The great Tom Fishburne has been taking a look at one of the classic books about advertising…
…”Ogilvy on Advertising” by one of the giants, David Ogilvy.
“I’ve been re-reading the 1983 classic, “Ogilvy on Advertising” to see how much has changed — and how much has remained the same — in advertising over the years. One constant is the challenge of how to measure sales impact in advertising, and the tension of long-term brand building versus short-term direct response.
As David Ogilvy wrote (more than a decade before the first digital display ad):
‘For all their research, most advertisers never know for sure whether their advertisements sell. Too many other factors cloud the equation. But direct-response advertisers, who solicit orders by mail or telephone, know to a dollar how much each advertisement sells … I am convinced that if all advertisers were to follow the example of their direct response brethren, they would get more sales per dollar. Every copywriter should start his career by spending two years in direct response.’”
You can read the whole post at “sales impact of advertising”.
In his article, Tom goes on to mention the entrenched divide in marketing between long-term “brand building” (what we generally think of as “mainstream marketing and advertising) and “short-term” direct response.
Two points occur to me as I read this article…
(1) Firstly, I find it staggering that almost 100 years after the publication of “Scientific Advertising” by Claude Hopkins, there are still many (perhaps most) advertisers who spend large amounts of money with no idea of whether or not they are making money from those ads.
(2) Secondly, while I admire Tom greatly, I take issue with the description of direct response as being “short term”. Done properly, a marketing strategy built around sound direct response principles is far more likely to result in a lasting and successful business.
After all, most direct response marketers are looking to build their own list of prospects and then customers who make repeat purchases. Creating and maintaining a long-term relationship with customers is the core of direct response marketing.
In contrast, it could be argued that traditional “brand” advertising is the more short term approach. It relies on continual spending in the hope of maintaining sales. Brand advertisers rarely know exactly who buys their products so any relationship is tenuous at best.
So, if your main objective is to make money on your advertising…and know exactly what impact that advertising is making…the answer is clear. Direct response advertising and marketing is the superior approach.