I was struck by the premise of a recent Advertising Age article (or, at least, my interpretation of it). The headline really says it all:
"Our Ads Will Work – We Promise!"
It seems that there are some publishing institutions that are beginning to worry that they might be threatened by the disintermediation of THE LAST 10 YEARS, and that perhaps THEIR REVENUE MODEL IS BROKEN!!!
Gee…ya think???
Now, I'm not one of those "new media snobs" who thinks that everything "old" is no good (I'm over 30 myself, so I may be a little biased). But I'm also not one of those "traditionalists" who think that things should never change and that new formats won't work as well.
…I'm kind of in the middle. For example, I wouldn't (and don't) advertise my business in the Yellow Pages Phone Directory…but, if I were selling services to senior citizens, I probably would have an ad in there (and a darn good one, too!) – written in a large font with a pleasing type face.
What bothers me about this gist of the article is the underlying message:
"If, after you spend your money and it doesn't work, we'll keep doing the thing that doesn't work for you – for free – until it does work."
Really?!?!? 
For how long?
That doesn't make much sense to me. I mean, if it doesn't work when I spent money on it, why would I want to waste my time dealing with it, knowing it's not going to work?!?!?!?
An ad's effectiveness is driven by two primary variables (both of which are Marketing issues, not Advertising issues), which are:
- How well you understand and have identified / understood your target market
- How well you have crafted the ad, so as to address your target's markets wants and desires
Do these well enough and you can have an effective ad.
"'We've been preaching that magazines engage readers like no other media," said Stephanie George, exec VP at Time Inc.'"…"In an era when a lot of advertisers ask for rollbacks across the board, the guarantee is what lets us keep rates steady or ask for an increase," Mr. Kotok said. "'We'd love to give you last year's rates,' we say, 'but then we can't give you the guarantee. If you take a nominal increase, we can give you the guarantee.'"
…if "you take" a nominal increase…? What?!?
Are you going to buy me dinner first???
If they are that confident that the "ads will work", why are they waiting until now to offer it? How exactly are they going to enforce the guarantee? What if the ad buyer wants to run an ad that the ad space provider doesn't think will work? Who gets to decide?
This kind of double-talk is kind of like writing in your subordinate's annual performance review, "What can I say about George that hasn't been said? He is truly in a class by himself! He handles work assignments with unlooked-for creativity." (oh, how I miss Catbert's Performance Review Generator – why, Scott Adams, why did you do away with that???)
I think they are missing the point, which is this: mass media / image advertising is NOT direct response advertising. There is a difference; don't confuse them.
To me, this is a poor example of "Risk Reversal"; a better guarantee from the magazine would have been:
"Buy our ad space and if it doesn't convert like you think it should, we will have our copywriters & creative folks work with you for FREE, to craft and test an ad that WILL convert "browsers into buyers", for your target market."
…but maybe I'm expecting too much…
