Hi Andy!

-------
> But one could just as effectively argue the
> enterprises that manage and reduce their
> risk are more likely to succeed.
-------

I agree 100%.

In fact, in a thread above (the one about "entrepreneurials:" click here for the message) I go so far as to propose that I am an independent contractor in part because I prefer to limit my risk!

-------
> As I say to advertisers who approach me...
> "If you are so sure this will earn me
> as much revenue why don't we profit
> share...you'll get more but I won't have to pay
> up front"...very few even *consider*
> it.... yet most would recognise this
> logically as a true win/win proposition
-------

It is win/win. Most media contracts won't allow it, in part because it may be difficult to track or audit impartially.

Also, most advertising is cumulative. In a multi-media campaign, one could track the end-point that ultimately produced action, but it's very hard to assign credit to one factor in the campaign or another.

That's not an excuse, by the way.
But it is a reason why, here in the real world, such agreements don't happen as often as they perhaps should.

------
> Too true about the noise and about a
> connection. But there are new rules through
> cutting through the white noise and selling
> to lambasted prospects thereafter ...

> And the 'white noise', the skepticism, the
> massive increases in sales approaches from
> all angles is inevitably creating a massive
> tidal wave of sales resistance that has not
> *existed before*
------

There is a new cynicism, especially regarding advertising and media messages. I will also add that it is starting younger. And the skepticism runs deeper.

However, I think this is also a case where our tools (media) have gone further than our development as creatures.

Once you penetrate the noise and overcome the skepticism, we are still motivated as our great-grandparents were in 1905: health, wealth, social success, etc. Our individual capacity to embrace or resist new ideas (products/services/vendors) has not changed. Those who are stick-in-the-muds today would have been stick-in-the-muds in 1805 or 1905 ("these darnfool [percussion caps/horseless carriages/internet/whatever] will never take the place of a real [flintlock/horse/distribution channel/whatever]"). And those who were early adopters then, would be early adopters today. The difference, is that today, there are more of each ... and more access to each.

-----
> New territory requires a new map and new
> methods for getting over it
-----

A new map, to be sure, or an up-to-date overlay on an old one, either of which would be essential for navigation. But a map and compass works just as well as a GPS if you know what you're doing. And both will end up giving the the same answer.

The technology has changed. Our tools have changed. Our information has changed. The environment has changed. These things not only have changed, but will continue to change.

But, so far, I've not seen a sea change in either people or the methodology by which to build a successful appeal to them.

There are new techniques of breaking through the noise and overcoming skepticism, in response to what is happening. But, having done that, at the end of the day you are still face-to-face with a human being.




John Kuraoka, freelance advertising copywriter