What earthly use is better marketing anyhow?


Last week before I started to bore a crowd of Croatians into submission for five and half hours, a charming lady TV interviewer stuck a camera in front of me and asked if what I was talking about was important.

A good question: how do you explain quickly why better marketing really matters in when people are dying in Burma and Zimbabwe because of evil politicians.

But I wish I could have shown her this week’s issue of The Week magazine, which I will come to in a moment.

People talk a lot about the earth’s precious resources, referring to the obvious, like oil or water. But every penny squandered on stupidity could be spent better elsewhere; every penny takes a little nibble out of those resources.

That’s why I think it is important that companies don’t piss away money on foolish marketing, one obvious example being costly, inane commercials nobody understands. I only have to mention car commercials in just about any advanced country and people laughingly agree that most are a wank.

But print advertising is often even worse; I suspect it is a dying skill. In The Week two of those who are involved in selling those resources we are all so worried about ran expensive ads that were a complete waste of shareholders and customers’ money.

There are a few simple rules in advertising (or any other communication, for that matter) but they seem to be completely unknown to many of those employed to write advertisements, choose the pictures or approve the result.

You might think this is odd in an industry where people get very well paid. But this thought will pass when you recall that bankers have been paid millions for fucking up the world’s economy and ruining the lives of millions.

Even the head of the British Royal Mail has just got paid a seven figure sum – with, astoundingly, a bonus – for making the service even worse than it was. Mind you, this is an achievement of a kind, as it was astonishingly bad already – and coincidentally, the smooth operator in question was previously an advertising man.

But back to the ads.

It has been known for at least a century that good ads – which means ones that persuade – must be utterly clear at a glance, promise a clear, immediate benefit to readers, and that vague waffle spells sudden death, boasting is bad, pictures should immediately relate to the subject and you shouldn’t treat readers like idiots.

Total Oil were losers on all scores in an ad with the heading Common interests, with a picture of an iceberg and, where the reflection should be, an upside down city, followed by some boastful waffle about how they are guided by concern for the environment when we all know they care first and last about profit. The bold “Co” was a little touch somebody no doubt hugged themselves with delight over. Sad.

Shell pissed away a goodly sum on a mysterious confection with a childish diagram followed by the headline, “Creative thinking one of the most precious resources we have.” (Really? How brilliant!) Followed by some boasts about all the things they sponsor, in the hope that we will like them. We won’t.

Somebody called EADS whom hardly anyone sane has ever heard of or wants to wasted two pages on a picture of something strange in space with the fatuous (and boastful) line “Answers, made by EADS” followed by some drivel about satellite technology.

“It’s time for transparency” said another waste of two pages paid for by an organisation called clearfleet, in which they managed to say the square root of sod-all about something nobody cares about except them.

Actually, it is high time – for frontal lobotomy on those who perpetrate this mindless pap.

It all reminds me of my old boss David Ogilvy who was once asked by the head of American Express what to do about his marketing. “Why not hire somebody who understands advertising,” the great man suggested.

Mind you, I salute those who can sell this rubbish to those who buy it. They may know nothing about advertising, but they do recognise cash-rich mugs when they meet them. Trouble is, one way or another, this money comes from you and me, and it could be better used.

About the Author

In 2003, the Chartered Institute of Marketing named Drayton one of 50 living individuals who have shaped today’s marketing.

He has worked in 55 countries with many of the world’s greatest brands. These include American Express, Audi, Bentley, British Airways, Cisco, Columbia Business School, Deutsche Post, Ford, IBM, McKinsey, Mercedes, Microsoft, Nestle, Philips, Procter & Gamble, Toyota, Unilever, Visa and Volkswagen.

Drayton has helped sell everything from Airbus planes to Peppa Pig. His book, Commonsense Direct and Digital Marketing, out in 17 languages, has been the UK’s best seller on the subject every year since 1982. He has also run his own businesses in the U.K., Portugal and Malaysia.

He was a main board member of the Ogilvy Group, a founding member of the Superbrands Organisation, one of the first eight Honorary Fellows of the Institute of Direct Marketing and one of the first three people named to the Hall of Fame of the Direct Marketing Association of India. He has also been given Lifetime Achievement Awards by the Caples Organisation in New York and Early To Rise in Florida.

8 Comments

  1. John

    Vintage Drayton!

    Though I suppose all those wasted millions spent on advertising dross also help to keep those publications and television stations viable so that we can enjoy the quality news and entertainment we enjoy every day.

    Oh yeah…. I see what you mean about it being wasted…

  2. I saw a shell ad that read:

    “Some call it engineering … we call it creative problem solving”

    Thanks Shell but if you don’t mind, I’ll stick with good old “engineering”.

    An ad created by, what’s the word I’m looking for…oh yes…twats

  3. drayton

    Just a thought, John: wouldn’t it be better if the ads that keep those media viable were not totally bloody useless? After all, the money they cost is the same. Why not good rather than bad?

  4. John

    Yes, Drayton, I completely agree. But when I thought about it a bit I started to wonder if those media organisations don’t actually rely on the majority of them being so piss poor that the advertisers have to keep repeating them to gain some sort of acceptable return.
    If the ads were really good perhaps the advertiser’s sales would reach such a level that they would cut back on the number and frequency at which they were run, thus reducing revenue to the media.
    Serious suggestion. Perhaps a forward looking (and good) ad agency should commission an economist to do a study on the benefit of good ads as against mediocre ones?

  5. There have been many, many studies of what makes “good” ads.

    Ogilvy & Mather when I worked for them discovered, rather suprisingly, that the ads that customers liked most were ones that were relevant.

    Most advertising people want to run ads that are entertaining or clever. I don’t blame them. Why not? Entertaining is more fun than selling. And most clients like to be associated with entertainment, which is glamorous, rather than selling, which they don’t understand anyhow.

    When times get hard, though, advertisers usually have to start selling. I love recessions.

  6. At the height of the mad cow disease outbreak, beef sales almost everywhere crashed to an all time low. The equivalent of the Australian meat marketing board quickly launched a campaign with road side hoardings that sent out a clear message that simply read ‘Buy more meat you bastards!’

  7. At the height of the mad cow disease outbreak, beef sales almost everywhere crashed to an all time low. The equivalent of the Australian meat marketing board quickly launched a campaign with road side hoardings that sent out a clear message that simply read ‘Buy more meat you bastards!’

  8. Presently Nestle in The Philippines sells instant coffee. Their big campaign line is, “Our milkiest ever.” Need I say more?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *