Should Branding Drive Direct Marketing Creative?
In some refreshingly frank language, H. Gordon Lewis, expert copywriter and author of 31 books as well as David Lewis, President and CEO of Merkle commented on this very question in the October 29, 2007 issue of DM News.
You can find these comments online on www.dmnews.com under the title “Does brand have a place in today’s DM?”
Here are some things they wrote.
H. Gordon Lewis excerpts:
“I have no problem with brand advertising, but would argue the same amount of money can be used to generate more revenue and loyalty than brand.
_______
If you have a budget of half a million dollars, how much do you want to spend on selling something and how much do you spend to build an image? A lot of people use brand marketing as a crutch. My position is looking at the bottom line. In direct marketing, we build lists of customers who buy product and that is gold. Anything else is false gold or some kind of alloy.”
David Williams excerpts:
“I think both camps have lost focus on what is truly important --- [that is, to develop] multimedia strategies and programs that enhance the value of relationships with consumers over time.
_______
The challenge today is not about which approach is better; it is figuring out how to create an effective blend of universal, unique offers and messages delivered through multiple media at the right time to drive results.”
The editor of the magazine made this assessment of these two articles.
“… Williams just beats him to the punch with an argument that speaks to longer-term relationship… just as direct focuses and amplifies branding, branding can drive direct.”
Do you think branding can drive direct as stated by the editor? Do branders give you sway on creating “unique offers” designed to drive results as stated by David Williams? Do you think direct marketers have missed the point in the discussion? Is this really a case of just missing the point?
Posted on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 12:41PM
by
Ted Grigg
in Direct Response creative, Direct Marketing Strategy
|
4 Comments
Ted Grigg
in Direct Response creative, Direct Marketing Strategy
|
4 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (4)
First off, I don't think that Williams "beat him to the punch". Williams mentions "relationships over time" and "drive results", but Lewis uses the terms "revenue" and "loyalty". How is that Williams beating Lewis to the punch of getting to long-term relationship?
Second, I have an issue with the word "drive". Why should brand "drive" direct? The two should be integrated and work together to drive results. Each have different business objectives and contribute in different ways throughout a customer's lifecycle.
Williams starts off well w/ his comment, but devolves into marketing pablum (the right message at the right time, blah blah blah).
The "challenge today" is understanding what leads consumers to pick with -- and stay with -- a provider, and how marketing's efforts and investments can answer those questions and help deliver on the answers.
Sounds to me like Williams just wants to sell media mix models.
A couple of things worth saying about this. In business school, one theory of advertising that's taught is that it's purpose is really an onstentatious show (like the peacock's feathers) to persuade customers, "we can so easily afford to blow big bucks on advertising that you can count on us to be around and back our products."
To the extent you buy this argument, you'll value brand advertising and marketing. There's certainly something to the notion of creating market awareness of one's firm as a robust market leader. That's what blogging's about too, after all.
At the same time there's a need to make buyers aware of specific offers, features and benefits. That's where direct comes in and it's hard to argue against the need for short term results around specific opportunities.
It strikes me that depending what you're selling, what sort of industry you're in, what stage of development your firm is in (and probably a few other factors, like whether your industry's fragmented or consolidated), you will need a different balance of branding and direct - so there's no single answer to this age old question, other than, "it depends."
- Adam
"The two should be integrated and work together to drive results."
That's the challenge Ron. The concept sounds great until you realize that branders are not about driving results. So you have two objectives competing for preeminence. You can't accomplish these two objectives to the fullest extent in the same creative execution.
To do it, something has to get watered down.
Branders want you to feel good about the product and direct marketers want you to respond.
In real life, the two sides really do not get along too well when trying to create direct response creative work under the cloud that brand is everything.
These strategies work better together when they are apart. Positioning advertisements focus on positioning and awareness. And direct response advertising focuses on getting a direct response. They can recognize, and even compliment each other. But the campaigns are driven by different objectives.
By the way, I smiled when you used the term "marketing pablum" when referring to William's comments. My thoughts exactly.
Interesting perspective you give for image advertising Adam. I've never heard it told quite that way before. There is truth in what you say.
I also think that a lot of advertising is driven by vanity as much as it is by the numbers.
I remember when Airborne was emerging as a market leader about 20 years ago. They were spending about one million dollars a year in direct mail using what was then a state-of-the-art BtoB database. Their sales were growing at 30% a year.
But the owner (primary owner) at the time was upset that his wealthy neighbors and friends never heard of his company. So he stopped direct mail and increased his budget to about $10 million/year for TV image advertising. That's a tenfold budget increase. His revenue growth dropped immediately even though his competitors were still growing at the same clip they had in the past.
Did they ever go back to direct mail? Of course not. At least for a number of years they did not revive their powerful direct mail programs. Why? Because now everybody at least knew who they were --- especially the owner's neighbors.
Why not just maintain direct mail and overlay a general advertising campaign? They had the money to do it? Perhaps the general advertising agency at the time convinced them that direct mail was a waste of money and that they should divert it to awareness advertising? Just a guess ...