Brand Power: Claude Hopkins would approve

Advertising Add comments

I’m always intrigued when I see TV commercials from Brand Power (like this latest offering from Dare Simple Pleasures). I’m intrigued at how some of the world’s top marketers (Nestle, Green Giant, Coca-Cola, Schick, etc.) happily hand over their brands to an outfit that produces formulaic commercials with below average production value. After all, modern advertising is all about brand image, cachet and beautiful people. The modern world of brands and multimedia is dynamic, ever-changing and unlike anything ever seen before. So why on earth would any self-respecting brand tap into an advertising strategy straight out of the 1920s?  

The answer, of course, is because it works. It works precisely the way Claude Hopkins said it did in his 1923 classic “Scientific Advertising.” Ads are salesmanship and they should function the way a successful sales person does: presenting straightforward information consumers can (a) understand and (b) use to make a decision. As for powerful music, Ridley Scott production values and poetic language, Hopkins would have none of it. “Successful salesmen are rarely good speech makers,” he wrote. ”They have few oratorical graces. They are plain and sincere men who know their customers and know their lines. So it is in ad writing… But when one tries to show off, or does things merely to please himself, he is little likely to strike a chord which leads people to spend money.”

For their part, folks at Brand Power describe their approach as “television commercials, campaigns and flyers that inform consumers of the features and benefits of products - in a very clear and easy to understand style.” Later, they add that this approach “treats shoppers with respect by providing useful information that helps when it comes time to decide which product to take from the supermarket shelf.” I like that word “respect,” as those of you who have read other postings on this site will know.

Where the Brand Power approach sets off on a slippery slope is in its “third party perspective.” The ads, in a sense, masquarade as third-party reviews of the products. There is a hint of “objectivity” in the format of the spots (i.e. opening and closing with the Brand Power logo rather than the product logo) that could lead some to think the Band Power people picked the product for its quality and price, rather than the willingness of the advertiser to pay the price of production and airtime.  The charge has some merit but there is certainly nothing in the words and images I’ve seen that overtly suggests neutrality. The Brand Power website, in fact, makes it clear that this is paid advertising, just done in a different way. If only celebrities, movie producers and most magazine publishers were as forthcoming.

The other big knock against these spots, of course, is their formulaic style and low-budget production values. Whether shot in Canada, the US, Great Britain or Spain, the approach is steadfastly the same: musical chime, smiling spokeswoman in front of a wall of products, close-up product shots, lifestyle shot of the product in use. Nothing here to jump off the TV screen and command your attention. No fear, no titillation, no slick computer generated animation. And yet, the spots work.

Some 85 years ago, Hopkins had this seeming paradox figured out as well. “The only readers we get are people whom our subject interests. No one reads ads for amusements, long or short. Consider them as prospects standing before you, seeking for information. Give them enough to get action.” Smart guy.

There were other great advertisers, of course, many with approaches that differed dramatically from Hopkins. Given how complex we human beings are, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that there is more than one way to motivate us to part with our money. Still, I’m encouraged that some of the world’s top advertisers have realized there is still a place for respectful ads that seek to sell by providing useful and clear information. So cheers to the Buchanan Group (the global outfit behind the Brand Power program) and to the advertisers who pay the dollars to produce and air the spots.  

Viewing 1 Comment

    • ^
    • v
    I could understand that Pepsi and other companies like that are the worst in the world but I cannot understand why Nestle? or Coca Cola? as far as I know they are most successful in the entire world so I don't think you really can say that they suck. Due to Trianz, the company I own I managed to gather some experience and I know how to separate good companies from bad ones.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus
WP Theme & Icons by N.Design Studio
Entries RSS Comments RSS Log in