Wise words from the Sage of New Jersey – and a film of David Ogilvy

Bob Bly comments on the folly of two witless copywriters who are, I am ashamed to say, British

Bob Bly is one of the best copywriters in the U.S. I have learned a lot from him – though I believe he is quite a few years younger than me. Here’s something he wrote a day or so ago.

He was commenting on the rift between people like us who sell and people who don’t. At the end of this blog there is an extract from a film of David Ogilvy talking to new managers at Ogilvy & Mather.

He mentions me – which is quite funny – but even funnier is the way he demolishes the pretensions of buffoons like the two Bob refers to.

I was recently irritated by two UK copywriters, NH and MF, who
lurk on a LinkedIn copywriting forum and spend a lot of time
bashing what I do, which is direct marketing (DM) — often also
called direct response (DR).

NH calls direct response advertising “huckster crap” and
grudgingly admits that some young copywriters today are moving
to DM only because “in some markets it works.” But he doesn’t
think much about those markets or writers.

I explained to NH that I find the opposite: youngsters today
are fleeing from DM, preferring more trendy marketing channels
including SEO, blogging, content marketing, and social media.

Why? Because direct response sells — and both new media
evangelists as well as many old-school Madison Avenue
copywriters alike seem to find selling somewhat shameful … as
incredible as that sounds.

Also, in DM, copywriters who don’t know how to sell are naked
and exposed.

In direct response, the results of your efforts can be measured
down to the penny.

And a lot of writers hate that, because when their stuff doesn’t
work, they are unmasked as the poseurs they are.

I agree with MF’s observation that many youngsters flee DM “as
it is seen as the unsexy side of advertising.”

But I cannot fathom why copywriter MF says, and so many
copywriters agree, that “It’s more fun to work on big budget ads
and TV … some would rather enjoy their working life building a
brand rather than a bank balance.”

If indulging your creative whims on the most elaborate and
expensive ad campaigns you can conceive, and then explaining to
the client why their sales did not go up as you flushed their
millions down the toilet, is fun — then yes, I guess branding is
fun.

To MF I say: Hey dummy, do you understand that companies pay you
to build their brands precisely because they also want to build
their bank balance, otherwise known as the bottom line?

MF concludes: “DM has its place, but it’s usually only those
creatives who don’t succeed in above-the-line advertising who
find themselves sucked into it.”

I will offer a contrary view: The best copywriters who, by
definition, are tops at generating sales, are drawn to DM
because they can see immediate rewards for themselves and their
clients.

Often the worst copywriters go into branding and above-the-line
advertising because, with no accountability, these hacks lack
the selling chops to get consumers to actually buy their
clients’ products — and in general advertising, they can get away
with it.

Then NH kicks his demonstrated stupidity into higher gear. He
writes: “America being so much bigger than the UK must have a
large simple-minded underclass who will still respond to DM’s
crude promises and hand over money for stuff they really don’t
need or can’t afford, be it a lawn mower or an insurance
policy.”

Let’s break down NH’s moronic utterance: First, he insults our
vast middle class by calling us simple-minded. I have seen no
data supporting the assertion that the American middle class is
not as intelligent as the middle class in Europe or the Far
East.

Second, he accuses DM of selling stuff people don’t really need.

The fact is, products fall into two categories: must-have and
nice-to-have — the latter being, as NH calls it, stuff people
don’t really need.

I ask: What is wrong with selling products that people want and
are nice to have? The reality is that most products are in this
category. And sellers of nice-to-have products advertise heavily
and actively with both direct marketing and general advertising.

For instance, most luxury cars are sold using TV commercials,
full-page color magazine ads, and the Internet.

Consumers don’t need luxury cars, because a Toyota driven at 60
mph will get you to work just as quickly as a BMW driven 60 mph.
As a Prius owner, I have proven this through testing.

And, luxury car advertising is selling stuff that consumers
clearly cannot afford. The proof: approximately 90% of consumers
cannot buy their cars without a loan. And if you can’t afford to
pay cash for your car, then I contend that car is too expensive
for you.

The last word on creativity in advertising vs. selling in
advertising? David Ogilvy, my copywriting hero and NH’s former
boss, whom NH frequently denigrates: “If it doesn’t sell, it
isn’t creative.”

Sincerely,

Bob Bly

P.S. I also find it odd that NH cites a lawn mower as stuff you
don’t really need.

If you have a lawn and are not willing to pay a premium price to
a lawn service to cut your grass, as I do, then you in fact do
need the mower.

In many U.S. towns, you will get notices and fines if your lawn
grows out of control. And you will alienate your neighbors.

Word to NH and other writers: When you get the facts wrong,
people’s belief in the accuracy of your arguments quickly plummets. 

The best thinker on brands was the late Professor Andrew Ehrenberg, whose research over decades revealed that the strongest brands are the ones with the most customers. That means if you don’t sell, you don’t build a brand.

Here’s a few minutes of David Ogilvy