January 13, 2003
Smackdown on Madison Avenue - Part TwoPeter Hutchinson
Like cattle in the stockyard, media willingly allow themselves to be herded into separate holding pens, one labeled consumer, the other labeled business-to-business or "trade". An in the pens they stay, neatly divided. In preparing creative, don't get too hung up on the consumer vs. business-to-business distinction. It can distract from the job at hand . . . and it's arbitrary anyway. Following are several case studies of which ads pulled most effectively.
In this issue of DMN we continue our look at the performance of real ads in the real world. This month we'll examine some business-to-business ads with a technical slant –– slightly different than the consumer-oriented ads of last month. But before we welcome this month's contenders to the ring, let's pause for a moment to consider the b-to-b vs. consumer distinction, which is so frequently taken for granted. Like cattle at the stockyard, media willingly allow themselves to be herded into separate holding pens, one labeled consumer, the other labeled business-to-business or “trade.” And in the pens they stay, neatly divided. I think the distinction may be unfair. The basic principles of brand building and the guiding rules of advertising apply whether you're marketing to consumers or to corporations, because in every case you're selling to a human who will respond to human interests. Granted, there's a big difference between selling a couple of cans of oil to a motorist and selling several thousand gallons of the stuff to a trucking company. But both purchases have a number of things in common — not the least of which is the fact that each is made by a person with the same emotions, passions, and desire for value as everyone else. In the software development market, the issue is compounded by the fact that many software professionals have turned their personal interest in software into a profession. So they're both prospective consumers and prospective business buyers. My two cents: in preparing creative, don't get too hung up on the consumer vs. business-to-business distinction. It can distract from the job at hand … and it's arbitrary anyway. Round One Our examples were measured by Readex, a research firm that quantifies reader interest in advertisements, and some of them date back a bit. Here's one from the dawn of desktop computing. Remember Victor Business Products? Victor's Model 9000 was “priced under $5,000” and competed with the Apple III, among others. I think that takes us back about two decades, Mr. Peabody. Victor pitched the 9000 in two different ads. Ad A featured a large picture of the computer. The headline, in the lower right of the page, says, “A desktop computer designed for business people by business people.” The body copy, set in white against the picture's dark background, talks about applications the system could run and Victor's experience in solving business problems. Ad B featured a slightly smaller picture. At the top of the page, the headline reads, “Compare desktop computers… You'll pick Victor.” The copy, set in black over a white background, mentions that the system is versatile and powerful. Copy includes a large chart that occupies almost a third of the page. The chart is a feature comparison between the Victor 9000 and its competition: the IBM PC, the Xerox 820, the Apple III, and the Tandy Model II, classics all. Which ad scored highest? Ad B, as I'm sure you recognized immediately. Why did Ad B win? We can point to Ad A's white-on-black text and the unconventional placement of its headline in the lower right. These certainly didn't help its score. The clincher, though, is the chart in Ad B. The chart does two very important things. First, it provides a set of product specifications that people buying computers want to know and compare. Always remember: when selling to techs, don't neglect specs. The rule of thumb is that the more technical the audience, the bigger a role specifications should play in an ad. Second, the chart turns the ad from a boast to a proof. Copy that says, in effect, “We're great,” simply doesn't have the same impact as copy that says, “We're great –– and we can prove it.” Round Two Our next bout moves us out of the digital realm and into the world of industrial safety. The Protectoseal Company sells a safety can, a container designed to transport highly flammable contents, and pitches the can in these two ads: Ad A features a picture of the can right in the center of the page. The headline above the picture says, “Safety without compromise.” The body copy –– nine paragraphs of it –– wraps around the picture. The copy describes important features of the can. Ad B stacks a headline above a central picture, with the body copy at the bottom of the page. The picture features a handsome Dalmatian resting its paw on a Protectoseal safety can. The headline says, “Fire protection's best friend.” Four paragraphs of body copy describe the features. The winner? Ad A. Down, boy! Heel! The principle that worked best for Victor works best for Protectoseal: when marketing to a technical audience, specs will boost an ad's performance. In this case, nine paragraphs of feature-oriented copy and a straightforward illustration beat four paragraphs of copy and a clever metaphor. Prospective customers have to work a little harder to understand the point in Ad B. Ad A spells out the product's benefits clearly and in detail. Round Three Our next two contenders come from Champion, the spark plug people. Spark plugs aren't generally thought to be exotic or exciting, and, as you might guess, the two ads we're comparing look pretty similar if you squint. Each has a big headline and a cutaway illustration of Champion's new “Iridium” plug for airplane engines. The headline of Ad A says, “Introducing Champion Iridium ‘S' spark plugs.” Two paragraphs of copy tell you that the new plugs resist fouling and deliver exceptional performance. The headline of Ad B says, “Champion Iridium ‘S'. Superior to platinum from the ground up.” Four paragraphs of copy tell you that independent tests confirm the plug's superior engineering. Care to guess the winner? Yep, you're right: Ad B. A new product introduction is a bright and shining moment for a manufacturer, but it isn't necessarily such a big deal for prospective customers. So “new” is a good attention-getter, but “new and improved” is better. The difference between the two is that “new and improved” suggests a benefit to the customer, a benefit that can be spelled out in body copy, as Champion does in Ad B. When Ad B refers to independent tests, they're providing a little of that “proof” that served Victor so well in our first example. Personally, I think Champion could have gone a lot farther with both specs and proof, considering the importance of dependability when you're 20,000 feet in the air. But they clearly went far enough to get a winning ad. Final Round Our last contestants come to us from the Bendix Corporation, manufacturers of a fine heavy-duty fan clutch. Ad A's headline reads, “Look for the label that delivers durability.” The illustration is a photograph of a pair of blue jeans, shot from the rear. On the back pocket, where the label is usually found, is an embroidered “Bendix” logo. Three paragraphs of body copy describe the features of the fan clutch and its 3-year, 300,000-mile warranty. The illustration in Ad B is a cutaway drawing of the clutch, surrounded by body copy. The headline says, “Introducing the only fan clutch with a three-year, 300,000 mile warranty.” Six paragraphs of body copy describe the clutch's features and benefits. The winner? Ad B, hands down. Like the Dalmatian in Protectoseal's Ad B, the blue jeans in Bendix's Ad A are a metaphor. In its headline and picture, Ad A makes readers think through blue jeans are durable and this Bendix clutch is as durable as a pair of jeans. That's asking the reader to do a lot of mental work in the second or two of attention the ad will command.
Ad B, on the other hand, doesn't make the reader work at all. It just
spells out why the clutch is durable and why that durability is beneficial to
a customer. For a prospect interested in fan clutches, Ad A is less relevant.
Ad B is totally relevant. What Have We Learned? We've established some pretty decent guidelines for advertising business-to-business products:
• When selling technology, don't skimp on specs. Spell them out.
As always, we're interested in your thoughts.
Peter Hutchinson Resources:
Examples are taken from Which Ad Pulled Best?, by Burton
and Purvis. Published by NTC Business Books, 1987. ISBN 0-8442-3139-8
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
