Building an Image.... or making an Immediate Sale. Which to choose in your advertising?

There's a saying....

"If you don't stand for something,
you'll fall for anything."

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

In the direct marketing industry, image building ads like this are often dismissed as a waste of money. But is it really a waste? It seems to be a big success - and a continuing one - for many companies....

I've recently been re-reading the book "Marketing Outrageously" by Jon Spoelstra. (I recommend it - it's a great book.) He's had direct marketing success - I think he was one of those who was directly trained by Joe Sugarman, at his famous workshops he used to hold in his home.

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.

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.

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....)

It also fits in well with the book "Positioning" by Al Ries and Jack Trout. Image building is really "positioning" your product in the mind of the prospect, by building a particular image. By "7 Up" calling itself the "Uncola" - it put itself in the minds of people as a choice when people thought of Coke or Pepsi... They could drink these colas - or 7 Up, the "Uncola"....

What do you think of this? I'd be grateful for any thoughts you might have to share.... :)

- Dien Rice


Coca Cola slogans over the years...

A while ago (you can check the archives), we had a big discussion here about marketing vs. sales... What is one, what is the other, and how do they differ?

Ries and Trout (the authors of "Positioning") seem to support the view that "marketing" is the act of getting your brand into the mind of your prospects.... Getting your brand in there, and holding a position. It's not "sales" directly, simply a way of taking up "mind-space" in your target market....

On the other hand, we can say "sales" is the act of actually making the sale! Which means, giving people a strong hard-to-resist offer, convincing them of all the benefits if they buy, giving them reasons to "buy it now" (not tomorrow or next week), etc.

I think there's been a bit of a "break" between the direct marketing industry, and more "standard" marketing because of this. Much "standard marketing", if I can call it that, focuses on trying to get a place in people's minds. On the other hand, direct marketing has a tendency to focus on getting sales NOW! It's less concerned with positioning.... At least that's my impression. It's simply a "marketing" approach vs. a "sales" approach....

However, I think Jon Spoelstra (author of "Marketing Outrageously") is right - BOTH are important! And in reality, most successful products have people which do both - marketing AND sales - though the "marketers" and the "sales" people could be from different companies (for example, automobile manufacturers tend to build the image, and car sales lots get people to "buy it now")....

Any thoughts on this? :)

- Dien Rice

> 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

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

> Again, I don't see this.

Actually every time they try to upsell you to a "super size" drink.

Other than that, I totally agree with your comments. Image building is ONLY money wasted for small business.

Hi Michael,

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

There's a saying, "We buy on emotion, and justify it with logic."

What is "image building" - or building an "identity"? It's purely the "emotion" part of the equation....

It helps us to build an emotional attachment to the product concerned.

There are many ways this can be done.... It can be done by associating it with a famous star, and so having some of the "personality" of that star "rub off" on the product. Or it can be done by showing the product being used in a variety of situations, therefore adding the "emotions" of the occasions being attached the product.

However, if you accept that emotions do play a role in selling, and if you accept that an "image" can help build an emotional attachment to a product - then it follows that an "image" can help a product to sell.

Of course, it has to be a "good" product as well. However, in a crowded marketplace, a product with an "image" that people can relate to would probably help that product sell better than a product with no "image" at all.

I'm not saying salesmanship has no role, of course - but I do think that these two roles help to complement each other.

If you go to the supermarket, you'll probably see a lot of "no name brand" items on the bottom shelves. These items are cheaper, because the company spends no money advertising or building the images of these brands.

Now, sometimes the quality of the "no name" brands is worse than the "branded" items, but for some products (in my experience), the "no name" brands are just as good.

However, even in those cases, most people buy the branded items - because the branded items have an image associated with them (often through advertising), whereas the "no name" brands don't.

> 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.

I'd say that there are two parts to generating a sale.... There is generating the desire for the product, and then there's getting people to "buy now". (Sometimes the desire for that type of product is already there, though - in that case, you can focus on the "buy now" part. But in general, you need these two steps.)

I'd say a slogan can help with generating the desire, if it helps build an image to create an emotional attachment to the product. I agree it doesn't help with getting people to "buy now" - though even if they don't buy now, they still could buy later, if an emotional attachment to the product has already has been created.

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

Yes, that's often peer group pressure - I'm not saying image building by advertising companies is the only factor.

The cool rugged image of the "Marlboro Man" - who was always a rugged guy in a cowboy hat, smoking a Marlboro - probably helped influence many generations to take up smoking. The message is clear - if you smoke Marlboros, you'll be rugged and cool like the Marlboro Man. So the message is - to be like the image, smoke Marlboros, not a competing brand.

Perhaps you could say that the "image" in this case emotionalizes a benefit.... The alleged "benefit" is to be rugged, and the "Marlboro Man" is a very emotional way of depicting that "benefit". I've never smoked - but even I associate Marlboros with the rugged image of the Marlboro Man, from the countless full page magazine ads I've seen over my life for Marlboros.

According to David Ogilvy's book "Ogilvy on Advertising", in 1983 (when his book was published), Marlboros were the biggest selling cigarette brand in the world. The "Marlboro Man" ads at that time had been running for 25 years. (I don't have any more recent stats handy at the moment.)

You don't always need to build image.... If people already know your company, then you've probably already built an image (intentionally or not). But if they've never heard of you before, or never heard of people doing what you do, then you'll probably need to build an image....

One example in "Marketing Outrageously" which Jon Spoelstra talks about is the time he marketed Arena Football. Most people have probably never heard of Arena Football.... So in order to get people to buy, they had to tell them what Arena Football was. They had to build an identity in their mind about Arena Football - since there's just a blank space there. They could make them a great offer to go to the Arena Football game - but if nobody ever heard of it before, that approach would be a flop. Educating people is part of building an identity and image of the product too.

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

I see supermarkets advertising the low prices of Coca Cola in their leaflets regularly.... You know, those leaflets mentioning all their specials? That's "buy now" advertising.

Supermarkets do more than stock Coke - they also try to get you to "buy now" by advertising their low prices. They never explain what Coke (or any of the other products) actually are - because the ads by those companies have already done that for them.

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

Supermarkets push all their products, from what I've seen, through their brochures advertising their specials for that week. The key is that this is all "buy now" advertising - they're trying to get you to "buy now" based on low prices. The supermarkets do NO image-building advertisements for those products.... That kind of advertising is already done by Coca Cola and the other manufacturers of branded products.

> 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.

The car dealers advertise the way the supermarkets do.... They don't build image, but they advertise how cheap their prices are - in order to get you to "buy now". You can see their ads in almost any local paper.

Again, they don't need to build the identity of any of the cars, because the advertising by the car manufacturers has already done that part. The car manufacturers' advertising creates the desire, and the car sales yard ads try their best to get you to "buy now".

> 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.

Obviously, that didn't build a very good identity for the car - I'm not saying that all these ads are good!

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

If you're referring to David Ogilvy's ad for Mercedes Benz, a lot of those words were to position the product in the mind of the consumer. That is, to build the Mercedes Benz's image. (With some products, words work best to build the desired image, whereas with other products, pictures may do a better job.)

> 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."

> 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?

It depends on the situation....

If you're a small business, then yes, it is wise. But with some products, you must build an identity and image first.

Here's what Jon Spoelstra says about this.... He talks about "Build Identity" and "Buy Now" types of ads. He says of these two ads....

Can one type of advertising work without the other? Sure? The Build Identity variety can work without the Buy Now ads. Coca-Cola proves it every day. If the Ford dealers didn't run local newspaper ads touting price, consumers influenced by Taurus TV commercials would somehow find their way to a Ford store.

However, the Buy Now variety couldn't work without the Build Identity. Picture a generic automobile, a nondescript box on wheels called "Car." Here's a local ad with a grainy picture of a boxy, gray Car. No scenic shots of Car amid redwoods or splashing through the surf. Ho-hum. Car sells for $3,000 less than Taurus. Will people abandon the Taurus and flock to the Car dealer? Not likely.

(From "Marketing Outrageously" by Jon Spoelstra, pages 160-161.)

Spoelstra goes on to say that if you have a huge ad budget - you can focus on pure Build Identity ads (the way Coca Cola does). But if you are a small business with tight margins and a meagre ad budget - you may often have to both build identity, AND get people to buy now too. You can't afford to wait for people to buy at their leisure, because you need the money NOW. (In contrast, the bigger companies can usually afford to wait longer, for people to buy at their leisure.)

> 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.

A pure Image Building ad could take time to work, if you don't couple it with a Buy It Now approach in the same ad. So it wouldn't be a fair test unless you had a long time frame in which to test the ad. I still agree with Jon Spoelstra that the best approach is to do both.

> 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.

I think the most effective direct sales ads actually build an image as well try to get you to buy it now. Joe Sugarman's ads definitely did this, for example.

> 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.

Perhaps a good example are David Ogilvy's ads.... Ogilvy comes from a direct marketing background. Yet, many of his successful ad campaigns were not "buy it now" ads. (You can find many of David Ogilvy's ads in his book, "Ogilvy on Advertising".)

Perhaps a good example are his "Schweppes" ads, which featured the president of Scheppes at the time, Commander Whitehead - who had a very distinctive look about him. (I don't have sales figures off-hand though - I'm sure I've read somewhere the sales jumped significantly, but I'll have to try to find the exact details.)

Perhaps the Marlboro Man ads are a good example too. There's no "buy it now" element to the Marlboro Man ads, or the Scheppes ads. Are Marlboro Man ads still running now? As mentioned earlier, they had been running for 25 years by 1983, and had helped make Marlboro the top selling cigarette brand in the world by that time.

Just to clarify - I'm not going against "direct marketing". People like Jon Spoelstra and David Ogilvy actually have extensive experience in direct marketing and have written many successful direct marketing ads. It's just that they've often found that a combination of image-building with "buy it now" types of ads can be effective - that is, the image-building (or identity-building) component is not useless!

The "image building" component can be important to both position the product in the mind of the consumer (what makes the product stand out in your mind, amidst the competition?) - as well as to help create an emotional attachment to the product as well....

- Dien Rice

> Other than that, I totally agree with your
> comments. Image building is ONLY money
> wasted for small business.

I used to agree with this - for a long time.... However, Jon Spoelstra's book "Marketing Outrageously" (in particular) recently changed my mind on this.

If you accept that people essentially buy on emotion, then I don't see how you can discount image building. Successful image building is both creating a unique position in the mind of the prospect, as well as helping to create an emotional attachment to that product....

If the emotional attachment is important - as most people say it is - then how can it be irrelevant? In fact, I would say that most successful direct marketing ads also build an "image" or an "identity" for the product, as well as get people to "buy it now".... I think Joe Sugarman's various ads are often a good example of this.

Anyhow.... if everybody agreed on everything, the world would be a boring place. ;)

- Dien Rice

I've read your post a number of times. And it's clear there is no discussion here.

Benefit laiden copy which entices to buy by using emotional triggers, you call a good Image Building ad.

Image Building ads which don't work (and they don't work) you call bad Image Building ads.

In fact, based on your post, ALL marketing and advertising is Image Building - it's just some works and generates sales and some doesn't.

If it educates (pictures or text)... it's image building.

It it uses emotional triggers (Pictures or text)... it's image building.

Everything that makes direct marketing pieces work, you call image building.

I will say this though...

You said it takes time for image building ads to work (which sort of goes against your arguments)...

I say they are untrackable.

Nevertheless... you run your image building ad for twenty five years and I'll run my direct sales piece for twenty five years - making adjustments to track its performance - and lets see who is infront at the end. Just when your image building ad is starting to work (assuming you still have funds left to actually have a product available), I'll be a billionaire and probably buy your company because it has no sales and such a poor performance it will be going cheap.

Then again, you'll just claim my direct sales piece is, in fact, image building.

Perhaps, now might be a good time to please explain what YOU mean by Image Building and a Buy It Now ad.

Michael Ross

Hi Michael,

I've been writing off-the-cuff for this, but I think it would help if I took some time to word what I'm saying more clearly. You're right in that in order to agree or disagree, we need more clear definitions of what we are (or are not) talking about. While I know intuitively what I mean, I haven't worded it very clearly in my off-the-cuff posts.... Words such as "image" can have different interpretations....

So, we'll revisit this in future - once I take some time to reword what I'm talking about in a more clarifying manner...!

- Dien

P.S. For those who happen to have read "Marketing Outrageously" - what I'm trying to say is what Jon Spoelstra talks about in Chapter 11.

You know how it takes 7 forms of contact to get a person to buy something on the internet? That is what creating an image does. It allows us to reflect on it over and over. They can't contact you and you can't order it immediately. They have to entertain you. Because they are catching you at a time of leasure, not a time of interest. Without the brain replaying your message over and over, the order is physically impossible as one must carry that memory to a point where they can take action (Driving from work, to a friend's house, etc) where they can stop by a dealership for example...(If it is a car ad)

When a user is interested and right there in front of you, you have to sell them to make sure they can part with their money. You are at the 2nd step, if you will.

At that stage of the game, it's a matter of why you should give somebody your money. That is why the dealer doesn't sing and dance. Seriously, I know that sounds silly, but it's true lol. That is why our ebook paypal amazing formula for clickbank thingamabob salespages are focused on benefits. They are ready to buy but need assurance it's worth their time.

When you catch people at home in their underwear watching tv, you have to go back a step and get their attention. So the point I am making is this:

If you are placing a magazine ad or a tv ad, then build image. This way I remember you. The more I play that song, it's like the equivelant of you emailing me 7 times. My brain must replay your message over and over until it becomes natural to want to associate with it. That's how I see it, at least. I would not need that if I am at your website, what I need NOW is assurance it will deliver on the promise. I hope this helps.

I am speaking as a customer, not a guru. Nobody knows more about what people want than the people who buy what they want. Listen to them. Ask them...

Good luck

I wrote:

> Perhaps a good example [of image-building ads] are
> [David Ogilvy's] "Schweppes" ads, which featured
> the president of Scheppes at the time,
> Commander Whitehead - who had a very
> distinctive look about him. (I don't have
> sales figures off-hand though - I'm sure
> I've read somewhere the sales jumped
> significantly, but I'll have to try to find
> the exact details.)

Just for the sake of completeness - apparently, the Schweppes ad campaign mentioned above increased Schweppes sales in the USA by 517 per cent over a five year period. (From "Confessions of an Advertising Man" by David Ogilvy, p. 69.)

We'll revisit the topic at a later time....

- Dien