If advertising is so
effective, why don't ad agencies advertise? That's the question
Simon Sinek poses in a recent issue of BrandWeek. After all, ad
agencies recommend clients spend 10% their revenues on marketing. But do
they practice what they preach? Sinek points out:
"According to Nielsen
Monitor-Plus, Interpublic, Omnicom, Publicis and WPP spent a total of
$3.7 million to promote themselves in the U.S. in 2005, down 15% from
the $4.4 million they spent in 2004."
That's a paltry .01% of
their combined $29.3 billion in global revenue. He says that's proof
that advertising doesn't work, and that the agencies know it. But does
it? Let's dig a little deeper.
First, it's a well-written
article. I especially loved his crack about agencies' "Faustian
resistance" to using their own product. Great line. I also agree with
his argument that most advertising, like the media they run on, have
been commoditized. Nothing stands out. He says:
"In truth, it's what's IN
the advertising that is not working. Ad agencies are doing a poor job
creating messages that affect long-term value for their clients."
Agreed. Here's part of the
problem, IMHO. We're all overwhelmed. Our work and lives demand we
juggle a flood of data, and we're constantly blitzed by additional stuff
like advertising "impressions," sp@m, pop-ups and other annoyances.
And the media are willing
accomplices. Cable news channels blitz us with multiple images: 2-3
lines of text crawling across the bottom, windows with the weather
forecast in El Paso popping up next to the anchor who's delivering the
news. Are they deliberately trying to distract us from the news they're
reporting? (No wonder ADD is epidemic in the USA.)
But I digress. Sinek is
right: Too many ads suck, and so do most of the shows they're aired on.
Too many stink of sameness, lameness and slickness. I'm no defender of
ad agencies, but I have to disagree with his basic thesis. Agencies have
a very good reason for not advertising their services. It's simply not
appropriate to reach the audience they're targeting.
Here's why.
Every marketer begins by
thinking about WHO they're trying to reach. If you're selling Chevys,
there's a couple hundred million potential buyers. Selling Porsches?
Maybe a few million. But if you're selling advertising services to the
S&P 500, for example, your target audience numbers around, uh, 500.
There are far more effective ways to get your message to an elite niche
like that.
Using mass media to reach
a market of 500 is expensive and wasteful. That's true whether you're a
B2B or B2C business, by the way. Until you have a mass audience, stay
away from mass media. You'll go broke before you break through.
This reminds me of a
former client. She insisted that we advertise on the market's top-rated
rock radio station, and only in the most expensive daypart, morning
drive. But we were trying to reach a very narrow, high-level I.T.
audience, looking for advanced technology training.
The campaign cost beaucoup
bucks, and was a dismal failure. Why? The biggest reason: only about
1-2% of the audience were potential buyers of her services. 1-2%! The
same money spent on a targeted direct mail campaign would probably have
been much more successful.
END-
