A friend brought this successful print ad to my attention about a year ago and sent it my way.
I recently wrote a post about it with the headline “Manufactured Proof,” based on the model disclaimer in the ad and the incorrect assumption that the photo was not that of the doctor, Meir Shinitzky, but a model.
The writer of the ad politely explained the purpose of the model disclaimer in the comments below and it’s clear that the man in the photo and Dr. Shinitzky are one in the same.
Lipogen PS looks like a first rate operation as the brief Hopkins’ style video expose of the production facility shows.
I was wrong and apologize for making a snap conclusion without digging deeper.
“So, the man in the picture is not really the doctor identified in the caption… only a model.” – exactly the ammunition needed by FTC.
This reminds me of the ads and websites I see that proudly display the logos of CNN, Forbes or other well known media giants. Though there is nothing in the copy to suggest their relation to the product, people see the mere logo as a testimonial.
This post brought to mind an ad from my swipe file (I believe also from USA Today) selling a similar product called Neurostin.
Obviously there are a few really compelling elements in both examples, you wanna know what I think?
98% of the “selling” is done simply because the target market is deathly afraid of memory loss. With the horrors of Alzheimer’s disease so well-known, there is I think products like these will virtually sell themselves
The headline for the Neurostin ad is, “WARNING: IS YOUR MEMORY FADING?” Readers who have any fear of this happening to them now or in the near future will be strongly compelled to read further.
The copy doesn’t have to be brilliant (although in this case, it’s pretty good) to hit the mark.
There’s also a photo of an elderly couple looking very concerned and a quiz, “Are you starving your brain?” as an involvement device.
The real power for both ads lies in the visceral impact of the problem itself. Smart marketing, even though it’s not really in line with the driving point of your post here (manufactured, disingenuous proof).
Thanks for sharing this.
P.S. I’m about to send you a scanned copy of the Neurostin ad.
Even thoug
Hey Donnie, appreciate it and the great comment. I’m on it as soon as I come up for air.
@Lawrence Bernstein:
Here is a prime example of those who can’t do teach
The ad has been wildly successful for almost 2 years.
Models disclaimer is there because we used stock shots of models on various versions.
The scientist is indeed real. And is the inventor of the product. Bright man with a ton of credentials.
And not having a website? The man again is way off base. You never bring print to web. You want them on the phones with real people to sell and cross sell.
Worse, a million competitors pop up and steal your sale away from you. Add to that and you have no way to determine where sales came from. The ad or the web?
Before blasting away at ads my friend. Get the facts straight. And please do your homework before professing to be an expert.
Signed,
The guy who wrote the ad.
Listen Lawrence, I love your blog but I need to step in here with personal knowledge about this ad.
Plus I’m a bit confused, because the not so nice claims about the ad is coming from a place that has countless articles and products for the late great Gene Schwartz. A writer who was hounded with controversy with endless claims of his ads being ahem ,what’s the word? … Disingenuous! Danny Hatch being one notable critic .
So I just don’t get it.
The only thing that’s being manufactured here is profits for the ad writer’s client. Nothing disingenuous about it… Ad’s 100% legit . And by the way the copywriter that created the ad is one of the best in the business .
Hey Anon,
I appreciate you wanting to stay in the shadow. No complaint from me there.
And I hope the royalties and sales keep coming your way since it’s obvious you’ve created a winner.
As you and your client are no doubt aware, space advertising, while a seemingly simple medium to the untrained eye, is dominated by a few very savvy players who are raking in most of the dough. Thanks for corroborating that “You never bring print to web. You want them on the phones with real people to sell and cross sell.”
I have a client who sold multiple companies in the tens of millions and continues to build such companies through soft offer, hard continuity, then retail. And the response medium that accounts for 90% of the DM success is the phone. Then, of course, it’s up to the call center. What’s said, in what order and the irresistible deal.
I did mention: “It’s interesting to note here that there is only ONE response mechanism — the toll-free telephone number.” This wasn’t an indictment but an acknowledgment that ONE way is often the RIGHT way… so thanks for contributing.
Great that you’ve got the science and the scientist behind the product but why use a stock photo? I understand he’s a “real authority” and not a “house doctor,” but wouldn’t it be just as easy to get a photo of the REAL doctor standing behind the product?
I realize you’ve got a winner that you don’t want to mess with… and believe me… none of your customers (or competitors) will be any the wiser that this dialogue exists … but what happens if/when your doctor becomes a household name in future? After all, what about Linus Pauling before he was Linus Pauling?
Sincerely,
A fellow Brooklyn lover.
Hi Joe,
You’re indeed right about the countless posts and lionizing of Eugene Schwartz here. I plead guilty.
I believe you may be referring to Albert Saxon’s piece, Is There Truth in Advertising?
http://directmag.com/mail/truth_advertising/
No doubt there are valid criticisms of anyone who tries to do anything substantial… and I have to say I have a preference for his ads in the education market over the “use this gadget to carve mounds of fatty flesh off your body by next week.” Saxon did not go deep enough beyond hurling grenades at Schwartz in the article. For all the criticisms of the evergreen Dr. Chang promotion, Schwartz believed and credited him with saving the use of his arm after he suffered a stroke.
Thank God that Gene took a stand and tested the First Amendment protections in advertising or it’d be a lot harder on us all.
As I mentioned to your colleague…
Great that you’ve got the science and the scientist behind the product but why use a stock photo? I understand he’s a “real authority” and not a “house doctor,” but wouldn’t it be just as easy to get a photo of the REAL doctor standing behind the product?
I realize you’ve got a winner that you don’t want to mess with… and believe me… none of your customers (or competitors) will be any the wiser that this dialogue exists … but what happens if/when your doctor becomes a household name in future? After all, what about Linus Pauling before he was Linus Pauling?
My problem is this, most people suspect that any (non-celebrity) person in a weight loss ad is a model. But when there is a photo of an accomplished physician/doctor, readers expect it to be the doctor and not a model.
If you look at any of the Schwartz ads where there is an expert, physician or otherwise presented, it’s an actual photo of the expert… warts and all.
And if this is your work, may the sales keep coming.
Once again, you’re making unfounded presumptions. What I said to be exact was “Models disclaimer is there because we used stock shots of models on various versions”.
And again. The picture used was indeed the real doctor. Have no idea why you would manufacture and stick to that fabrication.
Don’t believe me? Google the drs name in google images and you’ll see his pic everywhere. The model disclaimer was used because of other test version which used stock shots of happy people. The one you displayed did not. So please, before you make ridiculous allegations again which are completely unwarranted… Do your homework. Be sure what you’re telling your readers is the truth and not just some manufactured BS you came up with.
Once again,
The guy that wrote the ad.
Hi Lawrence,
No, this is not my ad . But I brought your critique to the writer’s attention to get the facts. As you know copywriters are fiercely protective of their work, it’s like writing about their child.
But from what I understand that’s the actual doctor in the photo. The disclaimer notice was to satisfy the FDA for stock photos they used in different version of the ad.
I know, when you read the disclaimer you think thy used a model for the doctor. But if you think about it, why would they have his name and credentials set so boldly across the photo if it weren’t actually the real guy? The FDA doesn’t mess around so why draw the attention ?
Thanks, Joe, appropriate correction made.
You’re right on all counts.
Looks like a helluva product.
I accept your apology and commend you on your graciousness. I don’t know you or your work but must admit, after looking over your blog their are indeed many gems and nuggets of information your readers can greatly benefit from.
As Joe c said., copywriters are protective of their work. And attacks on it needs to be clarified and defended. I do understand that you cannot possibly verify every nook and cranny or the blogs you post, but if your observations are wrong, you need to be ready to defend them, or apologize for the error.
Your retraction and response was a heck of a lot classier than my aggressive defense. I commend you on that. A class act. That as way I am willing to come out from under the shadows.
I must admit, you’re a class act.
All my best
Steve Wexler
Hi Steve,
I’ll take the arrows in my backside that I deserve and your stance was fully warranted.
That post merited much more vetting than I did and I accepted my friend/colleague’s take on the ad without scrutiny on my part — my responsibility and not his.
Seriously, great work on your part and I hope your winner rings the register for years to come.
Lawrence
Hi Lawrence,
Great post. Just one thing: the expression’s ‘one and the same’, not ‘one in the same’.
Cheers,
Tim
I have a website on brain health and am always looking to debunk fraudulent products — especially those that prey on seniors. One brain supplement that relies heavily on an expert endorsement does so without that person’s permission. In fact that person told me personally that he has been trying to get them to stop using his name for years. I looked up JFK award winners and was not shocked to see that Shinitsky was not on the list. So you are right to be skeptical!