In this next part of this series “Scientific Advertising In The 21st Century”, legendary copywriter Claude Hopkins turns his attention to the use of art in advertising.

Not surprisingly, his key criterion is whether or not including a picture will help the sale and improve results.  Hopkins observed…

“Pictures in advertising are very expensive.  Not in the cost of good art work alone, but in the cost of space.”

And his general principle…

“Use them (pictures) only when they form a better selling argument than the same amount of space set in type.”

Hopkins is frank enough to admit that in many cases the only way to discover whether or not including a picture is beneficial is to test the ad.

One interesting observation is that where pictures proved beneficial, it was because the image implied a strong emotional benefit to the purchaser.

For example, with beauty products…

“Picturing beautiful women, admired and attractive, is a supreme inducement.  But there is a great advantage in including a fascinated man.  Women desire beauty largely because of men.  Then show them using their beauty, as women do use it, to gain maximum effect.”

In other words, don’t use pictures simply to show the product.  Use them to convey benefits to the customer.

Again, you won’t be surprised to discover that Hopkins didn’t value pictures for their aesthetics alone.  Whether a picture was fine art or colour rather than black and white mattered less than the results produced.

One firm rule he did hold to was that advertising pictures should not be “eccentric” or in any way lessen respect for the product or the advertiser.

To sum up Hopkins’ general rule…

“Do nothing to merely interest, amuse or attract…Do only that which wins the people you are after in the cheapest possible way.”

As always, it’s results that count.