Yesterday I posted a video of David Ogilvy explaining his basic philosophy of advertising. You could sum up his view like this: benefits-oriented, direct response ads (which often, but not always, use long copy) are more effective than ‘arty’, creative ads (which often, but not always, use short copy).
It’s worth defining a few terms before we go any further with this.
First, Ogilvy is defining effectiveness, as always, in terms of sales. You might think that was obvious, but there are plenty of people who will tell you that ‘brand awareness’ - which, of course, is much more difficult to measure than raw sales - can be an equally satisfactory outcome for a marketing campaign. The idea is that a brand-orientated ad might not stimulate readers or viewers to buy the product immediately, or even include a call to action encouraging them to do so in the way that direct response marketing would. Rather, it plants the idea of the brand in their heads, so the next time they’re wandering around some retail space and they see a product with that brand on the shelf, they’re more likely to buy it than a competing product.
Ogilvy wouldn’t have disputed that planting the idea of a future purchase is vital for forms of advertising where a truly direct response isn’t always possible - TV for instance - but he disapproved of oblique, non-direct pitches that purported to promote the brand without hammering the benefits of individual products. That type of ad, he suspected, was written more with advertising awards ceremonies in mind than with a specific sales-oriented goal.
Second, ‘creative’ isn’t necessarily a taboo word to those of us who write a lot of direct response (or DR-inspired) copy. Ogilvy does not deprecate creativity - he simply believes that creative effort in the marketing business should exist to drive sales, rather than for its own sake.
His view, essentially, is a common-sense one. ‘Look,’ he seems to say to those with artistic inclinations, ‘if you want to use your talent in the service of art, go and write a novel or paint a picture. Only enter the world of advertising if you’re happy to sublimate that talent to the ultimate necessity of sales.’
It is, therefore, possible to create great direct response-inspired advertising and still be creative. Classic pieces of copywriting genius like ‘for mash make Smash’ and ‘happiness is a cigar called Hamlet’ may seem elegant (or clever-clever, depending on your point of view), but they undeniably focus on eliciting a type of direct response - a specific desire in the mind of a customer to buy a specific product.
The difference between DR-inspired ads and ‘branding’ ads, therefore, is the focus on the product. In fact, a better way of defining the difference is to talk about brand advertising and product advertising.
Notice that within the description of product advertising I’m drawing a distinction between ‘direct response’ advertising and advertising that is derived from, or inspired by, direct response. An ad that is designed to promote a direct response no longer, in these days of instant clickability, has to use any of the classic DR techniques. In fact, a DR ad in an online environment might look like a branding ad, carrying the simplicity and entertainment/artistic value of the latter while demanding the response (a click) of the former. Flash banner ads are a good example.
But Ogilvy’s insistence that DR should be the basis of all advertising still holds good, even in the online environment: you want to ensure that the people who click the ad are pre-qualified - that they know exactly what type of product they’re going to look at when they click, and have at least half an interest in buying it. Otherwise you risk paying for very large numbers of clicks from people who aren’t really bothered about the product.
Ogilvy’s most interesting assertion, to my mind, is that ‘originality is the most dangerous word in the lexicon of advertising’. That’s a bit of a loaded statement, because although it makes sense to use tried and tested tactics, without innovation the industry wouldn’t move forward. Ogilvy himself was a great originator. I suppose what he’s arguing against is originality for originality’s sake - again, the kind of thinking on the part of copywriters and designers that is derived more from frustrated creative urges than a wish to increase a client’s sales.
Technorati Tags: advertising, David Ogilvy, branding, direct response
