorial style ad approach which I favor.

Before:

After:

AD#3 - Before version is a highly successful ad written by me. This ad breaks all the advertising rules, including my own!

Before:

After:

But nevertheless, it was a huge success. What rules does it break?

1. The ad draws attention to itself. Normally a good ad only draws attention to the product being offered.

2. Uses a kind of "Archie Bunkerish" language normally used by men after a few drinks.

3. Uses slang and profanity.

But gosh was it fun to write! The reason it worked? As with all good advertising every word is true.

The After version was prepared by one of my newsletter subscribers, James Anderson, who modeled his ad after mine! The client reports this ad beat his former control ad by 381%. However, notice the ad contains some of the same words and phrases as exist in the original ad. Had I not specifically given permission for this ad to run when the client submitted it to me, I could have stopped its further use. If its use continued, I could have sued and probably collected damages.

Modeling an ad can be a very good idea but make enough changes to avoid possible disputes. Remember this.

When you model an ad too closely you are in the danger zone. Therefore, always get permission to run it from the original marketer or change the words and appearance so it does not resemble the original ad too closely;

or you could have legal problems. If you have doubts, it’s a good idea to get a legal opinion before running the ad.