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