Advertising that wins awards

[joe golfer]

[Moriarty]

They're born every minute. They still think Branding is great advertising, win an award and pondlife like me wrap up the deals.

Nice one, Joe!

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

They're born every minute. They still think Branding is great advertising, win an award and pondlife like me wrap up the deals.

Nice one, Joe!

Branding IS great advertising. Problem is, lots of people creating so-called branding ads don't know what branding is.

Branding is anchoring a positive emotional state to a stimulus.

Attaching good feelings to a product or company.

Remember Pavlov?

He anchored the sound of the bell to the dog's love of food.

Pavlov branded the bell in the mind of the dog.

Pepsi consistently beats Coke in blind taste tests, but Coke far out sells Pepsi, despite equal product awareness.

That's the power of branding.

[hpgoodboy]

Originally Posted by Pusateri

Branding IS great advertising. Problem is, lots of people creating so-called branding ads don't know what branding is.

Branding is anchoring a positive emotional state to a stimulus.

Attaching good feelings to a product or company.

Remember Pavlov?

He anchored the sound of the bell to the dog's love of food.

Pavlov branded the bell in the mind of the dog.

Pepsi consistently beats Coke in blind taste tests, but Coke far out sells Pepsi, despite equal product awareness.

That's the power of branding.

No, it's not!

Here is how the largest brand did it:

1886 - Drink Coca-Cola

"1886" is not some fancy number it's the year. Yes, they did start early.

That is a brand + an order which resulted in sales which made the brand.

Them dummies now sit around there nice boardroom tables and try to create brands. LOL.

Yes, can be done but it is very expensive.

Coke did it the smart way!

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by hpgoodboy

No, it's not!

Here is how the largest brand did it:

1886 - Drink Coca-Cola

"1886" is not some fancy number it's the year. Yes, they did start early.

That is a brand + an order which resulted in sales which made the brand.

Them dummies now sit around there nice boardroom tables and try to create brands. LOL.

Yes, can be done but it is very expensive.

Coke did it the smart way!

I can't tell if you're serious. Hope not.

If you are, go check out the memorabilia markets for the two brands.

That "drink" command doesn't make people spend hundreds, even thousands, for old Coke advertising stuff.

It's an attachment to what the company stands for in their minds. That's branding.

Business owners would up the long term value of their advertising if they would insist their copywriters engage in some damn brand building in direct response ads.

Unless they're just doing one-shot transactional stuff. But why would anyone who plans to stay in business do that?

[BudaBrit]

Originally Posted by Pusateri

Branding IS great advertising. Problem is, lots of people creating so-called branding ads don't know what branding is.

Branding is anchoring a positive emotional state to a stimulus.

Attaching good feelings to a product or company.

Remember Pavlov?

He anchored the sound of the bell to the dog's love of food.

Pavlov branded the bell in the mind of the dog.

Pepsi consistently beats Coke in blind taste tests, but Coke far out sells Pepsi, despite equal product awareness.

That's the power of branding.

Pepsi tastes rubbish over here...

Which brings us to a valid point:

Consistency.

You can harm your business considerably with conflicting messages/images, so keep them consistent.

[Moriarty]

Okay, let's cut the crap. Pepsi had a challenge, and beat Coke hands down.

Coke was distraught!

Then - - - do you remember what actually happened? The people who changed to Pepsi returned to drinking Coke despite all the hype.

Nobody could work out why. Even CocaCola themselves!!

So tell me this: was all the money Pepsi spent on branding actually of any value to them in the long run?

Nope.

Everyone who liked Coke in the first place went back to it. Regardless of bells and dogs - and don't forget that those dogs could easily have been running a ring on poor Pavlov.

Branding, when carefully used is effective. It should not be used as an offensive weapon though - doing that as Pepsi did will backfire because it takes no account of why people buy Pepsi and not Coke. Understanding why people buy Pepsi will make your branding attempts 100x more effective in real terms.

That is why Branding is such rubbish advertising. Branding never takes account of what motivates people. It merely assumes in traditional cart-before-the-horse fashion that they are right because they think they are right.

Oh, and why did people go back to Coke? Well, let's think about what Pepsi did. They had three glasses of coke. You took a sip of each and made your decision.

Which is where they made their fundamental mistake. They had a bright idea, a brilliant breakthrough. A masterstroke that only a marketing department could make. They didn't think what people do when drinking coke.

It never entered their little heads!

Only with substantial outlay and much scratching of heads did they realize that people actually sit down and enjoy an entire glass of coke when relaxing. The last thing any of them do is take a sip and leave the glass on the kitchen tabletop.

Which is why everyone went back to buying Coke.

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

Okay, let's cut the crap. Pepsi had a challenge, and beat Coke hands down.

Coke was distraught!

Then - - - do you remember what actually happened? The people who changed to Pepsi returned to drinking Coke despite all the hype.

Nobody could work out why. Even CocaCola themselves!!

So tell me this: was all the money Pepsi spent on branding actually of any value to them

Objection. Straw man.

The Pepsi challenge was not a branding effort. It was an intellectual appeal.

Branding is an affair of the heart.

People went back to coke because they were emotionally invested in the brand.

Branding doesn't encompass everything that isn't direct response. There are other animals in the jungle.

[angiecolee]

If branding is such rubbish, why do manufacturers pay more for eye level shelf space? Once they're right in front of your face, that brand messaging they've been sending out for years is highly likely to sway your decision unless you shop on price alone. Unfortunately these days, many people are very aware that cheap is not always better and it's often better to buy a known brand (there's that consistency mentioned above) so they don't waste money.

Does branding push direct sales in the way sales letters and coupons, etc. do? No. Of course not.

Does it play a huge part in today's shoppers' purchasing decisions? Yes.

[BudaBrit]

Angie, yes, of course. Branding is a massive, massive thing. In the high street. I'd argue that the focus on brand online has perhaps gone too far, though, although it does depend what you consider "brand" to be.

Most buyers, online, look at price and reviews or they look at wants and needs. Unless they're buying a physical item, most of the time I don't think they'll pay too much attention to the actual brand, so long as the copy identifies with them.

Saying that, being seen more and having higher authority will lead to "better", higher paying clients in the future, so I guess it does make a huge difference: depending on definition.

[Moriarty]

Pusateri

The Pepsi challenge was not a branding effort. It was an intellectual appeal.

Branding is an affair of the heart.

People went back to coke because they were emotionally invested in the brand.

Really? Intellectual was it? Hmmm ...

The customers preferred the taste. When they sipped Pepsi, it tasted better. When they drank an entire glass - Coke tasted better than Pepsi. So much for emotion - at least where branding is concerned. Branding is part of the corporate problem - poor thinking.

Angie Colee

Does it play a huge part in today's shoppers' purchasing decisions? Yes.

Do you have any independent shops left in your area - or is it just Walmart and other Supermarkets? If so, then there is little in the way of choice in any case.

Believe me, those people who think branding is great fall for the copywriter's emotional sways every time. Why? Because branding is based on intellectual theories, and the results based on those. Dig deeper - where the intellect (reason/logic) no longer holds sway - and you find the things that really swing people's buying.

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

Really? Intellectual was it? Hmmm ...

The customers preferred the taste. When they sipped Pepsi, it tasted better. When they drank an entire glass - Coke tasted better than Pepsi. So much for emotion - at least where branding is concerned. Branding is part of the corporate problem - poor thinking.

Yes, that is the quintessential intellectual appeal. It tastes better so you should buy it.

Some people did and had a perfectly satisfactory experience. Then, back at the store, faced with the two brands side by side, the unconscious emotional associations take over and Coke goes in the basket.

Remember that most Coke drinkers never took the Pepsi Challenge and never bought Pepsi. They were not switchable for any reason.

No, the Pepsi Challenge was not a branding campaign. You are making the mistake of conflating branding with anything that is not direct response.

Branding is always always always always emotion based.

Since you seem to reject that, why don't you give us your definition of branding?

[Moriarty]

My definition of branding: attempting to speak to everyone, everywhere. Like the Walmart brand, CocaCola etc.

Now, in my defense, the results I gave to the "Pepsi Challenge" were from a scientific study way back in a magazine like the Scientific American or New Scientist (science is my background, by the way). Their analysis was succinct and clear.

Now, brand loyalty is a very large and real thing. So you would be right to claim big things for it. The problem is that when used at corporate level, most people working there will be of a similar mind. After all, CocaCola and Pepsi are rivals. They compete for much the same audience. That is when it gets expensive and ineffective.

Now my turn: please define "intellectual appeal" and "taste". Then I can shoot you down because we are limited to small spaces in making attempts to describe things that are really quite amorphous.

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

My definition of branding: attempting to speak to everyone, everywhere. Like the Walmart brand, CocaCola etc.

Now, in my defense, the results I gave to the "Pepsi Challenge" were from a scientific study way back in a magazine like the Scientific American or New Scientist (science is my background, by the way). Their analysis was succinct and clear.

Now, brand loyalty is a very large and real thing. So you would be right to claim big things for it. The problem is that when used at corporate level, most people working there will be of a similar mind. After all, CocaCola and Pepsi are rivals. They compete for much the same audience. That is when it gets expensive and ineffective.

Now my turn: please define "intellectual appeal" and "taste". Then I can shoot you down because we are limited to small spaces in making attempts to describe things that are really quite amorphous.

I need to be blunt. A worse definition of branding is not possible.

Using that definition, anything you say on the subject will be spreading disinformation.

By intellectual appeal, I mean just that. An appeal to the intellect. To reason. Logic.

More horsepower. Less sodium. Lower price.

In your attempt to shoot me down, you will probably make some argument about the intellect being the realm of the objective and taste being subjective.

If that's where you're going, let me stop you. The Pepsi Challenge, by design, put an objective facade on the subjective experience of taste. It said, "Look! Pepsi tastes better. We have proof. You should buy some."

The emotional (branded) response was, "No way, man. Coke is the REAL thing! It taught the world to sing!"

[hpgoodboy]

Isn't it nice how they all fight.

LOL.

Coke is the real deal by the way and Pepsi is just, well the other thing.

This thread is about branding.

Branding is important but it is a result.

If you make branding the purpose of an advertising campaign it gets very expensive. Just wanted to say there is a better way to do things.

[verial]

Originally Posted by hpgoodboy

Isn't it nice how they all fight.

LOL.

Coke is the real deal by the way and Pepsi is just, well the other thing.

This thread is about branding.

Branding is important but it is a result.

If you make branding the purpose of an advertising campaign it gets very expensive. Just wanted to say there is a better way to do things.

Pepsi outperforms Coke in blind taste tests. Ergo, it is the brand of the smart consumer (if you consider the act of drinking calorie-dense sugar-water smart).

[hpgoodboy]

Originally Posted by verial

Pepsi outperforms Coke in blind taste tests. Ergo, it is the brand of the smart consumer (if you consider the act of drinking calorie-dense sugar-water smart).

I do not care about consumers that blindly tested this. I prefer Coke.

[Moriarty]

Pusateri

By intellectual appeal, I mean just that. An appeal to the intellect. To reason. Logic.

If you are appealing to logic, you are in for trouble. People make intellectual decisions long after the lizard brain* has come to its conclusions. (*as they term it in the US - to me it is way more subtle than that). The point about dealing at this coarse level of thinking is that it leaves too many questions unanswered. Such as "what motivated them to think this" - and it wasn't the color of the tin, was it?

Because if a client comes to me and wants to break into a heavily branded market, I don't even break into it for them. There is always something their prospects do before looking for that brand. Find out what that is and get highly targeted clicks for 15c instead of $5.50. Do that a few times and you're in business, and those who are branding don't even notice that their market is being eaten away from under them.

In your attempt to shoot me down, you will probably make some argument about the intellect being the realm of the objective and taste being subjective.

The problem for you is that the intellect only appears to be the realm of the objective. The intellect is an isolated island in a sea of subjective thinking. Take a look at my article on Tom Thomson (a Canadian painter) to see what I mean. The subjective, engaged realm is as real for an academic as it is for the ordinary Joe Doe. Taste is subjective, yet funnily it is still common to all humans.

Now, a little experiment for you. When you are thinking with your intellectual faculties, you are aware of the external world. Let us say that you can hear the clock ticking in the background. Only when you are watching your favorite movie, you won't notice that you have become absorbed in watching it. Everything you see and feel is on that screen. The rest of the world seems to disappear.

And you can't hear the clock ticking - your critical faculties have been bypassed.

Just try it.

Employ such methods as a copywriter and believe me, people become engaged. They will click through at speeds that really pleases Google. You can imagine what happens to the bid price after that. (Even if the days of jetstreaming are long gone!).

Now just as a codicil, I do know my academics. My father was a professor before he retired, and his thinking fits neatly into the category that yours does.


HP Goodboy

Just wanted to say there is a better way to do things.

So how about you tell us a few, then instead of making trite remarks?

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

If you are appealing to logic, you are in for trouble. People make intellectual decisions long after the lizard brain* has come to its conclusions. (*as they term it in the US - to me it is way more subtle than that). The point about dealing at this coarse level of thinking is that it leaves too many questions unanswered. Such as "what motivated them to think this" - and it wasn't the color of the tin, was it?

Because if a client comes to me and wants to break into a heavily branded market, I don't even break into it for them. There is always something their prospects do before looking for that brand. Find out what that is and get highly targeted clicks for 15c instead of $5.50. Do that a few times and you're in business, and those who are branding don't even notice that their market is being eaten away from under them.

Did you really think I was arguing in favor of intellectual appeals?

I wasn't.

I was just pointing out that the Pepsi Challenge was an intellectual appeal and not branding.

[Moriarty]

Struggling, are we? When you said

In your attempt to shoot me down, you will probably make some argument about the intellect being the realm of the objective and taste being subjective.

I knew you were inside the box.

Moriarty

[angiecolee]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

I knew you were inside the box.

Moriarty

1. This is not the place for personal attacks. I don't know you from a hole in the ground, but I have much respect for Pusateri's work.

2. You're arguing semantics at this point and we'll have to agree to disagree. You go on believing what you believe and appealing to the clients who want straight up ads. I'll go on targeting clients who want longevity and lifelong customers. Somehow, I have a feeling we'll all still make money.

[Moriarty]

Angie, stop taking sides. I was responding to something he said that defined his ability to think using his own words.

If that is an attack, then so be it. So please be more careful next time.

Moriarty.

[Pusateri]

I'm struggling in a box?

Please elaborate.

[Ken_Caudill]

The fact that emotion enters into the buying decision makes it incumbent on the copywriter to provide a rationalization for the prospect's behavior.

Wait, let me break that down...

If you think you can get by appealing only to a prospect's emotions, you're a dumbass.

<Now that ought to evoke a few emotional reactions.>

[Moriarty]

Ken Caudill

The fact that emotion enters into the buying decision makes it incumbent on the copywriter to provide a rationalization for the prospect's behavior.

Why does everything have to be rationalized? I don't know of one (good) copywriter who bothers to do that. A waste of valuable real estate!

As to

<Now that ought to evoke a few emotional reactions.>

It is an emotional reaction itself. Think about it. No, better not, you'll only get tangled in tautologies.

[Ken_Caudill]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

Ken Caudill


Why does everything have to be rationalized? I don't know of one (good) copywriter who bothers to do that. A waste of valuable real estate!

As to


It is an emotional reaction itself. Think about it. No, better not, you'll only get tangled in tautologies.

ALL good copywriters do that. It's their stock and trade.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

It's as simple as that.

[Moriarty]

Ken C

ALL good copywriters do that. It's their stock and trade.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

It's as simple as that.

Why is it then so hard to do well?

Oh, and if I have no idea what I am talking about, you have no idea what my fees are.

[angiecolee]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

Oh, and if I have no idea what I am talking about, you have no idea what my fees are.

Non sequitur. High fees don't necessarily mean you know what you're talking about, and it means relatively little in a forum where there are many, many people charging high fees for knowledge in excess of your own, or even for knowledge that is nowhere near what you possess.

By personal attacks I simply mean that you are presenting your arguments as if there is only one possibility, and telling everyone else they're wrong or they're trapped in some sort of box (which many creatives find a tiny bit insulting). I've seen a method that works for me and my clients - branding. You haven't. Nothing wrong with that in my mind. What works for you doesn't work for me and vice versa. But kindly stop insisting that something many of us make a living on is wrong. By your own (illogical) fee argument, I can prove I am just as right as you are. Doesn't really matter if we're all helping people and making money, does it?

[BrianMcLeod]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

Why does everything have to be rationalized?

Because that's how we fend off our inner imaginary asshole brother in law, Larry - who calls us a dumbass every family get together for yet again, buying the wrong thing.. or paying too much... or buying too soon.. or buying too late...

Because we're afraid of being humiliated... of making a bad choice.. and looking like a fool.

Argue about that at your own sales peril.

I don't know of one (good) copywriter who bothers to do that. A waste of valuable real estate!

Might want to walk that one back a little. Just sayin'.

Brian

[Ken_Caudill]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

Oh, and if I have no idea what I am talking about, you have no idea what my fees are.

Now would I want to, since I wouldn't let you wash my car, let alone write copy for me.

[Moriarty]

To the last three posters: why are you all so defensive? Usually a conversation like this gets hot, there aren't the flabby responses that all avoid the questions I ask of you. The answers are direct and to the point.

So why is that, I wonder?

Moriarty.

[Marvin Johnston]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

To the last three posters: why are you all so defensive? Usually a conversation like this gets hot, there aren't the flabby responses that all avoid the questions I ask of you. The answers are direct and to the point.

So why is that, I wonder?

Moriarty.

Long story short, you haven't proven you know what you are talking about. Those "defensive" posters are all respected members of this forum including the moderator.

Marvin

[Moriarty]

Long story short, you haven't proven you know what you are talking about. Those "defensive" posters are all respected members of this forum including the moderator.

It needed no proof for them to show their fear of me by being so defensive. Perhaps they will review their notions of what it is to be certified.

[BrianMcLeod]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

It needed no proof for them to show their fear of me by being so defensive. Perhaps they will review their notions of what it is to be certified.

Yawn... sigh.

"..."

Nope.

</participation>

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

It needed no proof for them to show their fear of me by being so defensive. Perhaps they will review their notions of what it is to be certified.

No one here feels threatened by you. And no response to you has been defensive. Dismissive maybe, but not defensive.

The copywriting forum is not for candy-asses. If you say something here, you better be prepared to back it up, because you WILL be called on bullshit.

Words are our livelihood and steel sharpens steel, so you should be thankful for the opportunity when one of us draws a blade and challenges you.

[Moriarty]

No one here feels threatened by you. And no response to you has been defensive. Dismissive maybe, but not defensive.

It still got your attention. What's more, dismissive or defensive, it hasn't been on the offensive. Which is what I am looking for.

Why?

Because when you speak with a businessman and all they can do is tell you what they do, how they do it and where, you know that it's going to be tough doing their marketing. Why? Because they aren't interested in who they are in business for. Their customers, clients. Oh! You say, they know that. Well do they? Or is it only the bottom line they are interested in - as most are? The point I am making is subtle. What's more, you've missed it all along. Take another strand. Marvin isn't convinced, wants proof.

So Marvin wants proof - only what proof does he want? The proof my father would want is different from the proof you want to the proof I don't need. Because a Cambridge academic won't ever get marketing.

Now how am I to prove something to someone who isn't telling me how he wants it proved? Just because someone is "a respected member of the forum" tells me what, precisely? That they have the respect of their fellows because - well, is it that they think the same, or is it the number of thanks they get? Just where does this respect have any real meaning save in the imaginations of a few forum members? Or is it that they have been typing things for five years and are therefore to be respected? By default, so to speak.

I have met people like that.

One was the Governor of the Bank of England. Wanted respect. For what, may I ask? Sitting at a desk for 40 years and feeling bored? I had more respect for his butler because he knew what made a decent claret - and get it for $15 and not $1500. In other words, the kind of guy who gets people to realize that a wine is worth something because of its qualities. Not the kind of guy who accepts it as such because someone else tells him it is, or the auction room was packed and someone else kept bidding him up.

So when someone eventually pulls out their sword make sure it's sharp. There's a lot more to getting an edge than just using steel.

Oh, and a side note to Angie Colee: my thoughts about my fees had nothing to do with money.

[Marvin Johnston]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

Now how am I to prove something to someone who isn't telling me how he wants it proved? Just because someone is "a respected member of the forum" tells me what, precisely? That they have the respect of their fellows because - well, is it that they think the same, or is it the number of thanks they get? Just where does this respect have any real meaning save in the imaginations of a few forum members? Or is it that they have been typing things for five years and are therefore to be respected? By default, so to speak. .

Do *I* want proof? No... I don't need it as your first posts gave more than enough indication you were throwing out flame bait to see what would stick.

And started off like a 15 year old coming off a free-for-all forum who had not learned respect for themselves, let alone others, was enough.

And your replies are just confirmation.

Marvin

[BrianMcLeod]

Manic Mechanic - ZZ Top - YouTube

[TheSalesBooster]

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

Now how am I to prove something to someone who isn't telling me how he wants it proved?

Consider hiring a copywriter. It's what we do.

[Moriarty]

Marvin

Do *I* want proof? No... I don't need it as your first posts gave more than enough indication you were throwing out flame bait to see what would stick.

Interesting use of language.

Long story short, you haven't proven you know what you are talking about.

Yesterday, you want it, then today you gabble something about not wanting it in the first place. Have I tied you in enough knots for one week, or do you want to come back for more?

And started off like a 15 year old coming off a free-for-all forum who had not learned respect for themselves, let alone others, was enough.

The problem for you is deeply subtle: what do you respect? What is it that you really think is worthwhile? Because in all your posts you haven't shown me anything of what you really believe. It's all riposte and parry - not a single lunge. I think the word is touché, n'est ce pas?

So let us rationalize it for those who lack the finer elements of conversation. What do you respect, and how am I to meet that demand?

[Moriarty]

Pusateri,

Consider hiring a copywriter. It's what we do.

Telling people what they need doesn't do the profession much good, does it? After all, they could go hiring any charlatan calling themselves a copywriter! Imagine! Quel horeur!

Surely it is better to demonstrate your skills because I recall someone saying that "you WILL be called on bullshit."

So, I will if it happens that I should need one.