> There's a saying....

> A lot of
> companies seem to have grown big, partly by
> building up an image....

Disagree. They have grown big for other reasons. "Image building" came later.

By "standing
> for something." For example, Coca Cola
> would fit into this category. And they spend
> big bucks to keep that image in your mind
> every year.... Remember the slogans of their
> ads over the years? "It's the Real
> Thing"... "Coke Adds Life"...
> "Coke Is It"... "Always Coca
> Cola."

> All these Coke ads are to build up an image
> in your mind.... They're not explicitly
> about benefits (except maybe in an indirect
> way).

The Slogan is meaningless. It does NOTHING to generate a sale. The graphics of the ad, however, may be a different story - people partying, having a good time, etc. Associating good times with coke.

And lets not forget the drug and sugar aspects of the beverage. How many sales are a result of the "addiction factor"?

Cigarette companies have pretty well had all advertising mediums denied to them and people still take up smoking and smoke for years.

And how many people have given coke by their parents? long before they are aware of Coke's ads.

> In the direct marketing industry, image
> building ads like this are often dismissed
> as a waste of money.

That's because they are. They do NOT result in sales.

But is it really a
> waste? It seems to be a big success - and a
> continuing one - for many companies....

SEEMS being the key word in this...

> What Jon Spoelstra says is don't choose
> whether to build an image, or push people to
> "buy it now" - do both! In the
> case of Coca Cola, while the Coca Cola
> company is building the image, others are
> pushing you to "buy it now" - the
> retailers. So in reality, they're doing
> both.

I don't see this. I do not see anyone pushing us to buy coke now. All the store does is stock coke.

It's like that investing guideline: invest in companies whose product HAVE to be stocked by stores otherwise the stores lose sales and customers.

To say Coke makes sales because retailers push it, has no evidence to back it up.

> The same goes for cars.... Ford, GM,
> Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, etc. -
> they're busy trying to build an image in
> your mind. At the same time, the car
> salesmen are trying to get you to "buy
> it now" - so in reality, they're doing
> both too. They just have different companies
> performing the different functions.

Again, I don't see this.

The sole purpose of an ad should be to generate sales. IF a Ford ad gets people wanting a certain car enough that they head on over to a dealer to buy, how is that the salesman's doing? It's not. He is there to HELP with the sale.

There's a car ad around which has people singing to a top 40 song while driving around.

What is the car's name? I have no idea.

Who is the manufacturer? I have no idea.

Does the ad make me want to have that car? Nope.

I do remember the ad though.

The most successful ad Benz ever had was 6000 words long - in print.

Compare that to their recent offering of two guys on a golf buggy looking at a Benz Hatchback "thing" and asking "Where do they put the clubs?" Then seeing the screen text, "Some people just don't get it."

> So, Jon Spoelstra says, in your ads, try to
> both build an image, AND to get people to
> buy it NOW. It seems like a wise approach to
> me! I don't think I've read about this
> elsewhere.... (Most books on direct
> marketing stress the "buy it now"
> aspects, and de-emphasize the image-building
> aspect....)

That's because Image Building is a waste of money.

Your ad has limited space. It's wise to use that space to make a sale, isn't it?

Fact is... what got some of these companies big and the kind of advertising they do now are two completely different things.

Try it for yourself... run an Image Building ad and a Buy It Now ad and see which one gets you the sale. And compare it to a half and half ad.

You cannot start and grow a business by spending money building image alone.

Direct Marketing ads work. And those who create them have no worries about tracking them. In fact, they want to track them.

Image Ads don't work. And those who create them are worried the client will discover this. So they do not want to track the ad in anyway. And when you, as the client, discover no increase in sales and ask them about it, they will tell you you're building an image. Problem is... building an image does not pay the bills.

There is virtually a limitless supply of "buy it now" sales letters and ads which have PROVEN to generate sales.

Show me just 2O image building ads which have proven over and over again to generate sales? Better yet... show me just 15 such ads to match the 15 PROVEN letters Collier has in his "free" collection.

Michael Ross