Do Top Ad Agencies Really Create The Best Ads?

Loren,

I've probably learned more from Drayton Byrd than any other copywriter. I was actually introduced to copywriting when I stumbled upon his blog a year ago and follow it religiously.

I have huge respect for O&M as an agency, and any agency that can keep accounts like American Express & Dove for over 50 years obviously know what they are doing.

I am aware of the great copywriters that have come from there, especially when David Ogilvy was still in charge.

Understand this is not an attack on O&M or any of these top agencies, that is not my intention at all.

Quite the opposite actually.

I am trying to learn from their ads because they are considered the best.

Some of them astound me with their brilliance.

Many of them, however, don't seem to follow "best practices" according to the books I've been reading.

I am trying to reconcile what I am reading and the kinds of ads that I am seeing today, but am not having much luck.

For example, almost all top admen of the past note the importance of headlines.

Yet some recent print ads don't seem to have any headlines.

I am clearly missing something.

Hopefully someone smarter and more experienced than I am can let me know what it is.

Thanks for the response.

It really all depends on what you mean by "great"

If great you mean catchy, pretty, eye-pleasing... then yes,
by all means they produce good work.

If you mean ads that sell, then HELL NO, not by a long shot.

Olgilvy on Advertising is just as relevant today as it was when
it was first written.

Salesmanship never changes, it's just the medium that does.
(print, TV, radio, web)

It's all about the proven tactics of salesmanship, or what makes
people tick. and buy.

Even Claude Hopkins is relevant today. Thats 100 years old if not more.

Ad agencies create branding, hoping to create a campaign that's catchy, cute, and memorable.

But rarely will they ever know if it sells, because quite frankly, they don't track that stuff.

Ad agencies that track results for clients and use direct response methods "get it"

And I just reread olgilvy on advertising this past week... just as relevant as ever.

Is it just me or is there some subliminal stuff going on with this book cover?

You'd be surprised!

It's a bit ironic to talk on this subject considering I work at an agency, so let me frame this by saying that yes, some agencies - with proven experience, intelligence and RESULTS - are wonderful. However, many more are lauded for being creative yet they produce more failures and problems than profits.

You're very astute to notice that many "top tier" agencies fall horribly short, so congrats on being ahead of the game. I think every copywriter should be required to read the article by million dollar copywriter Clayton Makepeace called "Advertising, Schmadvertising!" I'm still new to the forums so I can't link it directly, but just do a Google search with his name and the title and you'll find it (it's from his "Total Package" blog).

Short version - he explains how most Madison Avenue agencies are obsessed with being the most exciting and don't give a damn about whether or not they make money for their clients. So yes, even (maybe even "especially") the big Fortune 500 companies can fall prey to this.

Clayton describes how Nissan hired TBWA Chiat/Day to create a new series of ads that ended up being lauded by The Wall Street Journal, Ad Age, etc... and you know what happened? Sales tanked. After they went back to good old-fashioned benefits advertising, things returned to normal.

Regardless - remember that Ogilvy is no longer the head of O&M. In my opinion they're still one of the better agencies, but some of his values fall by the wayside now and then. Ogilvy on Advertising is a fantastic read and valuable tool straight from the master's mouth, so I'd hold on to that. The concepts in there are still very viable - it's just tough to find agencies that still use them!

P.S. - Another member mentioned Drayton Bird; he worked with Ogilvy back in the Golden Ad Age, so if you want to get some good tips, check out his site and newsletter. I find his information to be very "no nonsense" and have learned a lot from him as well.

When you're earning millions and billions of dollars, it's bound to make some people feel a bit insecure.

If anyone feels they can do a better job than some of the big brands why don't they just make them an offer and try to beat their controls?

Many. Often generating millions, even billions of dollars in profits for the businesses they worked with. Keep in mind this is through the use of one individual (possibly with a small team to help with design and research). If you don't believe me you're sadly misinformed about the state of copywriting since, oh... advertising began. Feel free to look up multi-million dollar copywriters such as previously mentioned Clayton Makepeace, Carline Anglade-Cole, Gary Halbert, John Caples, Gary Bencivenga and David Ogilvy - who created a successful agency based around the very qualities that worked with direct response copywriting.

You seem particularly focused on GEICO; they utilize the same amount of "memorable for the wrong reasons" tripe that so many other businesses fall for. I'm assuming you haven't read that Makepeace article, but I suggest you do. He's a very intelligent marketer that bases his advertising on testing and facts rather than creativity. The Budweiser frog commercial he references is particularly in line with the sort of cutesy characters you're celebrating as successful such as the gecko, cavemen, etc.

Funny thing? You point out that GEICO continually keeps spending hundreds of millions of dollars on their advertising. Most businesses can't afford to do this, and I would argue that if GEICO took all the money it spent developing interesting "branding" efforts (more to do with characters than their USP) and focused on benefits based advertising their sales would increase even more.

The problem with that type of advertising is that you cannot determine whether or not increases in sales are due to it or other factors. Maybe sales reps had a more effective strategy during certain years... the market itself was fluid... deals were being offered that increased customer interest... truly you can't think to base an entire business' growth on commercials when there are so many other factors that could have contributed to success. That's just being blindsided, like their marketing team obviously is.

There is literally no way to see whether or not those commercials got more people to sign up. Was there an opt-in? Code to use if they signed up specifically because of the commercial? Don't think so, just a pair of eyes and a talking lizard. A joke. Ask any customer why they ended up joining GEICO and I will GUARANTEE you it wasn't because they thought the commercials were "cool."

Copywriters earn money based on the profits they make that go directly back into their clients' pockets. Ad agencies like those working for GEICO are paid based on how memorable a character they make rather than how memorable they make the company's values. If you find that useful, good on you. I'm sure you'll make your former/current employers very grateful.

I'd rather stick with marketing that I KNOW benefits both me and my clients.

The only thing these numbers prove is that Geico's ad expeditures jumped 30x (3,000%) from 1996 to 2010, and their underwriting increased 72%.

Somehow, that doesn't sound particularly effective. That increase could have been due to any number of reasons. Maybe it was due to advertising, maybe it was something else like a large competitor pulling out of a national market segment.

There is also no indication of which ad campaigns were effective. They got some ROI on their ad money, of course, but could better results been achieved? Without tracking responses, how can they tell? For all we know, perhaps most of the underwiting business increase came from their direct mail campaigns, and the brand advertising provided far less effective ROI.

The numbers would need to be much more detailed to build a convincing case that the gecko-based brand advertising provided an effective ROI. I'm not saying it didn't, but these numbers don't prove that it did.

Like any insurance company, Geico sells a product that is required by LAW to have in the U.S. Since there's a limited number of licensed providers of insurance in the U.S., the vast majority of their customers only went with Geico because they *think* they'll save a few bucks.

That's it.

Their TV and radio ads are idiotic. If they hired a real marketing director who knew direct response marketing, they could double their sales. At a minimum.

I've seen it done multiple times over the last 20 years. Done it myself too with my own businesses and with clients too.

Martin Conroy's "two gentlemen" letter has produced over 1 BILLION DOLLARS in sales for the Wall Street Journal. Can GEICO point to one marketing piece of theirs that has done that?

Highly doubtful because they can't track what marketing/ads/promotions are working (conversion rates, ROI) and what ones aren't.

Maybe their website but after 2/3 of the way through their quote gathering form using fictional contact info, I still haven't been asked how I heard about Geico.

Dave, I'm curious... If you think brand advertising works so well, then why aren't you using it exclusively for your own online websites?

I kinda agree with you.

I remember reading an interview with Buffett where he SPECIFICALLY said that advertisements were a crucial component of Geico's success.

Like you said, he knows what he's doing, and I wouldn't doubt he's made the right decision.

Sometimes you need to think big picture, and I think the direct-response world really misses this.

Weak at best?

Hardly.

You gave the numbers for a company that sells a product people are required to have by LAW.

Failing to have many types of insurance can mean possible jail time. Failing to have auto or home owners insurance can mean unlimited liability in the event of ever being sued (i.e. your car hits another car, someone slips and falls on your business or residential property).

The only way you get out of having auto insurance, car insurance, etc. is if you don't own those things.

I gave you the numbers for an investment newspaper selling a product that is VOLUNTARY to buy.

If Congress passed a law saying you were required to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal (or one of their competitors), then that entire industry would grow massively... just like the insurance industry has.

Of course, then the Wall Street Journal and their competitors wouldn't need compelling marketing that produced positive ROI.

They could use marketing that just shouted "we're 15% cheaper than our competition!" on TV, radio, and magazines instead.

Interesting read! Thanks, Joe.