±±¾©Èü³µpk10

One of the most fatuous ’statistics’ being tossed about is that

some 20% of TV commercials now include a direct response mechanism -

that’s hip marketing jargon for an address or phone number.

Like a contractor’s rate card, the 20% figure keeps increasing. But

nobody knows where it comes from. Maybe it comes from outer space,

because like a black hole, it is really a meaningless void.

Nobody knows how many new commercials are made each year. The best

guesstimate is about 11,000. Does that mean 2200 (20%) of each year’s

commercials now include a direct response mechanism? Who knows?

All commercials are not equal. The fact that experienced marketing guys

fail to realise this beggars belief. Is a commercial shown in Anglia

during the small hours equal to one shown in London during Coronation

Street?

Pull the other one, it’s got ratings on it. For the 20% statistic to

mean anything, every commercial with a response mechanism, wherever and

whenever it was shown, would need to be monitored and its audience

assessed. Has this ever been tried? Don’t make me laugh.

Anyone who knows a postcode from a freephone number knows off-peak time,

often on satellite, generally generates the most cost-effective

responses.

You reach tiny but specific audiences at low cost. In consequence more

direct response commercials are transmitted in cheap time than in

expensive time. That turns the 20% figure into a lie or a damn lie - but

certainly not a statistic.

The problem goes deeper. The fatuous figure implies that direct response

and brand (or ’awareness’) advertising are interchangeable.

This issue has long confused advertising theorists. Nearly a hundred

years ago Claude Hopkins, the formidable direct response guru, assumed

the lessons he had learned in that sector could be applied to brand

advertising.

The late, great David Ogilvy made the same mistake. Neither of them

approved of humour in advertising, because it rarely works in direct

response.

But it often works in awareness ads. And for good reason. Awareness ads

depend upon memory. That is the purpose of making people ’aware’. People

prefer to remember ads they like. Research data consistently suggests

ads that people like tend to perform better than ads they don’t. (But

those findings are based on awareness campaigns, not on direct

response.)

In contrast,ads which require people to respond immediately,

off-the-page (or off-air), usually need to be informative and detailed -

a whole new ballpen game.

Including a response mechanism in an awareness ad may occasionally

increase its effectiveness without confusing the awareness message. But

planting an idea in someone’s mind which will prompt them to take action

when they next visit the relevant retailer, in a few weeks or even

years, is a lot different from spurring them into instant activity.

The awareness advertiser expects a delayed reaction. The response

advertiser wants action now. Any marketers or creatives who cannot grasp

that fundamental difference will lose a sackload of dosh faster than you

can say ’cut the coupon, stupid’.

Winston Fletcher is chairman of the Bozell UK Group.