Advertisement Critique...

I totally agree with Colin. It's a very pretty picture, but it ain't an ad. It may bring in a few responses - depending on the circuatlation numbers, and the competition but not anywhere near what a proper ad would do. And just because everybody else is doing it, doesn't make it right or good. Many of the award winning ads at the art level fail at the sales level. And sales is what it is all about.

 

My advice that I give my clients when they want to do something stupid - take the money you would spend on this ad, go down to your favorite watering hole and spend it there. At least you will get some use out of the money.

For those that are making the comment "times have changed" all I can say is this.

 

I have a friend who works for a company based in Kansas that all they do is Grand Openings, stock liquidations, and store close outs, and they do them across North America from small towns in the middle of no-where to New York and LA.

 

They have a very set program that they follow for every store, whether it is a high end clothing store, or a everything for a dollar store. They use the same ad slicks, the same copy, the same techniques, no matter what the store is, and in six to eight weeks, depending on the amount of inventory, they will sell you out to the bare walls.

 

Now he has been doing this for 15 years, and has lost track of the number of customers, who have said - "You know, I read about that, but I never thought it would work for my store! I guess I should have done it that way, maybe I would still be in business."

 

Now here is the kicker - the procedure book that they use, the ad slicks that they use, the marketing methods that they use, were written back in 1930. They worked then, they still work just as effectively today.

<p><em>the marketing methods that they use, were written back in 1930. They worked

then, they still work just as effectively today</em></p>

 

<p>For commoditised products only.</p>

 

<p>Dave, judging from your description it's fairly clear that your friend's business deals in

commoditised high street products (easily replicated; differentiated on price; readily

available; aimed at mass-market). Unfortunately the same marketing techniques do not in

any way apply to higher value brands or services. Brand positioning is governed by

advertising style. Adopting the same techniques for a weding business would position it

firmly in the sub $500 category.</p>

This is an excellent discussion with some great contributions on the effectiveness of

advertising. I am presently trying to design an advertisement for this forum, with great

difficulty. This great discussion thread has shown me that good advice in that regard exists

within the forum users.

.02 more ... Checking your site the photo that caught my eye was this same scene, but with the shadows of the bride and groom - it provoked more thought on my behalf which is not an easy accomplishment;)

 

Personally, something like this on the little more abstract side would make me want to look further into seeing what you are all about at your site, but then again I'm not a bride looking for a photographer;-)

Regarding advertising I have to agree with Marc, it has changed. Less then 6 years ago when I worked for an ad agency in Las Vegas I brought the Creative Director the book, "Ogilvy on Advertising," and was obsessed with the ad "giants." In less then 6 years that agency has dramatically changed the way they do business on every level including the traditional functions of agency staff and their relationship with clients and audience. I like your image Todd as far as composition, but thinking as a bride it would not appeal to me on an emotional level.

It's a photo that would catch my eye and I love the simplicity. I live in a big destination wedding area and some of the ads that I see with every inch covered in a different photo to show as much of their work as they can just look awfull. As for cramming in more info, that's what your website is for. IMHO:)

Dave, you are confusing hard sell retail advertising with brand advertising.

 

 

Stores don't make the products or build the brand's position in the marketplace ... they

compete to sell more of the established items than their competition, which is usually

price item advertising. But that is now changing also. Just look at the Target advertising

that took their competition by storm in the past few years.

 

Retailers couldn't sell anything if the consuming public didn't already want it ... which is

the job of the brand advertising. Position the product or service relevant to the consumer's

need set ... be it emotional or logical, or both. Weddings are a prime example of the

suspension of logic where the heart commands the brain.

 

That's the key. Understand the consumer, not what they say, but what they actually do.

 

Wedding photographers are first and foremost a Brand. We are a luxury item ... the more

cache' the better. If we are priced better than the competition, the consumer sees it as a

value, not a discount or fire sale.

Oh boy ...

 

... where to start!

 

Yes it does sound like the kind of ad you hear on late night TV (infomercials). The advertising agencies typically buy that (otherwise wasted time) at a huge discount or (preferably) pay for it on a results basis (which is absolutely, catagorically the best way to go). Like it or not, these ads work - and the creators know that they work because they track the results to a fraction of a cent - and keep doing it. Here's a test for Todd - work out how many responses you need to make the cost of the ad worthwhile - go ask the magazine if they think it's likely it'll produce that many (and notice how their body language stats to get somewhat defensive at this point!) - then ask them if you can pay for it on an agreed "per response" basis - hell, if it's as good as they'll have you believe then they'll make more money - and if it doesn't work then I'm sure that they wouldn't have wanted to have taken your money for something of theirs that didn't work (I'm sure they're eithical and moral people ;). (go on - if nothing else, do it for a bit of fun :) I'll tell you now - they won't have a bar of it. Why? Good question - after all, aren't they the experts in this kind of investment? Or do they really not give a toss and are really only interesting in selling column inches? (getting a little warmer?).

 

Re: The promise to restage etc. It's called risk reversal. When people engage your services they're taking a risk - a huge risk in the case of weddings - basically the risk that the photographer will stuff things up and the moments from this once in a lifetime event have been lost forever. If you can reverse that by showing that the risk rests with you, not them, it's a VERY powerful sales tool. But you don't do this "willy nilly". None of this is designed to con people - you do have to deliver the promised result. Many switched on advertisers run this strategy - and yes, you do get a very small percentage who will rip you off - but in the vast vast vast majority of cases - if you deliver the promised result (at a much higher price-point none-the-less), people won't take advantage of you. This isn't theory - this is proven fact - but you have to execute the strategy properly. It's been used with dentistry where he "guarantee no pain" - did it work? Well you can only get to see this guy by referral, and he charges a truckload. It's been done with pest elimination. Did it work? Well apparantly even the competition says "when it comes to pest elimination, there is only this guy". I've used it myself - worked great. I've used this with clients personally - worked for them too. Most people are good people - if you treat them fairly and with respect.

 

On "people won't read all that text". It depends. If the headline doesn't attract their attention then you're quite right. If you see a newspaper headline about local body politics - and local body politics don't interest you, then you won't read it. If you're being treated for breast cancer - and you read a headline for an article that describes better success rates with this new technique you'll read every last word - you'll rip the article out of whereever it is and you'll stop everything else that you're doing and followup on it right away. Personally I'd research other headlines as well - but if it's something of interest or relevance then they'll read it (I'll bet you all did!). Claude Hopkins once wrote an ad for Schlitz <sp?> beer - it was a whole page of 8 point type - and targeted at beer drinkers for goodness sake. Can you even think of a group less likely to read a full page, 8 point ad? Well that ad single-handedly took Schlitz from 5th to 1st equal in the market.

 

Again, results are all that count - and dated as this style seems it's still used by those who know what they're doing because it works - and they know it works because they measure the results. The biggest problem with the vast majority of ads like Todd's is that there is no mechanism to test it's effectiveness - so in months to come (when things are a bit desperate) they ring up and say "how are things going" - you reply "bit quiet actually" - to which they reply "well, you have to spend money to make money - best we run the ad again" to which you think "Well, I can't really afford it, but I've got to do something - well, OK then" - and the cycle continues. David Ogilvy - back in his day - said that 50% of advertising just doesn't work - it costs the advertiser more than they receive in revenue. I suspect that the percentage of failed ads is much higher today.

 

Re: Branding. Please don't associate any of this with brand building - this is a totally different concept and a totally different league to the millions spent by the big boys. I'll bet the OP can't afford to run this kind of thing for 6 months (in a variety of media) to build brand awareness, and then test that awareness with Gallup polls.

 

People like to tell me that my way of doing it doesn't work - it's old fashioned - too many words - people will rip you off etc, but at the end of the day it's PROVEN to work. The late David Ogilvy used to suffer the same fate - but the bottom line was he outsold all of these "new age creative geniuses" combined. Is it the best marketing strategy for photography? - well frankly no - none of this is (I'd be looking far more towards building referral strategies for that), but that's outside of what we're discussing!

 

Results are all that count! The basics (or the ones that work) never change - what are they again?

 

* Advertising is salesmanship in print

 

* Advertising is salesmanship multiplied by the media

 

* Advertising results must be measured

 

* Advertising must produce more in profits than it costs to run.

 

Will Todds ad fit even these criteria? Hope so Todd, but I just can't see it.

 

Sorry this is a bit "dis-jointed" - there were a few too many different posts to respond to individually!

 

Final thought: It's an invalid argument to say "heaps of others run Todd's kind of ad in these types of magazine too etc" - just because they run them doesn't mean to say that they're profitable. And in most cases they don't have a way to measure the results so they don't even know that it's not profitable.

 

Final thought: No advertising should sound cheezy - I really don't approve of advertisements that take advantage of people, or fail to deliver on the promised result. A good advertisement will give people good reasons to buy from you - oriented around relevant points of percieved differentiation is fantastic, but in essence it's nothing more than you'd tell them if they were standing in front of you.

 

 

 

Marc

 

Brand advertising is all well and fine if you are a large corporation with lots of money. Even then it's questionable.

 

If you are a small, one man shop - which most photograhers are, then you need to do marketing that works. You don't have the money to spend enough to establish a "Brand"

 

But there is a simple way to find out which is better. Get the magazine to do a split run - half have the proposed ad. The other half have an ad like what Colin has suggested, and see which one pulls better.

Building long term Brand equity isn't the issue. Positioning Todd's Brand of wedding

photography is the issue. That's what "Brand" verses "Retail" means in this context. The

smallest advertiser can effectively use the principles of Brand positioning. These days

"attitude" sells.

 

 

Todd is offering fulfillment of dreams, not selling risk aversion insurance or roach killer.

I can't imagine Todd using all kinds of hard sell to get a Bride to buy something she

doesn't want. If she sees what she wants, then the job is done. The photography IS the

product AND the message ... the very thing the consumer is looking for. Hard sell will just

drag down the prestige of his offering.

 

If Todd were a hack in an ocean of hacks, then I could see resorting to ancillary tactics. Or

if he were breaking into a new market that parity competitors had a strangle hold on.

 

 

The advertising samples used above are ancient. ( where is Shiltz now? Buried by the

Coronas of the world who killed them with contemporary consumer positioning ) That old

school stuff was great and worked then, when conditions and consumers were far different

than now.

 

 

BTW, the father of modern advertising wasn't any of the above ... it was Bill Bernback

known as the "father of the creative revolution" by putting art directors and writers

together as a team... the guy saw the future and paved the way there.

 

Think of the most modern successful brands and what their advertising looks and sounds

like now, not 40 years ago, or even 20 years ago.

<i>But there is a simple way to find out which is better. Get the magazine to do a split run - half have the proposed ad. The other half have an ad like what Colin has suggested, and see which one pulls better.</i><P>

It's not really that simple. A client who books you because they can have you reshoot if they're unhappy and because they get an extra album for free isn't the equivalent of a client who books you because they really like your style. If you want to know which ad works better for Todd's business, you'd need to look at the profit generated.

You know, I give exactly the same guarantee on my photography. If you don't like it, I will either reshoot it, or give you all your money back. Since 1982 when I started, I have had to honor that guarantee exactly once, and it was my fault. In a hurry, I put all the film in for processing at the same time, and the processor died, so I lost all the film from the wedding. I brought all the family back into town, put them up in hotel rooms, paid all their expenses, rented the tuxedos, etc. and in the end, I still made money on the wedding.

 

But go ahead, waffle on the guarantee, it's one of my main selling features, and my weddings start at $15,000. For that I do not shoot thousands of images, I do not give the client the files on CD, I do not give them a proof book, I don't have a website, I do not put the files up on the internet for them to order from. Qite frankly, I don't think I am that good of a photographer. Lucky for me that my customers do think I am that good.

I should also add, that my competition in this area starts at $499 for a full day coverage and thousands of images burned to CD and given to the bride. Yes she shoots more weddings than I do, but she has to shoot 30 weddings to gross what I do on one. If she gets one wedding a every weekend for a year, she doesn't make as much as I do on two weddings. The rest of the competition is in the $1,500 range.

<b><center>A final comment ...</b></center><p>

 

Thanks everyone for the discussion - it's been fun :)<p>

 

I've got to say that I really don't miss my "previous life" in advertising & marketing consultancy & business building too much! I still find the concepts & systems exciting, but it takes so much energy to overcome the "enertia" of "old habits" for so many people - I'm feeling a bit too old for it!

<p>

<b>Todd:</b> (if you're still with us!), you've received lots of good food for though - the final decision is up to you. If you run it, and it returns a profit then that's fantastic - if you run it and it doesn't work then at least you know what doesn't work, and perhaps now have a few good leads as to where to get a heads up on some different approaches. Whatever you do, find a way to test and measure the results so that you've got a benchmark to compare different approaches against.

<p>

<b>Dave:</b> Congratulations on being one of the very few to not only understand risk reversal, but to also go the other 99% and put it into practice - the irony is that the more our collegues reject it (and/or fail to execute it properly), the more we continue to benefit from it - despite our best efforts to "give away the farm"!

<p>

<b>Marc:</b> I do understand where you're coming from - but in my opinion, for it to work in a situation like this, it would have to be an absolute stunner of an image - something that would literally stop a bride-to-be dead in her tracks and have her reaching for her PC. In my opinion, the existing image - pleasant as it was - is a long way from being even close to meeting this requirement. Sorry to be that brutal Todd! - please don't take it as a criticism of your photography - you're better at it than I'll ever be!

<p>

It would be fun to continue the discussion, but I think we've pretty much come full circle - and I do have a business to run amongst these time-consuming replies.

<p>

Cheers everyone,

<p>

Colin

Dave, good for you. Commanding that kind of fee is to be congratulated no matter how

you got there. BTW, I think one of our members here also guarantees a certain amount

images ... I recall C-Jo has said something to that effect. He is a more traditional shooter,

so I could see how that would work. Photojournalistic styles may be more difficult to apply

a guarantee to since it's a far less structured approach and difficult to specify what you are

guaranteeing.

 

Colin, it is very good to have these type discussions to forward as much information to

potential wedding advertisers to select from. While we do not necessarily agree, and may

appear to be polar opposites, I suspect there is a median somewhere in there.

 

What hasn't been fully touched on is how to go about the process in the first place. A little

home work will go a long way in deciding what to do with an ad to draw business.

 

Study the media you are going to use. Ask the publication for demographic and

psychographics information on their readers. Try to figure out what is on the Brides mind.

It isn't always the obvious, so you have to dig. I once was in a focus group of new car

buyers. One commanding person rattled on and on about all the practical aspects of a

Chevy sedan. When asked what car he finally did buy, the loud mouth sheepishly answered

a Camaro.

 

Get a copy of the publication, and study the ads for wedding photographers. What the

competition is doing is a key factor. Ask the publication if any wedding photographer has

run a long schedule of ads. If there is one that has appeared continuously, especially study

that one ... no one runs an ad over and over that doesn't work ... especially an individual

who's paying for it out of their own pocket.

 

So, once you know who you are talking to, and what competition you are up against, study

your product. How does it differ? How does it compare to the competition? Will that

difference be relevant to the target's needs and desires? The difference has to be readily

apparent, not subtile. Consumers, even self selected ones, will only give you a few seconds

of their time before moving on.

 

In the end, we all have to ask ourselves what we want. We are in business for ourselves. If

Todd wants the type of work suggested by the image he chose, then an ad should reflect

that. The key question is whether the Brides out there want that look and feel.

 

Colin may not feel it is a definitive image, but others here have loved it. The important

unanswered question is whether the target audience will be drawn to it. Todd isn't selling

to other wedding photographers, nor to some ad guys.

 

Personally, I think the ad needs at least a headline, and said so. It is the content of the

headline where Colin and I disagree. Upon studying Todds' web site, I also feel he has

better images than the one he chose. He has equally impactful images with more of the

humanity that is the mindset of the target consumer. But that is strictly informed

subjectivity.

 

Here is one of my favorite small ads that worked like crazy without a guarantee or money

off or any other text except the location and phone number. It was for a barber shop:

 

Headline:

 

 

A bad haircut can make anyone look stupid.

 

Photo of Einstein.

Marc

 

You are right, we have spent so much time discussing the content of the ad, we totally missed if it should even be run in that publication. It doesn't matter how good an ad is, if the publication doesn't hit your target market.

 

There is also a huge difference between press run, distribution, and readership. Look for some independent manner of establishing those numbers. For example in my market (I actual run newsapers for a living) my competitors claims for distribution are impossible. In a market of nine newspapers, we are the only one that offers to advertisers a copy of our statement of mailing to prove distribution.

 

But back to headlines, the absolute best response I have gotten is from the following headline: 5 things to avoid when picking your wedding photographer. Then body copy that goes to the emotional and one time nature of weddings, and call to action is to request a copy of my free booklet 5 things to avoid when picking your wedding photographer.

 

I don't use it anymore because it generates far more leads than I care to follow-up on. So now I use, Wedding Bells in your future? Call today for your free copy of our Wedding Planner. When the bride calls in for her copy, I talk with her briefly about her wedding, and from that decide if she is somebody that I want to pursue as a customer. If she is I have a direct mail approch that I will use, if not I just send out the wedding planner.

 

The material doesn't have to be expensive to be effective. Back when I was just starting out, I used to send a hand written letter to all the new-borns in the area inviting them in for their first official portrait. I would follow it up with a phone call about 10 days after I mailed the letter. It was hand written because I didn't have enough money to afford a typewritter to send out a "professional letter". But I booked ove 90 per cent of those I sent the letter to. They thought the hand-written letter on a piece of foolscap was so personal that they just had to get their babies photos done by me. Back then (early-mid 80's) I was pulling off about a $500 average for each session, and I got them at 3,6,9 and 12 months, so $2000 in total in the first year. That got them lots of pictures. Today it might get them a couple of 5x7's and an 8x10.

That's a good one. Offering information just when the Bride starts her planning. Indears you

to her so at the very least you are on the shopping list. Doesn't cost you much more.

 

The key still has to be that how you shoot is what she wants. That's the part that has

dramatically changed with a whole new segment of shooters doing the candid imagery. But,

that could be addressed also, same tactic, different times.

Dave,

 

These strategies you use - surely they can't still work in this day and age - cripes - they're the kinds of things that our advertising grandfathers came up with! <wink wink>.

 

The more things change, the more some things stay the same eh? :) ...

 

... perhaps "Customer Service" isn't an oxymoron in this day and age after all!

 

Cheers,

 

Colin