LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Posted on April 1, 2001 by Chief Marketer Staff

The Maven Fan Club

This marks the second month in a row that some arrogant and incredibly ignorant young “creative” has written in to lecture Tom Collins on how to write copy, and I’m sorry, but I can’t hold my tongue any longer.

I must say what Tom is far too polite and modest to say for himself. Namely, that he is one of the four or five greatest copywriters in the history of direct marketing. That his Makeover Maven is the best, most entertaining and most valuable column I have ever read in 25 years of subscribing to trade publications in this industry. And that there is absolutely no substitute for — or shortcut to — the kind of wisdom that comes from 50 years of hands-on experience in direct marketing.

Unlike general advertising, where a copywriter can come in at age 25 and make a big splash with a good imagination, a sense of what’s trendy and a diamond ring in his navel, direct marketing is a business where copywriters and artists actually have to know something to succeed.

Tom Collins knows a lot. A helluva lot. And young pups like these guys who have been writing in to criticize him should sit at his feet, shut up and consider themselves lucky to learn from the best.
Richard Armstrong
Copywriter
Washington

Just wanted to thank Tom Collins for the ad makeovers he does for DIRECT. They’re a breath of fresh air in a world of unfathomable ads and designers gone berserk.

If the creative directors of the samples he selects had to justify their ads in dollars and cents, I think you’d see more sensible ads that actually tell readers why they should take an action.

Imagine that: copy that tells and sells.

Please keep the makeovers coming. They are terrific.
Jim Murphy

I realize Tom Collins doesn’t need me to defend him, but I must say the letter from the Northern Computers Inc. “advertising coordinator” made my blood boil (Letters to the Editor, DIRECT, March 1). Then it made me laugh.

It’s a sad day when direct marketing professionals don’t understand the basics of direct marketing. I’d like to tell the world that testing has never blown my budget — it’s saved one on more than one occasion — and that Mr. Landowski can’t work in my company. Our clients want to know stupid things like cost per order — I’m sure that would cramp his genius.

Of course, if he worked here he might learn a few things — like respect for other opinions and direct mail math for dummies.
Elaine Tyson
Tyson Associates Inc.
Ridgefield, CT

The Accrue Software makeover (The Makeover Maven, DIRECT, March 1) is perhaps the most sensible, time-tested one yet in a series of absolutely stellar columns by marketing magician Tom Collins.

Just thought you’d like to know that more than one copywriter/consultant subscribes to the Collins school of “tell ’em and sell ’em” rather than winning design awards.
Rene Gnam
Rene Gnam Consultation Corp.
Tarpon Springs, FL

About a year ago, I disagreed with your “after” solution to a hotel ad. You agreed with my statements and, to my surprise, published my response and your agreement with it.

Now I agree with you. Hey, I like white space too. After all, one of the greatest ads of all time was the VW “Lemon” ad back in the’60s.

The “before” Accrue ad (white space loaded) might be a design award winner, but it’s lacking in readability or a noticeable offer. The reader has to work too hard.

As an account person in an agency for 15 years, I often found myself torn between a beautiful ad and one that was slightly less creative, but which worked better. I appreciated the delicacy of the creative process, but I had to always remember that clients paid us to generate awareness or actual dollars. They wanted to sell something. They couldn’t give a damn if the art director won an award.

I would sometimes remind the creatives that there are some campaigns you win awards for and others where you would just have to suck it up and sell something. Most creative types saw these two ideas as being diametrically opposed, only giving it lip service. The best creatives understood and embraced it. If [they] didn’t generate dollars for our clients, they’d eventually be out of a job and have all that time to sit home and admire their award show trophies. To that, they would add that “this would be a great business if it weren’t for the clients.”

Finally, when will art directors realize that the population is aging, along with [its] eyesight? Maybe we can start to draw the conclusion that the smaller the type, the better chance the art director is younger.
Joe Pianecki

Tom Collins replies: I’m glad we had a meeting of the minds on this one. I agree with everything you say, but would like to add that there’s an important distinction between primarily response advertising and primarily branding advertising. Art directors for the latter can afford to lavish white space in their designs, and as you point out, often to good effect. The Volkswagen “Lemon” ad was one of the all-time great ads, but if it had asked for a response, it would have done very poorly.

That doesn’t mean an ad can’t perform both functions simultaneously. I’ll bet David Ogilvy could have written a great Volkswagen ad with the same headline and illustration, but the white space would be filled up with his own unique style of persuasive copy. And it would both have strengthened the brand and brought in bushel baskets of inquiries.

And in This Corner…

Although the original ad from Accrue Software has some problems, your solution is even worse. [We’re] bombarded with copy, no “flow” through the ad, too many items and items that are evenly weighted. What’s a reader to do?

The original ad could easily be fixed by increasing the type size in the copy section slightly and significantly increasing the size of the sign-off. The “award-seeking art director’s favorite means of expression: white space” does work. The original ad is friendly, motivating and clever. Your rehash isn’t friendly, or motivating, or clever. Worse, it would have me flipping the page in fear of type overload.

Give me an ad that draws me in — even if it has some flaws — over the one that chases me away any day of the week.
Vickie Wheeler
Communications Director
Specialty Products Co.

In Defense of 3-D

I read with interest Jonathan Boorstein’s article “One Tree, Three Saps” (Hot Creative, DIRECT, February).

I think he completely missed the point! Three-dimensional mailings are done to get the recipient’s attention! I think all the pieces were terribly successful — he opened them, read the text and was provoked to write an article about them.

When I market in a very cluttered space, I must figure out how to get my company recognized by the recipient (and, in the case of a new service, we might not be certain of the target audience). Another flat piece is a long shot. If I follow up my 3-D piece with telemarketing, I find that my piece, and consequently my company’s name, are often remembered.

Remind Jonathan that it’s a jungle out here!
Loree Raker Miles
National Marketing Director
Integrated Technology
Solutions
RSM McGladrey Inc.
Des Moines, IA

Misinformation

The information in “Heavy-Duty Exchange” (B-to-B DIRECT, January) originated with the manager of the new [nonprofit online] exchange, but unfortunately for DIRECT’s readers, it was incorrect.

For example:

Standardization for exchanging electronic documents has existed in the automotive and heavy-duty markets for several years.
A unique body, the Aftermarket Council on Electronic Commerce, oversees efforts that ensure standards developed by various automotive aftermarket organizations can be used throughout the industry.
The cost to transmit documents through “for-profit networks” is not 75 cents to $1.50, as claimed in the article. There are many automotive and heavy-duty trading partners currently paying as little as 15 percent of these stated rates. In fact, the vast majority of all electronic documents delivered and received are sent over value-added networks that charge significantly less than the fees noted in the article.
The article states, “Value-added networks have their own formats, making uniformity difficult.” EDI networks, whether they use traditional value-added networks or the Internet to move transactions, can process standard or nonstandard documents and do not necessarily “have their own formats.” Low-cost translation software is readily available that facilitates the conversion of business documents into standard formats and back to business documents, allowing companies to integrate data from trading partners into their internal systems. Uniformity, therefore, is not difficult to achieve.
Chris H. Gardner
Director of Marketing
Management Information
Systems Group Inc.
Research Triangle Park, NC

But It’s Just a Little “D”…

I enjoy reading and learning from DIRECT. And I especially like the columns by “Curmudgeon” Herschell Gordon Lewis and Beth Negus.

One teensy, tinesy thing bugs me, though — the red “D” that appears at the end of every article. It’s jarring, and makes me think the reading I just did almost flunked when the teacher graded it! It would be most desirable to have another indicator that the piece has ended. But that “D” bugs me.

Thanks. I feel better already.
Nancy Lloyd

Gettin’ Folksy

I’d like to compliment Katie Muldoon on her column, “The Art of Business Writing,” in the January DIRECT. I ain’t never lived up to Willie Strunk, but admire anyone who lists him as suggested or required reading.

You’ve put in your piece the best info on “how to” I’ve ever seen presented anywhere. If y’all down there in Florida can write so well, how come you’ve had trouble countin’ ballots? Sorry to be folksy!

Looking forward to your forthcoming columns.
Bill Maertens
Principal Partner
Groupe Wolf.com
Jasper, AR

Clueless?

I’m confused by the information in the article “Web Site Metrics” (DIRECT.com, March 1).

Chris Ryan states that “clicks” are the “number of mouse depressions as visitors move from page to page or site to site…”

Nobody tracks that. The true “Holy Grail,” if there is one, is clickthroughs — the measure of times people click on one of your ads on someone else’s site and are thus let into your site. He didn’t even mention that, and if he was intending to do so by calling it “clicks,” then he completely missed the definition.
He also stated that “domains” consisted of “[the] number and addresses of sites where visitors to your site originated,” implying that he’s talking about “referrers.”

Actually, domains are a pretty useless indicator nowadays with DSL, cable modems, America Online, proxy servers and local-area-network connections. I’ve been tracking sites with WebTrends for a long time, and the number of traceable domains has dwindled to the point that it’s now a useless metric.
“Hits.” Who the heck cares about hits any more? If I want to double my hit count, all I have to do is double the number of little icons and buttons and graphics on a page. That may impress my boss, but it’s not an improvement in real terms.

Hit count is worthless. Why didn’t he mention page views, a.k.a. impressions? That’s a much more important metric, because it counts the complete pages, not the gizmos on each page.
He also said that “entry” was “[the] page where a visitor enters the site.” That’s correct, but then he erroneously defines it as “a search engine, a partner’s Web site or an industry portal.” That’s incorrect, and he confused it with “referrer.”

The entry page is the page on your own site where the visitor lands, and is only marginally useful as it shows which pages visitors have bookmarked, or where other sites are linking into your site other than at the home page. Why didn’t he mention that?

It’s unfortunate that he misdefined so many terms and left out the really useful information about them, because I have to conclude from this that he is clueless.
Dave Morris

talk to us!

We’d like to hear what you have to say about us or about news, trends and issues in direct marketing. To contact the editor, write, fax, e-mail or call: