|
SIXTY PER CENT of all new Advertisers fail!
Largely because they spend their money for Space, under the delusion that Space filled
with anything “Catchy” is “Advertising.” They believe “Money Talks” in Advertising, even
when it says nothing.
They forget that Space costs the same, whether we fill it with Pictured Nothings or with
advertisements that create results.
And the difference, in Results, between two kinds of “copy,” costing the same for space, in
a single advertisement, has often exceeded 80 per cent, as authenticated Records on test
cases prove.
General Advertisers, who have no means of tracing direct results, and who spend their
money for “General Publicity”, may smile at this. But, Mail-Order Advertisers know it is
true. These are the kind of Advertisers to whom Advertising is not a blind speculation, but
systematic eye-open investment.
Their records show the precise cost of every inquiry for their goods through advertising,
because their every Advertisement in every medium is separately keyed.
They can thus gauge accurately the relative earning power of each separate bit of copy
published at their expense, and of each medium in which that copy has been inserted.
They thus know what kind to avoid, as well as what kind to use. Please note that the
current definition of “General Publicity” is “Keeping-the-Name-before-the-People or Branding” When
we speak of “General Advertising” we mean copy which sells goods through the Retailer.
(Note that General Advertisers are NOT hereby “advised” to go into mail-order
business).
However, general Advertising should possess as much positive SELLING-FORCE
and conviction as it would need to actually and profitably sell goods direct by
mail. John E Kennedy talks about General Advertising, Today many advertising agencies and media salespeople talk about "Branding." THis is largely an excuse for poorly made advertisements or media which nobody sees. Here is the actual experience of a well-known national Advertiser, who sells a $5.00 article
by mail only.
This Advertiser has proved that a certain fixed average per cent of his Inquiries convert into
direct sales through his “follow-up” system.
Each equally good Inquiry is therefore worth a certain fixed price to him, which he can pay
with profit.
One single piece of copy has been running for that Advertiser (practically without change), in all mediums used, for over six years. Over $300,000 has been spent in repeatedpublication of that single bit of copy.
Why?
Because, it produced results (Inquiries and Sales) at lower cost than any other copy ever
run for them in eight previous years. The first month Inquiries from the best prior copy cost
about 85 cents each.
Repetition of that copy for two years wore out some of its interest, so that Inquiries from it finally cost an average of $1.85 each. New “copy” had been tried a great many times during the two-year interval, written by many different Ad-smiths, but no other
Advertisement ever produced the Inquiries at less than $1.85 average.
Some of the copy that looked good enough to try, cost $14.20 per Inquiry. And that was
better looking copy than half of what fills “General Publicity” space in costly mediums at this
very minute. Consider what the knowledge derived from a large collection of certified data,
like the above, would mean, if placed at the disposal of General Advertisers who now “go it
blind” on copy.
If the $5.00 article had been sold through Retailers, in the usual way, without accurate
means of checking results from every advertisement, it is more than probable that the
$14.20 kind of copy would have been used continuously.
Because, that was the “catch” kind, so much favour with “General Publicity” Advertisers.
And, it would have been considered good copy so long as the salesmen did its work, in
addition to their own, The General Results being credited in a general way to “General
Publicity.”
But, it would clearly have required fourteen times as much of that “$14.20 kind” of alleged
“Advertising” to produce the same amount of selling effect upon the public as the “85-cent
kind” of copy (which averaged about $1.00 per inquiry over the two years) actually did
produce.
Let us figure this out more conclusively: The Blank Company spent $75,000 per year, for
space, with copy producing Inquiries at about $1.00 average.
It would thus have cost them about fourteen times as much, or $1,050,000 per year, to sell
as many of their $5.00 articles through the $14.20 kind of “catchy” copy as it actually did
cost them to sell the same quantity with the “$1.00-per-Inquiry” kind of copy.
Good Reader, get that thought clearly into your mind, for we’re talking cold facts now.
What was it worth to the Blank Company to get a new Advertisement which would pull
Inquiries at the old rate of 85 cents each, when its most successful copy had worn out, after
two years’ use, so that Inquiries were finally costing it $1.25 each on average?
Figure it out and you’ll see that one single piece of such copy would be worth a third of their
$75,000 yearly appropriation, viz., Inquiries for their goods and resulting Sales.
But “Reason-Why” Copy did better than that, when applied, on test.
It reduced the cost of Inquiries, for the selfsame $5.00 article, to 41 cents average, during
the first two years it had been running, (It is still running, after six years’ use).
Page 21
The earning power of every dollar trebled by the mere substitution of Reason-Why Copy for
the best copy the Advertiser had used in eight years prior to that substitution.
An Advertising appropriation of$75,000 made equal in proven earning power to what
$225,000 would have earned with the copy which preceded it, and which was producing
Inquiries at $1.25.
That single piece of Reason-Why copy, which ran practically without change for about four
months, had in that time produced approximately 60,976 Inquiries. These were worth
$1.25 each to the Advertiser (or $91,464 in all), though their cost was reduced to 41 cents
each, with an actual outlay of about $25,000.
In four months that one piece of copy had thus earned $66.466 more, for the Advertiser,
than the $1.25 kind of Copy used immediately before it had produced from the same
investment.
And, what made it pull Inquiries by mail is precisely what would make it produce Inquiries
verbally for the goods through Retailers, by the use of intelligent Reason-Why and
Conviction in the Copy.
This is only one of many actual instances that could be cited Many time the CEO chooses the ad which makes him look the best at the country club, not the advertisement or media which will sell the most products. I know one CEO who is always sitting in luxury boxes paid for the media he places ads with, or his ad agency's box. Every time I see him he says sales are down, but he sure loves his ad agency. I believe there is no "reason why" in his advertising. If instead he went with an ad agency which put money into writing good copy instead of buying sports tickets his wallet would be able to afford his own luxury box. ----------------------------- Dennis Gartland is editing the works of some of the greatest advertising minds. Dennis is one of the foremost experts on search engine optimization, pay per click advertising and combining traditional and internet media. He is also CEO of Net Advertising Group. You can reach Dennis at 330-503-3108, www.netadvertisinggroup.com or
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
----------------------------
|
