Many direct response copywriters look at agency people as scared, pseudo-practitioners hiding out in their cushy offices and insulated from the real world results of their craft by layers of decision insurance.
I’ll admit the level of direct response competence has taken a dive at the agency level. I don’t see companies like Ogilvy & Mather, J. Walter Thompson or Foote, Cone & Belding doing anything remotely as good in print as they did 25 or more years ago.
For that matter, the quality of print advertising as a whole is far less incisive than it used to be — leaving ample room for smart direct response practitioners to succeed in this medium.
But there are plenty of great examples of direct response distinction in space, if you know where to find them.
This one hails from the fabulous series I keep telling you about — “The Wall Street Journal. It Works.”
(Hey, Rupert Murdoch, if you’re reading this, maybe it’s time to take these print ads out of retirement and spruce up your ad revenue.)
So, who is John O’Toole?
He was the president of Foote, Cone and Belding who grew the agency’s revenue ten-fold during his tenure.
And he started off in the biz as a copywriter under the legendary ad man and copywriter, Fairfax Cone.
Some of the nuggets from this ad.
On life with Fax Cone:
A magnificent teacher. His prime lesson: write to a single individual, not the hypothetical masses. Fax would never let writers get tangled up in a web of creative conceit: you quickly learned that no matter how hard you worked on an ad, you could make it better. Fax believed writers had the ability to step back from their work, and look at it through the eyes of a consumer. He was as tough on himself as he was on the writers who worked for him.
On long copy:
Persuasion by essay. A powerful technique that lets you speak to the consumer as a friend. You tell your story leisurely, but without wasted words. You put forth logic and facts that lead to persuasion. Good copy is read — be it long or short. But provided your premise is accurate. Long copy increases the power of persuasion, and without decreasing readership.
On print:
Print may well be the strongest medium of all, if you have the energy and skill to deal with the discipline of the printed page. It tests the skills of the writer, for the persuasion of the copy is critical to success. It tests the abilities of the art director for the clarity of design is critical to readership. Finally, print is the most controllable of all media, with the ultimate product clearly reflecting the skills of just two or three people. If it’s strong, and memorable, and persuasive, it’s your achievement — not that of platoons of specialists who can make a weak idea look good.
Lawrence,
Thanks for this really great resource.
Gogo
I recently spent an hour looking at ads in recent Newsweek and People magazines. In some ads, I couldn’t even tell what was being advertised… I gather the idea was that through cryptic obscurity, my curiosity was supposed to be so aroused that I’d run to a web browser and dig to find out what the product was (I couldn’t, I was in a waiting room.) Other ads were supposed to “hip” and entertaining. Only in some of them were there headlines, copy and related images… and a tiny minority were hip, magnetic and effective at explaining and pre-selling the product to me.
My question is: although, we, as direct response marketers smirk at these ads… is there any wisdom in running these type of ads that I don’t understand?
Hi Brett,
Why do ‘they’ run ‘those’ ads?
1) In almost all big companies (and often small as well), market research, product development, copy, creatives… even strategy and concept etc etc are all outsourced. As such there is actually no one left in-house who even remotely understands what is going on… if they did they wouldn’t necessarily also outsource concept and strategy as well.
Benefits of this approach is that outsiders can be blamed for failure… i.e. if Ogilvy & Maher can’t get it right, how can we?
1b) Ad Agencies may be more driven by winning industry awards… which are almost always based on creativeness not profitability. And this is another reason that justifies spending dough with an agency that has won.
(side note: what actually happens is agencies come and do presentations to win your business)
2) We don’t really know why they’re advertising. As silly as this sounds… not all ads are created to generate sales. Some are created to satisfy ‘vested-interests’. E.g. The buyer at Wal-Mart might not accept your product unless you run a campaign of the type that he wants. It’s easier to blow $10-$50 million to get the distribution through 10,000 stores than to convince him that it’s a dumb idea… i.e. it’s a cost of business.
3) There are budgets to be spent… if you don’t you’ll get less next year. As long as there is a tangible result (i.e. ads appearing in the usual spots), it’s all good.
4) Insiders often don’t want to be measured by the ‘right’ metrics such as cost per lead, LTV etc… so run untrackable ads.
That’s not to say some companies don’t track… you can use stats to measure the influence of new tv ads by seeing a bump in sales but usually promotional campaigns are run with multiple touch-points such as in-store promotions, discounting as well as sponsorship of an event (makes it difficult to measure influence at a granular level). Sometimes all they’re after is market share at any cost, which can be very profitable if it is sticky… i.e. customer remain on your brand even after promos stop and continue to buy even at a non-discounted price. Not every big company is dumb and stupid… though most will be.
5) Large existing brands in broad-appeal products such as soft drinks (e.g. Coke), might actually benefit from the glossy imagery rather than a factual based ad with a call-to-action (probably don’t to tell the public that your product contains 10 tablespoons of sugar 🙂 ). It’s more about transferring emotional imagery onto your product.
#Though there may be exceptions such Apple — when they run those Mac vs. PC ads which is classic DR, ie. demonstrating how your product works — granted there isn’t a call-to-action in those 30 sec ads but Apple products are not hard to locate unlike most of the stuff that we promote — but once again we don’t really know if they have been effective… for multi-channel retailers it is difficult (but not impossible) to measure the influence of TV ads vs previous iPod sales (existing customer of apple products) on sales of Mac’s etc.
J.J., thanks for the great post.
Definitely going to read it thoroughly and comment after I finish an ad I’m working on: “Announcing 7 Secrets for Having A Coke and A Smile.”
Don’t forget to mention…
The Almost Unbelievable (But True) Secret ‘Substance’ 0.01% Of The World’s Best Mechanics Use To Clean The ‘Insides’ Of Old Rusty Car Engines…
Looking forward to your new ‘ad’
🙂
I really agree with you about the quality of print advertising today. When I was a young copywriter in the late 80s, Ogilvy was my God and “On Advertising” was my bible. I read it so many times, that I can still memorize parts of it today. Especially Ogilvys words around long copy – I loved it.
Maybe the problem is that the young people at the agencies never actually read a newspaper – that´s certainly the situation in Denmark. For them it´s all about the internet and tv. And this trend will probably grow even stronger in the coming years.
Thanks friend in København (I assume).
Yes, my copy of O.O.A. is pretty dog eared, as well.
Great point about this generation of ad people being totally attached to new media and tv and divorced from the print tradition where our whole
industry began.
Best,
Lawrence
Hello Lawrence
Yes, you assumed right. I´m a native Københavner (=”Copenhagener”).
Here in Denmark the circulation of printed newspapers drop every year. What a shame. But it´s probably a sign of the future.
Best,
Rasmus T.
“Long copy increases the power of persuasion, and without decreasing readership.” Good point. That’s what most people don’t get it, and that’s why they’re still getting crazy over “short vs long sales letter” debate.