Freaking Marketing

Speaking of John Caples --

Here's what I wrote in 1999 about John Caples and what was arguably the greatest mail order ad of all time:

It's hard to imagine that John Caples was virtually a virgin copywriter at Ruthrauff & Ryan in 1925 when he penned this masterpiece. To fully appreciate his contribution, consider the state of the art at the time.

The roaring 20s were a time when many mail order copywriters were still influenced by rock 'em, sock 'em medical potion peddlers. At the other end of the spectrum were advertising stylists like Raymond Rubicam, Theodore MacManus and Jack Rosebrook.

John Caples came along and created a hybrid genre, fusing style with salesmanship. "They laughed when I sat down..." even by today's standards is a rarity: a mail order ad backed by a big idea. See gang, it really can be done. And Caples was doing it way back when your grandfather was out trying to score some bootleg booze.

This engineer-turned-copywriter eschewed the opinions of his persuasive but misguided contemporaries. He demanded facts. Caples was an early advocate of source codes to track advertising results. He pioneered the use of split-run tests of different ads to sell the same product in the same publication at the same time. And he proved that in many cases, the more you tell, the more you sell.

John Caples generously shared what he learned in some of the most important advertising books ever written. In fact, in the foreword to the seminal Tested Advertising Methods, Caples disciple David Ogilvy called this copywriter "one of the most effective there has ever been."

In 1973, John Caples was inducted into the Copywriters' Hall of Fame and assumed his rightful place next to the other giants of advertising. All direct marketers owe much to this humble man who gave us so much.

Don't Be An Oldies Act

Know what bugs me about the direct marketing industry? All those damn tribute bands.

I'm talking about groups that have absolutely no interest in breaking new ground, and largely rip off the work of dead direct marketing legends.

They say they're doing what's "tried and true." I say they're costing today's businesses a lot of money.

Ads that were cash cows yesterday would be worth less than horseshit today. Don't believe me? Just test a dusty old headline like "Here's an Extra $50, Grace -- I'm Making Real Money Now" against a contemporary approach that nails the really big elements. But don't say I didn't warn ya.

Bill Bernbach put it best when he said, "Speak in today's idiom."

I certainly don't mean to disparage the direct marketing Hall of Famers -- especially the ones who took the time to teach people like me what they learned. I read the John Caples bestseller Tested Advertising Methods in one weekend and never forgot the incredible lessons, many of which are as relevant today as ever (see the power of "free").

The trick is to not just climb on the backs of giants. Instead, we should leverage the enormous body of knowledge direct marketers accumulated over the past century -- and build on it.

He Stood Tall and So Should We

Major League Baseball is debating whether to retire the No. 42 Roberto Clemente wore during eighteen amazing years with the Pirates. If approved, no big leaguer will ever be allowed to wear that number again. To date, the only player to receive that honor was Jackie Robinson, who broke baseball's color barrier in 1947.

If you're able to recall Roberto Clemente's playing days, you probably know how his life ended. Here's the short of it for younger readers: After a devastating earthquake hit Nicaragua in 1972, under poor weather conditions, Clemente chartered a plane and filled it with relief supplies. Shortly after takeoff, the plane went down off the coast of his homeland, Puerto Rico. Clemente's body was never found.

I saw the great Roberto Clemente through a child's eyes, but remember how one batter, after hitting a huge shot off the right field wall in Pittsburgh, wouldn't even dare try for a double because he feared Clemente would throw him out.

I also recall the man's pride.

This past Monday, in a New York Times story, Honor a Legacy, Not a Number, William C. Rhoden shared some telling insights:

"He was the first player I remember standing up for himself...The first time I heard the criticism that an athlete had an 'attitude problem' was in connection with Clemente. As I got older I realized that 'attitude problem' was a sportswriters' buzz phrase for athletes who stand up for themselves, and minority -- especially black -- athletes who do. That is what I first and always admired about Clemente. He stood up."

After I read this, I realized this is precisely what way, way more marketing people need to do: Stand up for themselves.

Why do those numbers-crunching, penny-pinching, risk-averse direct marketers offer full money-back guarantees?

Because they almost always pay out.

When you think about all the stuff that gets sold via direct marketing, it seems counterintuitive to offer unconditional money-back guarantees. After all, couldn't that book buyer simply read the book in one weekend and promptly return it? And how about all those people who buy an outfit for a single event, figuring they'll send it back after they wear it once?

Yeah, some people abuse money-back guarantees, and a tiny percentage are serial offenders. But this is ultimately a mathematical exercise, and these offers usually do win in net net terms. Basically, the increased revenues as a result of guarantees are generally a lot higher than the costs.

And here's a little secret direct marketers rarely talk about: The vast majority of customers never bother to return stuff that does what it's supposed to do. Years ago, we surveyed how-to book buyers and were shocked to learn that the majority never even read the book -- but never returned the thing.

Customers don't want to figure out where to send it, write an adequate note, re-wrap it, and bring it to the post office. That's why some wily marketers even offer 110% guarantees, which essentially mean they'll pay customers who return the product.

Average CMO Half Life Falls Below One Year

According to BtoB, average CMO tenure is down to just 23.2 months. The article states, "The job of CMO has become one of the highest-stressed, shortest-tenured in American industry."

The author, Kate MacArthur, presents several reasons, including Wall Street pressure, lack of access to CEOs, and the failure of traditional marketing approaches.

Here's the Official Freaking Marketing take: Yeah, some CMOs shouldn't have been handed the job in the first place, others are sucking up to the CEO and other so-called "c-suite executives" on a nearly full-time basis, and quite a few simply aren't innovating fast enough. But again and again, we've seen CEOs who largely get in the way, fail to give campaigns an adequate chance, and play "blame the chief marketing officer" as soon as sales head south.

CEOs who force capable marketing chiefs out the door shoot themselves in the foot. (It just takes a little while in some cases for the injuries to be visible.) Here's a link to the online version of the article, Average CMO tenure drops to 23.2 months.

GIGO

GIGO, which stands for "Garbage In, Garbage Out," is definitely one of the most important acronyms in marketing.

Clients who give agencies piss-poor input see bad outcomes far more often than clients who do the opposite. Which brings us back to this saying: Clients tend to get the advertising they deserve.

I know how tempting it is to go for expediency over quality. Most of us are pretty busy these days. And I also know clients have the right to give their agencies mediocre input, or worse. They just shouldn't expect us to weave straw into gold.

One of our clients said it well: "I know we'll get out of this what we put into it."

Be Not Afraid Of Marketing Innovation

Our first t-shirt was emblazoned with a maxim: "Playing it safe is risky business."

At the time, we actually had to sell people on creative innovation. Then their response rates tanked and the chronically risk-averse marketers started telling us they liked our "out-of-the-box" thinking.

Of course, what folks who previously had no use for us really liked was our ability to potentially save their asses -- and help make them look like superstars.

In a number of cases, we did just that. But a lot of marketers simply couldn't make the leap and went down with the creaky old ship.

It didn't have to be that way.

Marketing innovation isn't a black art -- and it certainly doesn't have to be a terrifying proposition. Every creatively-focused agency I know of has a method to the madness.

We call it "controlled chaos," and it has little or nothing to do with the ever-popular stereotypes (i.e. antisocial pot smokers working in a vacuum).

At our shop, we start by circulating a client questionnaire, to pick brains in an orderly manner. Then we do a diverse set of one-on-one interviews with key "reference people." We study the client's marketing history and the work of competitors. And we read everything that's relevant.

From there, we collect a shitload of ideas. Then we pass 'em through our filter, and only present ideas we're prepared to stand behind. The mediocre ones never leave the office.

Clients approve an idea they see in the first round a good eighty percent of the time. It's amazing how often they're willing to reject the status quo and embrace unconventional approaches. I think it's because they really respond to a methodical problem-solving process that involves the right people in the right ways at the right times.

And maybe they just know that mediocrity isn't an option.

The Difference between Prostitutes and Advertising People

Prostitutes don't work for free -- but advertising people regularly develop full-blown campaigns without charging a cent.

It's called working on "spec," and it's one of the most absurd practices in this business.

Spec work reduces the quality of advertising for paying clients. Agencies that regularly chase spec opportunities generally spend a large chunk of their available time on new business pitches. And don't think for a minute that agency executives assign rookies to these high-stakes situations. No way. Usually, a large or small agency's best minds are asked to contribute. As a result, paying clients get the short end of the stick.

Spec work is totally unnecessary. Very often, an agency gets to do only a fraction of its typical due diligence during a spec exercise, which means clients don't get an accurate view of what each agency can do. Another contributor to the distortion is the fact that people who work on spec campaigns aren't necessarily the ones who work on the account after the ink dries on the contract. And by advancing literally half-baked ideas, the client runs the risk of implementing an inferior campaign. Clients can learn what they need to know by studying each agency's prior work, accomplishments, and methodology -- and by speaking with agency members and clients.

Spec work reduces the quality of advertising for clients who request it. Here's a great example of clients getting the advertising they deserve: If you hired an agency after coaxing them into spending a lot of time on a spec campaign, guess who'll often be partially available or out of commission when you need them? The same talented people you hired to solve your marketing problems. Even if they actually work on your account, they may operate with lingering resentment from the spec ordeal, and not put forth their best effort. And remember that some agencies -- including Mothers of Invention -- routinely reject these invitations for philosophical and workload reasons. (You may want to ask yourself, "If they're so great, why do they have so much time available to work for free?") Your best agency may be the one that never enters the competition.

Spec work is unfair. I know, I know -- some people don't give a damn about fair and unfair. But I know plenty of client-side managers who believe in paying professionals for their time. If you'd never think of asking a renowned surgeon to do a procedure on you for free as part of an audition -- or if you'd never spend countless hours working for a potential employer without pay -- why put highly accomplished advertising people in that position? For sure, many clients do it simply because they can. But just because they can, does that mean they should?