Category: Advertising

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies Tagged with , , , ,

In the mid-80s, a new local bank opened in these parts: The Bank of Western Massachusetts. Its whole ocre identity was as a business bank that understood doing business in Western Massachusetts. and as more and more small local banks got swallowed up by regional and national conglomerates, that was a powerful USP.

So I was pretty shocked to flip through my local paper and see an ad proudly proclaiming a change of the Haydenville branch to “Legacy Banks.” Hmmm…take a strong regional identity, throw it away, and replace it with something that means “what you leave behind when you die.”

So I did some Web surfing. It seems that Bank of Western Mass is actually becoming part of something called People’s United Bank, which is not the same as the existing People’s Bank or United Bank (both long-established brands around here. People’s United is a consortium of six banks from around New England. Perhaps it’s selling off some units in order to raise money for the merger. Then I went to Legacy Bank, where I discovered that this entity started as the Lee National Bank in 1835 and has seven locations each in Berkshire County (the westernmost part of Massachusetts) and the neighboring portion of New York State, going into Albany. Neither website says anything about the shift of the Haydenville branch, and quite frankly, the newspaper ad is pathetic. the headline is “smart banking comes to Haydenville” (yes, that’s how it was capitalized), the copy tells me basically nothing about why this is smart, and then it mentions the name change.

Forgive me if I don’t see the logic.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Copywriting, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies

Fascinating article in the San Francisco Chronicle: “Sex Doesn’t Sell.”

This is, of course, complete heresy to marketers.

Two things I want to comment on there: first, this quote:

According to some studies, the “sex sells” adage in misleading if not wrong. Several studies have found ads laced with sexual imagery of women targeted to women actually turn women off to the product. And it’s not a new conclusion about sex and advertising, either.

But the obvious response would be, if you’re marketing to heterosexual women, should you perhaps be using sexy men? And certainly there are plenty of companies that do just that.

Also, remember the old AIDA formula: Attraction, Interest, Desire, Action. In other words, it isn’t enough to attract their attention–which sex does, for sure. They have to move through tthe ladder and take action. I remember one of the worst ads I’ve ever seen. It actually used the headline “Sex. Now That I have Your Attention…” and proceeded to promote a car dealership without even referring to the headline again. It was an all-text ad, no graphics, in our local newspaper. And I made a resolve right there that if this company was going to so insult my intelligence, I wasn’t going to even give them a shot at my business. I’ve bought three or four cars since then, at least, and not once have I ever bothered to visit that dealer.

Yet Madison Avenue, going back decades, seems to do quite well using sex to sell everything from household cleansers to cars to alcohol–but the ads are constructed in such a way that the prospect almost feels like he or she is in bed with someone gorgeous.

The other part I found umm, revealing was this wonderfully snide reader comment:

Two words that prove sex doesn’t sell: Sarah Palin. Other than being a GMILF and former beauty queen who has mastered the art of the saucy wink, she brings nothing substantial to the GOP ticket and has done more to undermine McCain’s credibility with independents and undecideds.

.

Generally, in marketing, we learn to harness both the prospect’s emotion and intellect. Perhaps the problem with using misplaced sex in advertising is that it only hooks the emotions and leaves intellect out of it entirely. In my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, I walk through some of the ways to build the necessary long-term trust to not only follow AIDA all the way down to the second A, but to add more steps: repeating and referring others.

(Thanks to Chris McDonald, who pointed me to this article).

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Media Ethics

Oy! This little squib from the Weekly Spin (as reprinted in the Las Vegas Sun) opens all sorts of ethics questions: product placement on newscasts = censorship of news? Maybe it would be better if we simply banned product placement on “objective” newscasts.

And look, the broadcaster is that champion of “fair and balanced” reporting, Fox News. Why am I not surprised?

“Two cups of McDonald’s iced coffee (BUY!) sit on the Fox 5 TV news desk” during Las Vegas station KVVU’s morning news show, writes Abigail Goldman. It’s a “punch-you-in-the-face product placement” that will last six months. KVVU’s news director says the “nontraditional revenue source” won’t impact his station’s reporting. But an executive with the marketing firm that negotiated the deal, Omnicom’s Karsh/Hagan, said “the coffee cups would most likely be whisked away if KVVU chooses to report a negative story about McDonald’s,” reports the New York Times. McDonald’s has similar product placement arrangements with “WFLD in Chicago, which is owned and operated by Fox; on KCPQ in Seattle, a Fox affiliate owned by the Tribune Company; and on Univision 41 in New York City.” Other stations owned by KVVU parent Meredith Corporation, “including WFSB, the CBS affiliate in Hartford, Conn., and WGCL, the CBS affiliate in Atlanta — are also accepting product placements on their morning shows.” The Writers Guild of America West recently urged the Federal Communications Commission to require “real-time disclosure” of product placements and to ban video news releases, calling VNRs “an attempt to trick the viewer to think that a paid advertisement is actually news.”

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies

With advertising that you pay for, even more than other types of marketing, you want to be effective. Yet I see so many businesses who clearly don’t have a clue; they spend a fortune putting a non-offer in front of a non-targeted list, and what little interest they do generate is too often squandered when they get to Step 2.

So it’s nice to see someone doing it right.

I subscribe to several dozen e-newsletters, including the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). I was reading that one this morning, and came across this ad:

EDEN FOODS OFFERS OCA CUSTOMERS 15% DISCOUNT

Eden Foods is one of the few national organic food producers who goes beyond the USDA Organic Standards. Although Eden Foods is USDA certified, their products do not bear the USDA seal, because they say the USDA standard really represents a “minimum standard” that Eden Foods goes far beyond. As a subscriber to Organic Bytes, you can enjoy a discount rate on any Eden Foods products by When you follow the link, you come to this page, where you’re greeted by a headline that proclaims, “Welcome OCA Customers.”

The copy on the page builds a relationship–and the discount offer is clearly visible at the top right, and the single instruction is easy for anyone to follow. The tone of the landing page is warm and friendly, utterly hype-free, clear and focused on the hot buttons that would speak directly to an OCA reader:

Eden Foods are Free of:
• Irradiation
• Preservatives
• Chemical Additives
• Food Colorings
• Refined Sugars
• Genetically Engineered Ingredients

That means our foods are safe, nutritious, and most are kosher and parve. Oh yeah, they taste good too! Family to Family, welcome us to your table as we give new meaning to “comfort” foods.

So why does this ad work?

  • The market segmentation is an exact match. OCA already reaches people with an interest in natural and organic foods–the exact market that Eden wants to reach
  • Eden’s ad almost seems like part of the newsletter content, hooking in to the reader’s trust of the OCA brand
  • The link is tracked, so Eden and OCA both know how effective it is (presumably, Eden also tracks how many of those visitors actually buy something)
  • As soon as visitors reach the landing page, the headline tells them they’re in the right place
  • The discount offer is repeated, very visibly, and is easy to take advantage of, with no strings or conditions other than excluding full cases and sale items
    The ad and the landing page both use a tone that respects the reader and builds that relationship

    • If you’d like to learn more about effective marketing and advertising, my fifth book, Grassroots Marketing: Getting Noticed in a Noisy World, would be a good place to start. A Finalist for Foreword Magazine’s Book of the Year Award, seven of its 39 chapters specifically cover lowering the cost and boosting the effectiveness of advertising; the other chapters focus on strategies that are for the most part much cheaper than paid ads.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Business Ethics, General Commentary

    Patrick Byers over at the Responsible Marketing blog has a post today comparing TV ads from the Indoor Tanning Association and the American Association of Dermatology. You can view the ads and vote for which you find more believable.

    Here’s what I wrote in his comment field:

    What I find really disingenuous about the trade assn. ad is they say sunlight has these benefits (which it does), but then they say, go use a tanning bad–where’s the Vitamin D in that?

    And the idea of a conspiracy with sunscreen manufacturers is just ludicrous.

    My sister married a dermatologist, and her whole family is always well-armored when they go out. Me, I try to get out in the sun, but I live in New England. If I’m in a tropical clime or going to be out for many hours, I generally wear at least a hat and maybe a little sunscreen.

    Tanning beds? I always assumed they’d have bad health consequences, and have never tried one–nor will I.

    What do you think?

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail