I'm just an old Grouse!
 

I don't know whether or not these ads appear round the world ;-) - but for me at least, they appeal on a great many levels ...

Margaret


The Famous Grouse

Uh Oh Mike. I have to disagree with you on a few things
 

Whats up Mike.

99% of the times I agree with you on your articles
and comments but I might have to pull my 1% card out today.

:-)

First let me state that I firmly believe in direct marketing principles in many cases. But I also believe in the power of image building too.

How can you say that image ads dont work?

Sure, some of them dont work just like some direct marketing projects dont work.....but for you to say that they dont work at all kinda baffled me.

I firmly believe it depends on your *product*
or *service* to determine if direct marketing or imaging should be the best way

For example lets take company like *Nike*.

Im using this company because there is nothing addictive about them like cigarettes or soda so you cant say there is an addictive ingrediant(sp) involved.

You might think that Nike makes its money off it well designed clothes, shoes and accessories. Not really. I mean they are really no better than any other type of athletic apparel.

The reason Nike is #1 is because of its image. I dont care how much direct marketing you place with a rival company ...Nike's Image is more known and more profitable.

They didnt use direct marketing by stating that you will run faster with buying their products. They didnt say that you will look better with its product.

What did they do? They used athletes such as Michael Jordan as celebrity endorsers.

Michael Jordon took a shoe that should cost no more than 20 bucks to buy at your local footlocker and turned it into a $200.00 shoe
that cant stay in stores. Why? The image of the
that Nike built around Michael Jordan gave the shoe a higher standard then other shoes.

Thats what I call building an image.

In fact I believe that most business that deal with clothing would be better at dealing with Image than direct marketing because the products
are "image products"

George Foreman Lean Mean Grilling Machine is another example. If you go to Wal Mart and looked for home grills you would see 10 different brands on the shelf. They all do the exact same things. The George Foreman grill is the most expensive one of the bunch.

Guess which one will people buy?

They will buy the George Foreman grill because of the image that is associated with a celebrity. Its
not because its the best grill or that it will make you leaner( George Foreman is still superheavy)...its all because that image he created around the grill.

So I see no reason not to mix image and direct marketing and then determine the best results based upon the product you are trying to sell

Terrance

You disagree with me? Perhaps I need to explain it better... HA!
 

Hi Terrance!

> Whats up Mike.

Nothing much with me. How's the wrapping biz? I find the concept facinating.

Anyway...

> How can you say that image ads dont work?

By movng my lips and tongue while forcing air over my vocal cords. The sound made sounds like "Image ads don't work". :o)

I should really clarify...

I call image ads... insitutional ads... and they are ads that offer no benefit to the viewer of the ad. They are the chest thumping ads. And often, you scratch your head wondering what is actually being advertised.

> I firmly believe it depends on your
> *product*
> or *service* to determine if direct
> marketing or imaging should be the best way

I'd say it more depends on WHAT you want the ad to achieve... as it's been proven time after time that

The More You Tell, The More You Sell

Reason Why.

> For example lets take company like *Nike*.

Okay...

> Im using this company because there is
> nothing addictive about them like cigarettes
> or soda so you cant say there is an
> addictive ingrediant(sp) involved.

(They could have a chemical which leeches into your feet over time. ;o))

> You might think that Nike makes its money
> off it well designed clothes, shoes and
> accessories. Not really. I mean they are
> really no better than any other type of
> athletic apparel.

I agree. In fact, give me a pair of Dunlop Volleys over any other sport shoe any day. They last longer and go with whatever you choose to wear.

> The reason Nike is #1 is because of its
> image. I dont care how much direct marketing
> you place with a rival company ...Nike's
> Image is more known and more profitable.

Currently this is the case. But it wasn't always the case. And it may not always be the case.

> They didnt use direct marketing by stating
> that you will run faster with buying their
> products. They didnt say that you will look
> better with its product.

Can't comment on how they rose to be number one. But there's a pretty good bet that besides what you mention below, Rebok dropped the batton somewhere along the line...

> What did they do? They used athletes such as
> Michael Jordan as celebrity endorsers.

ENDORSEMENTS!

A standard and PROVEN method for increasing sales.

FUBU clothing got their start because Hollifield wore one of their shirts.

> Michael Jordon took a shoe that should cost
> no more than 20 bucks to buy at your local
> footlocker and turned it into a $200.00 shoe
> that cant stay in stores. Why? The image of
> the
> that Nike built around Michael Jordan gave
> the shoe a higher standard then other shoes.

There is something else to be considered...

Cool.

That ellusive search for cool. What makes one thing cool and take off - soon to become the product of choice for the mass market - and another product wallow in obscurity forever?

> Thats what I call building an image.

It's obvious there is some confusion in this thread revolving around what is meant by "Image Building."

> In fact I believe that most business that
> deal with clothing would be better at
> dealing with Image than direct marketing
> because the products
> are "image products"

See comments above. (Peterman catalog?)

> George Foreman Lean Mean Grilling Machine
> is another example. If you go to Wal Mart
> and looked for home grills you would see 10
> different brands on the shelf. They all do
> the exact same things. The George Foreman
> grill is the most expensive one of the
> bunch.

> Guess which one will people buy?

> They will buy the George Foreman grill
> because of the image that is associated with
> a celebrity. Its
> not because its the best grill or that it
> will make you leaner( George Foreman is
> still superheavy)...its all because that
> image he created around the grill.

It's because his names lends credibility to the product.

Again, a standard proven marketing ploy.

> So I see no reason not to mix image and
> direct marketing and then determine the best
> results based upon the product you are
> trying to sell

Yes. In direct marketing it's an endorsement, or otherwise known as a Testimonial. And the more the potential buyer knows the endorser, the more they believe in the product, and the greater the chance of them buying.

See, Terrance, direct sales techniques - salesmanship in print, video, audio, film, or whatever medium you choose - is proven to work.

An ad that has salesmanship is not an institutional ad.

Ads without salesmanship do not sell. There are thousands of companies littering the business highway to testify to the fact. (Just as there are many companies cruising along the business highway thanking the salesmanship in their ads.)

As I said to Dien... he was calling everything that could be considered to be standard sales-generating marketing (salesmanship), image building.

And you have taken another of those elements... the good old testimonial/endoresment and given it Image Building status too.

"Adjudicator!!! Please give us some direction by clarifying the term "Image Building" so we can discuss the subject from the same point of reference."

Michael Ross

One product businesses
 

A lot of the focus here is on one product businesses, like Coca Cola. These type of companies can both brand and sell in the same ad. For anyone in a multiproduct business, both threads need to be approached differently. In fact a response to a "buy now" can be converted into an "image response" and vice versa.
Heres a test I did a few years ago. I ran two ads in a respected specialist journal for six months.
Ad 1 was a generic "We do this, stock that, know about blah and blahblah."
Ad 2 was a technical product that would have a small proportion of the specialised readership salivating to own it.

The "positioning" or image building ad 1 generated a lot of enquiries and some new business. A spin off effect was a kind of subliminal effect of "I have heard of these guys before" kind of feeling. Very hard to measure ROI, gut feeling is that it was worthwhile.

Ad 2 generated a litle less response than we thought, just broke even. It could have been tweaked, but had very little residual pulling power and targeted only a small part of our potential audience.

If my business had been solely dependant on the product in ad 2 I would have run "buy now" ads that strongly branded my company as the prime source for this type of product. Exactly as Coca Cola proclaims itself to be "The Real Thing".

At the supermarket level, cheap Coca Cola is just one of the come-on offers a store may make. They may even promote "off brand" cola in the same flyer. Whatever gets you in the door. Protecting and building the brand is the manufacturers job, moving the stuff out the doors is the retailers job.

But still
 

Mike

> I call image ads... insitutional ads... and
> they are ads that offer no benefit to the
> viewer of the ad. They are the chest
> thumping ads. And often, you scratch your
> head wondering what is actually being
> advertised.

Ok....now you are finally giving a definition of what you meant by image. You labeled that "they offer no benefit to the viewer of the ad" as your personal definition of image ads.

You are talking about ads where you cant associate the marketing image with the product.I also think that the car commercial with the top 40 music playing in the background
was a bad one. I didnt see the connection.

Mike there are such things as companies making just plain bad ads.

It has nothing to do with "image ads". Those are just plain bad ads.

I dont agree with making commercials or print ads where you dont even understand what product is being sold. There has to be some sort of association of imagery with the product.

Just like some direct marketing letters wont work on all products. There are bad image building ads out there as well.

I just dont think you can lump everything in one category and say that "image ads dont work"(of course you can say it with your vocal chord...but can you prove it with statistics)

> I'd say it more depends on WHAT you want the
> ad to achieve... as it's been proven time
> after time that

> The More You Tell, The More You Sell
> Reason Why.

Again it depends on the product. "The More You Tell, The More You Sell" might work better with
books, software and plenty of other ways.

but in other industries I think its "the more you show, the more you sell"

I believe that branding is a image . I also believe that branding does put money on the bottom line of what you are selling.

Most clothing companies that I know of have to sell their products by branding and creating the image. So are you saying that Nike's "Just Do It" branding and imaging didnt add anything to the bottom line for the company?

> Okay...

> I agree. In fact, give me a pair of Dunlop
> Volleys over any other sport shoe any day.
> They last longer and go with whatever you
> choose to wear.

> Currently this is the case. But it wasn't
> always the case. And it may not always be
> the case.

Mike the Dunlop shoe might last longer, look better and even feel better. You could even put out a stong direct marketing campaign stating that. But you know what?

The Nike brand and imaging ads will always win
and bring in more profits because people respond more towards image ads then direct marketing in the case of specific types of products.

> Ads without salesmanship do not sell.

We will just have to disgree with each other on that. I think bad selling does more harm than anything

Terrance

Re: But still
 

Terrance:

I can see where there is some confusion here in this thread...

What Image Ads means to me (institutional ads which offer no benefits, etc.) and what Image ads mean to you (Branding) are two different things. So we'd end up going around in circles talking at crossed purposes.

As for "The More You Tell The More You Sell"... a picture (single image or multiple images in motion) can "Tell."

Michael Ross