“Originality is the most dangerous word in the advertiser’s lexicon” – Rosser Reeves, often quoted by David Ogilvy
As I mention with boring frequency, because I enjoyed every minute and am quite proud of it, I worked with David Ogilvy for eight years.
He it was who told me that Rosser Reeves, who coined the idea of the USP – which many mention but don’t fully understand – was his brother in law.
Anyhow, the statement above was first made by Reeves, for whom I might have gone to work in the late ’60’s. However, David happily stole it and used it often.
There are so many stupid things done by advertisers that it is hard to single out any one as the worst, but I have long considered the word campaign even more dangerous than originality.
I was reminded of this when I asked one of the cleverest people I know about the advertising budget of the firm she works for, which runs into millions. She said, “I don’t know. We only spend if it pays. And we keep going until it doesn’t pay any more.”
And what, you may ask, does that have to do with the idea of a campaign?
Well, in 1982 when I tried to define the chief benefits of direct marketing I suggested three, but the most important was: “Spend your money where it does most good.”
If you do not measure your responses you will not know one extraordinarily important fact: with frequent repetition a message becomes less and less effective. For instance one of my colleagues measured what happened if you ran a full page in a national paper again the next day.
It pulled about 20% less, and 50% less on the day after that.
Ad and media agencies want you to spend as much as possible. You pay them to create new material, or by commission, so they tell you the opposite of the truth. They tell you to keep spending: “this is image/brand-building building, so response is irrelevant”.
To be fair, since few of them measure the results of their ads save in the vaguest way they can only tell you what they think – which is that if you keep spending it will all turn out right. That is all rubbish, as a moment’s thought will tell you.
A message persuasive enough to get people to reply is more powerful than one that just tells them something. This lesson is being forcibly rammed home to many as result of Google Analytics, though I am astounded at how many are too witless to grasp it
Far too many firms measure but do not draw the obvious conclusions, which may be even more foolish. The answers are staring them in the face, but they don’t act on them.
I shall be absolutely delighted to see a few go broke during this recession, and very sorry for the employees who lose their jobs as a result of working for incompetents.
Interestingly, in his excellent book “Reality in Advertising” which hardly any marketers have read, as they are too damned idle to study, Rosser Reeves said that once you have got the best out of one medium, move on to another.
Also, if you are one of the blessed few who do study, there may be two seats left at EADIM, where you can ask the clever person I mentioned about how her firm plans their marketing.
You can also learn all about Google from Adwords for Dummies author Howie Jacobson,
If there are no seats left at EADIM by the time you read this, you can join Howie and me at Southwark cathedral for what I suspect is the best bargain you will ever get if you want to do better business.
Alternatively, why not just carry on as you are? – And good luck.
But either way, have no fixed campaigns. Only spend when it pays. Stop when it doesn’t.
Aahhh… yes, the Law of Diminishing Returns. Still the definitive counter to the old nonsense that “if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”
Horsefeathers!
The Law of Diminishing Returns will always guarantee declining results. Good to be reminded, Drayton.
Like the other old advertising saw, “half my advertising budget is wasted, but no-one can tell me which half!”
Rot.
Testing can — IF you do it and IF you learn from it.
Core principles never change, do they? (Comforting to know.)
Cheers,
John
Drayton, you have on occasion expressed reservations about brand advertising. I want to alert you to a facet of this market which may, (if I may be so bold), have escaped your notice.
I am a member of an Australian organisation that attributes to me, and I quote their advertisement, “Chartered Accountants are equipped with the
best training, in-depth knowledge and analytical thinking
to find the smart solutions. They see the bigger picture
and they understand what’s needed to help industries
succeed.” And there is more “To find unique solutions in this critical
moment, the industry relies on exceptional thinkers.”
Now your initial reaction might be to reach for the puke bucket – but wait- because there is another way of looking at this.
Given that brand advertising is like a tide of wealth flowing into the agency cute enough to con gullible clients into paying for it, who is it who runs these agencies? Exceptionally thinking Aussie Chartered Accountants of course! Who else has the power to see the bigger picture and has exceptional powers of thought?
Strangely, I actually like being a Chartered Accountant and want to remain one. Some CAs are really, really smart, (sadly not me) but I despair when I see my Institute spending millions of dollars on garbage such as this. So please excuse me for not mentioning my name however much vicarious pleasure it may be to see me pilloried, then hung, debited and credited.
Cheers.