Pretty Pictures, Little Else

Marketing guru Jonathan Salem Baskin has just published a book called “Branding Only Works on Cattle.” The publisher is promoting it this way:

Most people don't know it yet, but branding is dead. Sure, we need to know about the stuff we want to buy, but the billions of dollars spent on logos, sponsorships and jingles have little, if anything, to do with actual consumer behavior.

As Baskin points out, modern consumers make decisions based on experience — so what matters isn't how creative, cool or memorable the advertising is, but how companies can directly target consumer behavior.

Pretty pictures and funny taglines should be an afterthought: Brands must target what consumers actually do. How companies affect behavior — whether via marketing communications, distribution strategies or customer service — is how branding is being reborn.

I agree completely. And if all this is true about advertising that reinforces the desirability and preferability of an existing brand, it's even more so when it comes to building demand for a unique new product. In such cases, “pretty pictures and funny taglines” are even more inadequate compared with the power of publicizing and encouraging the brand experience. As we direct marketers have always known, one product trial (or one credible description of a successful sampling) is worth any number of flat claims.

This issue's makeover is a good example. True, the advertiser — GE — is one of the oldest and best-known brands in marketing history. But while both the ad and my makeover display the company's logo and slogan, “Imagination at Work,” even GE must have realized that kitchen appliances are so far removed from caulking that the brand alone would not likely carry much weight with consumers when it introduced its new product, Caulk Singles. So prior to the launch GE took the trouble to widely distribute free samples, then set up an online blog where sample recipients could record their experiences.

The result was marketing gold: page after page of priceless testimonials. But instead of using all this great material, the creative team was seduced by the lure of pretty pictures of the prospect's day.

Since this is Direct's 20th anniversary, it seemed a good occasion to review some of the principles I apply when doing makeovers. So I got out my Makeover Maven Measuring Stick to check the strengths and weakness of both the original ad and mine. Here's how they stacked up.

• Does the ad snag and flag prospects? (In this case, busy career-mom homeowners who handle their own minor maintenance tasks.)

  GE's: No. Generic, wordless pictures of an egg being cracked into a bowl, a law office, a computer keyboard, and a child's hair being washed just don't do it. The headline, “Now you can squeeze a little beauty into your day,” would only make sense to women who already are aware of this new product and its uses.

  Mine: Yes. The headline clearly targets women who like or need to do home-maintenance touch-ups and discuss them with their friends.

• Does it identify the product? You can't sell it if readers don't know what it is.

  GE's: No. “Squeeze a little beauty…”? Is the ad pushing toothpaste? Makeup? The understated “body copy” starts to give some clues, but by then most women will have turned the page.

  Mine: Yes. My headline identifies the product as caulk in a catchy way. The very visible sub-head includes both brand and product names, and uses that magic word “new.”

• Does it state a promise?

  GE's: Yes, sort of. “Squeeze a little beauty into your day.” Overstatement? Maybe — but hey, that's advertising.

  Mine: Yes, in the subhead: “…inspiring women everywhere to perfect their homes.” (I felt “to perfect” was a more sensible choice in the context than “to beautify.”)

• Does it state or imply the problem?

  GE's: Only by very indirect implication. In a word, no.

  Mine: Yes. Problems of old-style caulking products are illustrated with a picture and explained in the caption: “Ugh! Caulking tubes are tough to squeeze and messy to use. Of course, they always dry out before you're finished. And who wants to haul around a caulking gun?”

• Does it state or imply the benefit?

  GE's: Yes. The copy tells readers: “Tear. Squeeze. Toss. It's that quick and effortless with the new disposable GE Caulk Singles.” Unfortunately, since the ad hasn't identified the problem, readers who haven't really thought (much less talked) about caulk aren't going to be engaged.

  Mine: Yes. The vivid contrast between the pictures is reinforced with language explaining the new product's benefits, which are now more readily appreciated: “Ahh! This little package dispenses effortlessly with one hand, requires no tools and leaves essentially no waste in the package. It's as easy as tear, squeeze and toss.”

Ad Before

• Does it invite reading?

  GE's: No. Almost nothing to read, almost nothing to say.

  Mine: Yes. Paradoxical headline piques curiosity that's paid off by detailed customer raves. Much more interesting, readable, and benefit-laden than mere copywriter copy.

• Does it include proof of claims?

  GE's: No.

  Mine: Yes, through those customer raves. Aren't these testimonials more credible than some bald assertion of how easy the product is to use? (I've added boldface here and there for emphasis.)

• Does it include valuable sales points from the Web site?

  GE's: No. Impressive quotes, held back from the ad for exclusive display online, may never be seen by most readers.

  Mine: Yes. The best quotes are right up front.

• Does it encourage and reward response?

  GE's: Only so-so. “To learn how easy it is to beautify your home…” is too general to be much of a grabber. It's essentially the usual “Log on to learn more.”

  Mine: Yes, via the invitation that readers post their opinions about the product on the site for a shot at $500. Instead of a contest or sweepstakes with a big reward but only a small chance of winning, my ad offers a small reward of $500 but a big chance of “earning” it and becoming a published author, so to speak — a common dream. By noting the experiences of others online, then actually using the product and subsequently writing about one's own experience, many more curious readers will be converted into enthusiastic regular users than through pretty pictures and funny taglines.

I believe my approach would produce far more short- and long-term sales than GE's. Don't you agree?

Ad after

Find more Makeover Maven columns at http://directmag.com/opinions-columnists/makeovermaven/.

THOMAS L. COLLINS (thomas.l.collins@verizon.net) has been a direct marketing copywriter, ad maker, agency creative director and co-author of four books on marketing. He is currently an independent creative and marketing consultant based in Portland, OR.