Increasing Return on Marketing Dollars

Contents

• Lesson from A Master
• Stealing Smart
• Tracking Leads – Track II

Lesson from A Master

Gary Bencivenga is on everyone’s “Top 10 Copywriters of All Time” list. He started out on the agency side, but made his fame and fortune writing magalogs (letters of 16 pages plus). Gary is not writing much copy these days, but does issue, on occasion, a marvelous newsletter called “Bencivenga Bullets.”

His latest high caliber Bullet was about “The Most Important 9-Word Sentence in Marketing History.” The concept comes not from direct marketing, but Rosser Reeves’ famous book Reality in Advertising. The 9 words:

“A gifted product is mightier than the gifted pen.”

He quotes the legendary Bill Bernbach as well: "The magic is in the product," not in the copywriter's pen. Or as he put it another way, "Advertising doesn't create a product advantage. It can only convey it...No matter how skillful you are, you can't invent a product advantage that doesn't exist."

Gary’s message is that, as a copywriter, your first job is to seek out great product. The product is the hero.  Everything follows from that.

Here’s the exchange of emails that resulted from this Bullet:

LMS: “Most interesting way to describe the Michelangelo-‘it's-in-the-marble’ theory.

“I would argue, though, with the premise that the product has to be the hero in direct response advertising.  I think it's the prospect/customer.  It's the copywriter's job to take the reader by the hand and let him/her into the museum to see what the marketer has done with the marble.”

GB: “Your point is well taken. This is a common misunderstanding of what Reeves preached. Many people react to the Reeves' USP approach by saying that the prospect, not the product, must be the hero of the ad. But we are really talking about two different things. One has to do with strategy, the other with tactics.

“In my use of the terms, tactics refers to the execution of an ad. Strategy refers to the main message to be communicated, the unique benefit, or combination of benefits, you want to emphasize, regardless of the execution.

“Sound tactics—putting the consumer front and center in the picture—are of course necessary to win any advertising battle, including capturing the prospect's attention, getting him interested, building desire, proving your case, making an irresistible offer, closing the sale, etc. And, sure, in all such instances—on the level of execution—the prospect is front and center at every step of the way: his problems, wants, desires, needs, objections, concerns, etc.

“But you need a strategy to win the war, to be perceived as different among all the consumer choices out there. What message do you want to convey as you put the prospect in the picture? What's the main benefit you can accomplish in his or her life?

“Or to say it another way, putting the prospect/customer front and center means answering his most obvious question as he confronts your ad: how will this benefit me in a superior way compared with every other product making pitches for my business? If you have a gifted product—one that fills the consumer's needs better than other options—the answer will be much more persuasive than if you have only a gifted pen pouring out puffery about the prospect and his wants.

“Example: when trying to sell M&M candies, copywriters for many years had talked about the prospect's desires for great chocolate taste.

These copywriters had looked only to the prospect and his or her most obvious wants. They thought they were making the prospect the hero. And Mars Candy, the manufacturer, was going bankrupt.

“Rosser Reeves came along, took a good hard look at what's unique about the product and said, your message is offbase—too much like what everyone else is promising the consumer. What's unique about this candy that can be a big benefit to the consumer? The answer was, "Thanks to their thin candy shell, only M&M chocolates melt in your mouth, not in your hand...No chocolate mess!"

“Reeves' ads went on to deliver this unique message in ads that certainly put the consumer front and center in his executions. The difference is that they were based on a superior strategy, a superior message, one that dramatized the uniqueness of the product and the unique benefit it made possible for consumers. Based on that unique advantage, dramatized to the hilt from the prospect's point of view, tens of millions of moms started buying M&Ms to put into baby boomers' lunch boxes, so they wouldn't muss up their clothes at school. Mars went from near bankruptcy to having to build new factories to keep up with demand.

“Reeves emphasizes the tremendous difference a gifted product can make on a strategic level. On a tactical level, i.e., how to execute a well-written ad, I agree with you completely.

“Every ad should put the prospect and his wants front and center.

In the end, "A gifted product is mightier than a gifted pen," means that a superior message is even more important than the way it is delivered, as most good copywriters can be counted on to do a halfway decent job of putting the prospect in the picture. But if their ads aren't based on a powerful strategic difference that a gifted product makes possible, prospects are smart enough to see the message for what it is—a weak, "me-too" product skillfully presented. Result: no sale.

back to top

Stealing Smart

Dorothy Kerr, one of the best and brightest direct marketing minds, once said:

“The way to be successful in direct mail is to see what comes into your mailbox and in your box at the office, note those mailings that keep coming in over and over (which means they are successful), study them carefully, and then steal smart” (emphasis mine)."

Sorry, but it’s not so simple.  I’m not Bill Clinton, but definitions are important here: What does “steal” mean in this context?  What exactly should we be stealing?  When and why is stealing “smart”?  And, for the originator of the direct mail package, can others, and in particular competitors, really “steal” from you?

Are these “Atomic Secrets”?

Let’s look at this last question first, using a real case.  A few months ago, a client left me an angry voice mail insisting that I remove from my website the sample of the b2b lead generation package I created for him.  He was dismayed that his competitors would find the sample easily and use it against his company.  Do I deserve the fate of the Rosenbergs? Consider these facts: 

First, the PDFs were posted to my site months after the original package mailed (and the client found out they were posted six months after the fact).  Implication: Even if the client had removed all possible competitors from its prospect list, smart competitors would have arranged with its clients to be given any competitive piece of mail received.

Second, the sample on the site represented the first test.  At the point the client called, they were mailing a radically different offer and much of the copy in the letter had been changed as well.  Implication: if competitors took the sample on the site as gospel, they would be misinformed.

Third, there was no commentary on my site.  I didn’t say whether the package was successful or not, whether it was a test or control, how many were mailed, or anything else.  Implication: Anyone stealing would be stealing blind. 

So What’s A “Smart Steal”?

If you fully believe that every product/service and, therefore, every marketing problem has a unique solution, and there’s very little you will want to steal.  Additionally, consider what time does.  Company A may have mailed its control package three months ago.  You go to steal it and by the time you get it into the mail, a total of five months have elapsed.  Your particular market, the economy, and the world could have changed radically by then.

On the other hand, direct marketing has always been empirical.  We make decisions on past performance.  If we see home and office mail boxes filled with “official” rather than promotional-looking packages, we’d better pay heed to that and create a package with an official look.  Is that stealing?  Most definitely “No.”  Is it smart?  “Yes.”

Now matters get more interesting.  How many different techniques are there for achieving that “official” look with your outer envelope?  You study the big mailers.  You notice that a good handful use a faux sticker that says “CONFIRMED” and contains what appears to be a unique confirmation number.  So you say “Let’s try that.”  Are you stealing?  Maybe, but it’s a second-degree or third-degree of separation steal since others are using it.  Smart?  Probably, unless since an envelope-opening ploy is really contradictory to your message.  For example, if you’re asking someone to trust you with their money, achieving that becomes more difficult when you fool them into opening the envelope.

What are you going to do inside the envelope?  Use the same components as in your competitor’s control package?  That’s not stealing, but it may not be smart.  You don’t know if they’ve done component testing, and you don’t know their financials.  Maybe they can afford to spend more to get a response and sale than you can.  Are you going to purloin your competitor’s testimonial approach?  Fine, but your testimonials had better be as strong as theirs.

Are you going to use the same Johnson box, opening paragraph, brochure cover with only a few words changed?  I’ve seen it done.  If you’re copying a direct competitor, you’re on shaky legal ground.  If you’re stealing from a mailer in a different category, then you don’t understand the benefits of your own product and your audience.  Not smart either way.

And what constitutes stealing the offer?  If your competitor is using a longer guarantee period, by all means test it (assuming your product is as good as theirs and you’ve honed in on the right prospects).  That’s not stealing.  If your competitor has been successful with a particular merchandise premium available commercially, by all means test it (assuming it’s right for your audience and the financials make sense).  If your competitor’s premium is custom-made, obviously you can’t steal it, but you can test the concept – e.g., white paper, music download, etc.

Given all this, how do you explain the cloning—and mighty successful cloning it is—of voucher and statement-of-benefit packages in the publishing arena, for example?  Look closely.  While the formats (size of envelope and enclosures) are clones, subtle changes in copy and design evolved over a period of 10-12 years until perfection was reached.  It’s more like the sound of Dueling Banjos in “Deliverance” than of a safe being cracked. 

And what about the continued success of “Top 10 Reasons” packages?  Well, those reasons are never the same between packages, are they?  So the marketers that continue to test vouchers and Top 10 Reasons packages aren’t stealing; they’re smart enough to ride on someone else’s waves.  You see, a “smart steal” is a package that works.

back to top

Tracking Leads – Track II

In the email highlighting the May issue of this newsletter, I raised a number of questions about tracking leads in situations where a manufacturer has distributors.  Here’s what I wrote:

“Let's say you're a Master Distributor for a manufacturer and you have local distributors all over the Eastern seaboard. You've been running ads in consumer magazines with the distributors all listed. You can't get any feedback from the distributors about the traffic being driven by the ads. Do you pull the ads entirely? Do you take out all the distributor names and have inquiries/leads come directly to you? How else do you track?”

David Bancroft Avrick, head of Avrick Direct and a pro who has actually been on the scene longer than I have, was kind enough to comment.  Here is the unedited text of the email he sent to me:

“FYI.....tracking leads that go directly to distributors and/or are sent by 'headquarters' to distributors is always a hassle.  Over the years (51 of them - ugh) I've looked at hundreds of programs that attempt to do this.  The only ones that seem "partially" successful are tied to a reward earned by the distributor.

“One major hearing aid company ‘charges’ their distributors for leads.  For every hearing aid they buy they are entitled to X number of free leads.  In theory if the distributor 'works' the leads they will never pay for them (there are enough free leads earned with each purchase to sell another hearing aid). BUT the distributors earn ‘credits’ by returning leads which indicate their disposition (crank, not interested, call back in the future, sale). 

“A different problem in sending leads directly to distributors is that they immediately categorize them, and this never works long term. For example if they get 25 leads from ABC and 25 leads from XYZ.  They call 3-4 leads from ABC and no one wants to set an appointment—they discard the balance of the leads and complain ‘this media is worthless’. Similarly, if they call 3 people from XYZ and make two appointments, and sell one of them—they plead for more-and-more advertising in XYZ. My experience is that you cannot have 'raw' leads sent to distributors—they'll end up discarding at least 50% of them for emotional, irrational reasons.  You must have all leads come to a central place, where they are key-entered and a report is sent to the distributors that has the source 'coded'....all the leads always look exactly the same.”

That makes great sense of course.  But what happens if you don’t have the infrastructure to handle and distribute the leads on a timely basis? In a consumer situation like hearing aids, you may not need instantaneous follow up to the leads. If information gets back to the consumer within a week (unless it’s to be delivered via email), that may be sufficient. In b2b lead generation, waiting a week to follow up can really hurt you.

back to top

To unsubscribe, type “No More” in the subject line and e-mail to lmstein@leemarcstein.com.