Tourism Australia has just launched a new advertising campaign and the style reverts to a more traditional format after the somewhat arthouse style of the previous Baz Luhrmann created ads.

Unsurprisingly, there’s been a chorus of complaints from sections of the intelligentsia bewailing the “unsophisticated” image the ad presents.

Here’s the ad “There’s Nothing Like Australia”…

OK, let’s see what a real expert on the subject, the great David Ogilvy would have to say…

In the book “Ogilvy On Advertising”, there is an entire chapter devoted to “How To Advertise Foreign Travel”.

The key point?

You have to show your audience the places and things that they desire to visit…not what you think they should want to visit.

In Ogilvy’s words…

“When you undertake to advertise a foreign country, you have to be prepared for a lot of political flak.  Research told me that what American tourists most wanted to see in Britain was history and tradition…So that is what I featured in the advertisements, only to be slaughtered in the British press for projecting an image of a country living in the past.”

So did it work?

“When our campaign started, Britain was the fifth most visited European country among American tourists.  Today it is first.”

Note the importance of research to discover what your audience wants.

Other points…

1. Sometimes it’s advisable to correct the image of a country, if there is a genuine misunderstanding in the mind of the target audience.

2. Most advertising for countries should be designed to plant a long term image of the country…BUT there are occasions when it can be used to solve temporary image problems.

3. Choose things to illustrate that are unique to the country.

Other words of wisdom…

“People dream about visiting foreign countries.  The job of your advertising is to convert their dreams into action.  This can best be done by combining mouth-watering photographs with specific how-to-do-it information.”

So how does “There’s Nothing Like Australia” stack up?

I’d suggest pretty well on Ogilvy’s criteria.  The key point, of course, is has the right research been done?  My guess is that the ad does indeed capture the main reasons why people want to visit Australia.

I confess the ad is a little “twee” for my tastes but I find it charming nonetheless and that tune is catchy!

We’ll see what the results are like.

Unless you’ve been completely cut off from the online world the last few months…

…you’re most likely aware that there has been a fair amount of discussion and not a little concern about new guidelines issued by the US Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) relating to online marketers.

Specifically, as how they relate to bloggers, affiliates and the use of testimonials.

Marketing maven Jim Edwards has done the internet marketing community a great service by going straight to the source and interviewing Rich Cleland of the FTC about these new guidelines.

You can watch the webinar right here…

http://www.igottatellyou.com/blog/ftc-change-interview/

It’s completely free, nothing to buy and in the spirit of the FTC regs, I am NOT an affiliate (LOL!).

Seriously, all marketers and copywriters need to be on top of this and a big “Thank You” to Jim for organising this and making it freely available.

If you’re not in the US, don’t think this doesn’t apply to you.  Most countries have similar laws (in Australia it’s the ACCC and the Trades Practices Act) and the FTC is often seen by other authorities as setting the standard.

The old-style newspaper business is struggling in many countries around the world.

Falling circulations, shrinking ad revenues because of difficult economic conditions and an ineffective response to the disruptive change of the internet mean that traditional media groups are in danger of going out of business.

So no great surprise when media baron Rupert Murdoch announced recently…

…that he plans to start charging for access to the online content of his NEWS Corporation’s publications.

Predictable scepticism about whether or not he can make this work.  Few newspapers have been able to charge for their online content – the Murdoch owned “Wall Street Journal” being one that does.

Charging for access is only likely to be viable, I’d suggest, when there is unique and valuable information being provided.  So, it’s not too surprising that specialist financial publications can charge for online access.

But, for the more regular publications I suspect it will be harder.

The big problem for the conventional media is that their business model has been broken by the disruptive impact of the internet.

Media companies never really made their money from selling content.  The money came from advertising, especially classified ads.  The big newspaper and media groups used to have a stranglehold on the distribution channels for advertising (particularly local advertising).

The internet has destroyed that model and the likes of Google have trounced the old media in the battle for the online advertising market.

So the old business model is broken and the media groups are trying to find a new one.  But it seems to me that all their efforts amount to trying to fix up the old model somehow.  They still seem to want to rely on charging for content (the digital equivalent of paying for your newspaper) and advertising.

But would a direct response marketing model make more sense in this new era?

Think about it.  The old media has 2 big assets…

1. Their content; and

2. Their readership

Instead of charging for online content, how about continuing to make it available for free, but requiring readers to opt-in?  Almost instantly, the publication would build a big list that they could then market to.

And they could easily repackage their content into offerings that people would pay for…provided it was properly put together (providing unique, useful information) and properly marketed.

Now, many publications already do this to some extent, but in a half hearted way it seems to me.  As an example, I subscribe to Men’s Health, which is owned by direct response marketing giant Rodale.

And yet, I get surprisingly few targeted offers sent to me.  Their online efforts are, frankly, pathetic.  So if these guys don’t get it, it’s no surprise that the dinosaur media groups haven’t got a clue.

Part of the problem, of course, is that with a few exceptions the traditional media don’t understand their business.  All too many newspaper people seem to have vastly inflated view of their own importance and the role of the “Fourth Estate”.

We’ll see I guess, what will happen as revenues come under increasing pressure.

Every now and again, I come across a piece of advertising copy…

…usually a headline or tagline of some sort…

…that is absolutely breathtaking in its utter inanity and stupidity.

Bear in mind, that as a direct response copywriter I read a lot of ads and see a lot of mediocre advertising.  So I’m not easily shocked.

However, when I saw this…

“We’re whatever direction you’re heading.”

…from a major bank prominently displayed on a huge outdoor billboard…

…I really was stunned.

Why? Well think about this for a minute.  They might just as well have said…

“We don’t have a clue who we are and what we stand for, so you tell us”

…and while you’re at it, why not take advantage of our utter cluelessness?

Statements like this are completely at odds with any idea of focus and positioning.

As I’ve emphasised before, marketing  strategy, positioning and focus is as much about what you choose to NOT do as what you choose to do.

And the idea of a bank being whatever a customer wants them to be is just plain foolish.

(Not to mention dangerous.  Part of the cause of the current financial crisis was banks chasing business indiscriminately.)

Now, I’m guessing the bank in question doesn’t really mean this and that they’re really trying to say something else.

Because I notice that this is part of a campaign with the theme…

…“We’re a bank you can bank on”…

…which on the face of it isn’t too bad a concept in the current uncertain environment.

But it’s a little bland and in any case what kind of a bank is it that you can’t rely (bank) on?

What does it really mean?  Does it mean that whatever I need from them they’re going to come up with the goods?

Don’t think so.

Look, I know that coming up with a sound strategy and positioning and a compelling USP isn’t easy.

But when you don’t have those things worked out…

…you end up with inane advertising that relies on vague generalities and “feel good” type statements that does absolutely nothing for the bottom line.

…who don’t use direct response marketing and copywriting.

In the UK “Daily Telegraph” is this article…

“Marketing Spend Falls At Sharpest Rate For Nine Years”.

A recent survey found that…

…49% of companies cut their marketing budgets in the fourth quarter of 2008 and further cuts are expected.

Now, this is fairly typical behaviour from businesses when recession hits.

And the typical response from practitioners of direct response marketing and copywriting is that it’s crazy to cut back.

After all, the beauty of direct response marketing is that the results are clear and measurable.

Marketing spend is not an expense, it’s an investment.  And as long as you’re getting a positive return then you continue.

However, for those business owners who do NOT use direct response techniques, there’s a certain logic behind the cuts.

After all, those business owners are in the same position as John Wanamaker when he quipped…

“I know half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, but I can never find out which half.”

(Presumably this was before he met legendary ad man and copywriter John E. Powers!)

The problem, of course, is if you don’t know what’s producing results, then how do you know which part of the marketing budget to cut?

You could end up cutting the very thing that’s bringing in business and keeping you afloat.

Making cuts to your marketing blindly like this really is playing Russian Roulette with your business.

In good times, direct response marketing is highly effective and will boost profits for any business.

In bad times, using direct response will be the difference between life and death for a business.

Had to bring this item to your attention, partly because of the “controversy” but also because the ad is actually a good example of direct response copywriting.

In London, there has been a storm of outrage over billboards carrying the following headline…

“Want Longer Lasting SEX?”

The rest of the copy reads…

“Nasal Delivery Technology.  Call The Doctors At Advanced Medical Institute”

…and there is a 1 800 number to call.

(There’s an article in the UK “Daily Telegraph” here and there’s a photo of the ad here.)

As you can see from the photo, these ads certainly grab attention.

Now, the ad is actually aimed at Men, so the headline would be improved by adding “Men” at the beginning.  However, there are clearly space constraints.

Other than that, you can see that it follows the classic template for a classified ad.  Big benefit headline and promise.  A hint at a new approach and a simple call to action.

I’m a little unconvinced about using the wording “Nasal Delivery Technology”, but I’m guessing the advertiser ran some tests before splashing out on billboard advertising.

This campaign was actually first run down here in Australia in August 2008.  I remember seeing one of the ads in North Sydney.  Typically, they were placed on busy main roads and they certainly caught my attention!

(Must have been the Nasal Technology!)

The campaign stirred up complaints and opposition here as well and ended up being modified.

However, I’m guessing that the advertiser isn’t too fazed about all this.  After all, the coverage and publicity they are getting must be worth a great deal to them.

So, a good example of the power of controversy and how “Sex” is almost guaranteed to get attention.

“Negative Advertising” is the subject of Chapter 18 of the copywriting classic “Scientific Advertising” by Claude Hopkins.

In this short chapter, Hopkins discusses two types of negative advertising.

The first is what is usually called “knocking copy” or directly criticising the competition.

Hopkins strongly discourages this…

“To attack a rival is never good advertising.  Don’t point out others’ faults. It is not permitted in the best mediums.  It is never good policy. The selfish purpose is apparent.  It looks unfair, not sporty.  If you abhor knockers, always appear a good fellow.”

I’d suggest there is one instance where you can depart from this general rule.  That’s where you use the device of “The enemy in common” to create empathy with the reader.

That’s where you rail against “greedy stockbrokers”, “the medical establishment” and “marketing gurus who don’t reveal what they really do to make money”, for example.

But note that in these cases, the “enemy” is impersonal.  And, importantly, you need to tap into a genuine sense of anger or frustration in the reader.  This device needs to be used very carefully.

The second type of negative advertising is what might be termed “fear” or “revulsion” copy.

Here’s Hopkins again…

“Show the bright side, the happy and attractive side, not the dark and uninviting side of things.  Show beauty, not homeliness; health, not sickness.  Don’t show the wrinkles you propose to remove, but the face as it will appear.  Your customers know all about the wrinkles.”

Was Hopkins being a little “prissy” when saying this?  Perhaps not wanting to get his hands dirty?

Nope.

Here is his reason…

“You will find that the positive ad outpulls the other four to one if you have our experience.”

In other words, Hopkins had tested both approaches and, as always, based his advice on results and objective experience.

However, I was somewhat surprised at this comment about the classic device of “Before and after” pictures…

“The ‘Before and after taking’ ads are follies of the past.  They never had a place save with the afflicted.  Never let their memory lead you to picture the gloomy side of things.”

In markets such as the diet market and cosmetic surgery, the “Before and after” pictures are almost always included.  The reason being that they are a very strong proof element.  Plus, of course, the “After” shot shows the “Bright side”.

I’m inclined to (respectfully) disagree with Hopkins on this point.  But, of course, testing is the way to determine what’s going to produce the optimum results.

Chapter 17 of the copywriting classic “Scientific Advertising” by Claude Hopkins deals with the topic of individuality.

Why is this important?

Here’s what Hopkins had to say…

“A person who desires to make an impression must stand out in some way from the masses.  And in a pleasing way.  Being eccentric, being abnormal is not a distinction to covet.  But doing admirable things in a different way give one a great advantage.”

In other words, what Hopkins was suggesting was that to get your message across among the clamour of competing advertisements, it was a great advantage to come across as being in some way individual.

Note that this individuality has a purpose. And that purpose is to attract, and be appealing to, your prospective customers.

There is no point in being “individual” just for the sake of it or in an antagonistic fashion.

Now I know that some celebrities make a point of being edgy, outrageous and often offensive.

And that can work very well.

But it carries risks.

Remember that we are concerned with the business of selling.

We want to stick to proven principles that produce reliable results with little or no risk.

Hopkins emphasised the extra impact and credibility that comes from having an individual spokesman (or woman) rather than a message coming from a “soulless corporation”.

He described the case of a mail order company selling clothing to young women where having a personality produced dramatically better results.

A more recent example would be Wendy’s Hamburgers and using Dave Thomas to front their advertising.

This idea is taken so much for granted today in direct response marketing and copywriting that it’s something of a surprise to discover the original source.

Having described the benefits of creating a distinctive identity and some tips as to how to do that, Hopkins then provides one of his customary warnings…

“Then we take care not to change an individuality which has proved appealing.”

Again, once something has been tested and proven to be successful, stick with it.

Sounds obvious but all too often you see companies changing the character of their advertising (particularly when a new ad agency is appointed).

As a corollary to that point, once an identity has been established, every message needs to be consistent with that identity.

Finally, the key to successfully using an individuality or personality is being genuine with appeals “from the heart”.

Summarising the chapter, Hopkins says…

“To create the right individuality is a supreme accomplishment.  Then an advertiser’s growing reputation on that line brings him an ever-increasing prestige.  Never weary of that part.  Remember that a change in our characteristics would compel our best friends to get acquainted all over.”

You’re probably familiar with the idea that in copywriting every word counts.

But how about the difference a single letter can make?

There’s a fairly famous case…

…where an ad with the headline…

“Put Music In Your Life”

…was running quite successfully.

Then one day the typesetters made a mistake and the ad ran with the headline…

“Puts Music In Your Life”.

The response was vastly higher.

Good illustration of the power of active verbs in copy.

I was reminded of this today when I saw a display ad for a local insurance company…

“Save Up To $50 On Our Insurance.  Find Out How…”

Now, my first thought was that it would be much more effective to make this…

“…Your Insurance”

…and that the writer had simply been a little sloppy.

That would have been bad enough.

But when I looked a little more closely at the ad I discovered that the offer was a saving if the customer bundled together a number of different policies from the insurer.

It struck me that this is a pretty weak offer.

The $50 savings touted is not that big to begin with and the “conditions” reduce the appeal still further.

As an offer to existing clients, it makes sense.

But for new customer generation?

I think it will do poorly.

Another example of poor marketing from a financial institution…

…too focused on themselves rather than the customer.

P.S. “Happy Thanksgiving” to all readers in the USA today.  Best wishes and have a wonderful day!

If there is one idea that justifies the use of the title “Scientific Advertising” by copywriter Claude Hopkins it’s this…

“Almost any question can be answered, cheaply, quickly and finally, by a test campaign. And that’s the way to answer them – not by arguments around a table. Go to the court of last resort – the buyers of your product.”

Now, I’d suggest that the buyers should be the court of first resort (not last!), but that’s a quibble.

In chapter 15 of his classic copywriting book “Scientific Advertising”. Claude Hopkins discusses two ways to use testing…
The first is when introducing a new product.

Hopkins pointed out that “There are many surprises in advertising”.

His point was that there are many different factors that influence the success or failure of a marketing campaign.

Consequently, it’s simply not possible to use analysis – however well-informed or sophisticated – to accurately predict the success or failure of a campaign.

And “analysis” is probably a generous term to use to describe the “gut feel” and guesswork that lies behind many marketing decisions even today.

I digress.

So, Hopkins’ recommendation was always to start small and test a campaign in a small section of the market.

That test would serve to determine some key data such as the cost per customer, the value of each customer and the overall profitability.

Once those figures are determined from the test, then the marketer can make use of the laws of statistics.

In the words of Hopkins…

“Now we let the thousands decide what the millions will do.  We make a small venture, and watch cost and result. When we learn what a thousand customers cost, we know almost exactly what a million will cost.  When we learn what they buy, we know what a million will buy.”

Now, if you’re not familiar with statistical techniques, let me add a word of caution here.  While Hopkins makes this sound easy, projecting results in this manner can be fraught with danger.

The key to using this approach successfully is to have a test market that has the same characteristics, as far as possible, as the broader market.

Today, after decades of refinement, there are known test markets that are well suited to predicting results from the larger market.

I suspect that in Hopkins’ time, things were less well understood and there might well have been some trial-and error-involved.

(For the interested reader, “Statistics Without Tears” by Derek Rowntree is a good primer for non-mathematicians.)
However, the broader point about testing is valid.

And it forms the basis of a potentially highly effective business strategy, as Hopkins describes…

“From the few thousands he learns what the millions will do.  Then he acts accordingly.  If he then branches out he knows to a certainty just what his results will be.”

“He is playing on the safe side of a hundred to one shot.  If the article is successful, it may make him millions.  If he is mistaken about it, the loss is a trifle.”

In essence, Hopkins is describing a strategy of first testing and then following up a success with a broader rollout.

The second way to use testing is to refine the effectiveness of existing advertising and marketing.

I’ve discussed this previously so I’ll simply note this comment…

“…we tried over fifty separate plans.  Every little while we found an improvement, so the results of our advertising grew constantly.  At the end of five years we found the best plan of all.  It reduced our cost of selling by 75 percent.  That is, it was four times more effective than the best plan used before.”

Imagine the difference to the bottom line that made!

Again, just a word of caution here.

No market is static.  Markets and the preferences of consumers change over time.  Certainly, some markets change relatively slowly.  But they will change.

So, what works best in advertising and market is also likely to change.

And the key to being aware of that change is, of course, to always be testing and tracking results.

That lesson remains as valid today as ever.  And in the modern world, it’s never been easier and cheaper to test and track.

I’ll close with these thoughts from Claude Hopkins…

“Plausible arguments are easy in this line.  One man after another comes to an advertiser to claim superior knowledge or ability…Now actual figure gained at a small cost can settle the question definitely.”