The Customer Development Corporation

Home About Articles Contact Section 51 Manuel

Home About Articles Email us Section 51 Manuel Being direct... AdVantage Feb 2003 Ducks in the Henhouse? My column in the December 2002 issue briefly mentioned the presentation that I saw at the USDMA conference held in San Francisco in October last year, called 'Ducks in the Henhouse' - Integrating Direct and Brand Advertising. I promised that if I could get permission to do so, I would share more of this presentation with AdVantage readers. Well, in the meantime, I have had e-mail from the presenter Jon Roska, CEO/Chief Creative Officer or Roska Direct, giving me that permission - for which I sincerely thank him - so I will try and do some of his perspectives justice in this month's column. Jon says that he is often asked what the difference is between Brand Advertising and Direct Response Advertising, and he usually says that brand marketers Build Brands, while direct marketers Build Businesses. Now before we get a whole lot of brand marketers up in arms over that statement, let's delve a little deeper into what's behind it. The US Dictionary of Business and Management describes a Brand as: 'a name, sign or symbol used to identify items or services of the seller(s) and to differentiate them from the goods of competitors'. Simply put, a brand is a promise. By identifying and authenticating a product or a service, a brand should deliver a pledge of satisfaction and/or quality. Brand promises can, therefore be made anywhere, anyhow, and of course - nobody is too concerned about counting promises! Direct Marketing, on the other hand is broadly defined by the Direct Marketing Association as: any direct communication to a consumer or business recipient that is designed to generate a response in the form of an order (direct order), a request for further information (lead generation), and/or a visit to a store or other place of business for purchase of a specific product or service (traffic generation). Responses such as orders, leads and traffic can indeed be counted and the success of any such communications therefore - can be carefully measured. Jon went on to describe each of these using the metaphor of a farmyard, where the client is the farmer, the brand marketers are Chickens and the direct marketers are Ducks. He had the audience in stitches when he suggested that the metaphor works because Ducks and Chickens are both Birds, but they just do things differently. A farmyard is a perfect metaphor for the world of advertising he says, because: a) it's hard work requiring lots of hours; b) when things get hot, the best ideas start growing; and c) there's plenty of manure being spread around! The client - on the other hand - wants to grow his business; he wants customers to remember the brand AND he wants customers to purchase his products. The brand marketer claims: 'You need to build a strong brand to generate sales'. He helps the client to bring a brand to life by building a strong brand that the customer will remember, and by selling the brand. The brand marketer tends to speak in parables, writes headlines that have double meanings, where the consumer often has to 'read between the lines' to get the message. The brand marketer wants people to remember the ads, and so - the brand. The direct marketer claims: 'You need sales to build your brand, which will then create more sales'. They help to bring the brand to life by selling the company's products and building a relationship with the customer. The direct marketer likes to point out the obvious, say exactly what the brand is, what it does and how to get it. Explains that three different ways - just to make sure that the targets get it. People buy the product - and become customers. The big question that marketing communication companies could ask is: Should one be a Chicken or a Duck, and in any event - are the two really mutually exclusive?? Once again, one of the points of this presentation was to show that it is self-interest that tends to separate the disciplines, and to this end Jon again had the audience laughing out loud at some of the following examples of such stupidity. Ducks who want to be Chickens - Sometimes a direct marketer sees all the brand marketers having a great time and wishes that he were a brand marketer. So the direct marketer goes over to the brand agency in an attempt to be a brand marketer. He soon finds that his in-bread ideas don't go down to well in that environment, and he lands up back with his own. Ducks who were raised by Chickens - Sometimes direct marketers are raised in the brand agency and are trained in brand advertising techniques. The lucky ones are spotted by other direct marketers who invite them into the direct agency. Chickens who need a Duck's Help - Sometimes, the brand marketers realise that the client wants direct marketing, so they invite one of the direct marketers over from the direct agency. The direct marketer meets with the client, who is happy that everyone's going to work together and that he is going to get some direct advertising. But, once the client leaves, the brand marketers tell the direct marketers to shut up and stay out of the way, while they produce some more brand advertising. If all else fails…Buy One! - Sometimes, the client demands accountable advertising, so the brand marketers go out and acquire a direct agency. This usually leads to degeneration of the duck pond, as the brand marketers try to turn the direct agency into a brand agency. Then you get the Chicken in Duck's clothing - The client keeps talking about direct advertising. Rather than lose the account to a bunch of direct marketers, they grab one of their brand marketers - who's been displaying direct tendencies and they dress him up like a direct marketer. Eventually, the client realises that that the brand marketers have pulled a fast one on him, and he calls in the direct marketers. But wouldn't it be so much better for everyone, if we could all just put self-interest aside and work in the customer's best interest? Jon then spent the rest of his presentation giving a number of case study examples of how their agency have incorporated strong branding elements into their primarily direct response focus, and described some of the immense success of this approach for many of their clients. He summarised it all by proposing a new definition for direct marketing: 'Direct marketing is broadly defined as direct communication designed to deliver the brand vision and promise to a consumer, and generate response in the form of an order, request for further information and/or a visit to a store or other place of business for the purchase of a specific product or service, while building brand awareness amongst the target audience.' I have no doubt that there are many readers who would take issue with this analogy and perhaps even with the concept described in this approach - but can assure you that the presentation hit a very fragile 'nerve' in San Francisco - one that I have no doubt needs airing here in SA too. (Images used with permission © 2002 Roska Direct)
© Copyright CDC 2009

Being direct... AdVantage Feb 2003

Ducks in the Henhouse?

My column in the December 2002 issue briefly mentioned the presentation that I saw at the USDMA conference held in San Francisco in October last year, called 'Ducks in the Henhouse' - Integrating Direct and Brand Advertising. I promised that if I could get permission to do so, I would share more of this presentation with AdVantage readers.

Well, in the meantime, I have had e-mail from the presenter Jon Roska, CEO/Chief Creative Officer or Roska Direct, giving me that permission - for which I sincerely thank him - so I will try and do some of his perspectives justice in this month's column.

Jon says that he is often asked what the difference is between Brand Advertising and Direct Response Advertising, and he usually says that brand marketers Build Brands, while direct marketers Build Businesses. Now before we get a whole lot of brand marketers up in arms over that statement, let's delve a little deeper into what's behind it.

The US Dictionary of Business and Management describes a Brand as: 'a name, sign or symbol used to identify items or services of the seller(s) and to differentiate them from the goods of competitors'. Simply put, a brand is a promise. By identifying and authenticating a product or a service, a brand should deliver a pledge of satisfaction and/or quality. Brand promises can, therefore be made anywhere, anyhow, and of course - nobody is too concerned about counting promises!

Direct Marketing, on the other hand is broadly defined by the Direct Marketing Association as: any direct communication to a consumer or business recipient that is designed to generate a response in the form of an order (direct order), a request for further information (lead generation), and/or a visit to a store or other place of business for purchase of a specific product or service (traffic generation). Responses such as orders, leads and traffic can indeed be counted and the success of any such communications therefore - can be carefully measured.

Jon went on to describe each of these using the metaphor of a farmyard, where the client is the farmer, the brand marketers are Chickens and the direct marketers are Ducks. He had the audience in stitches when he suggested that the metaphor works because Ducks and Chickens are both Birds, but they just do things differently. A farmyard is a perfect metaphor for the world of advertising he says, because: a) it's hard work requiring lots of hours; b) when things get hot, the best ideas start growing; and c) there's plenty of manure being spread around! The client - on the other hand - wants to grow his business; he wants customers to remember the brand AND he wants customers to purchase his products.

The brand marketer claims: 'You need to build a strong brand to generate sales'. He helps the client to bring a brand to life by building a strong brand that the customer will remember, and by selling the brand. The brand marketer tends to speak in parables, writes headlines that have double meanings, where the consumer often has to 'read between the lines' to get the message. The brand marketer wants people to remember the ads, and so - the brand.

The direct marketer claims: 'You need sales to build your brand, which will then create more sales'. They help to bring the brand to life by selling the company's products and building a relationship with the customer. The direct marketer likes to point out the obvious, say exactly what the brand is, what it does and how to get it. Explains that three different ways - just to make sure that the targets get it. People buy the product - and become customers.

The big question that marketing communication companies could ask is: Should one be a Chicken or a Duck, and in any event - are the two really mutually exclusive?? Once again, one of the points of this presentation was to show that it is self-interest that tends to separate the disciplines, and to this end Jon again had the audience laughing out loud at some of the following examples of such stupidity.

Ducks who want to be Chickens - Sometimes a direct marketer sees all the brand marketers having a great time and wishes that he were a brand marketer. So the direct marketer goes over to the brand agency in an attempt to be a brand marketer. He soon finds that his in-bread ideas don't go down to well in that environment, and he lands up back with his own.

Ducks who were raised by Chickens - Sometimes direct marketers are raised in the brand agency and are trained in brand advertising techniques. The lucky ones are spotted by other direct marketers who invite them into the direct agency.

Chickens who need a Duck's Help - Sometimes, the brand marketers realise that the client wants direct marketing, so they invite one of the direct marketers over from the direct agency. The direct marketer meets with the client, who is happy that everyone's going to work together and that he is going to get some direct advertising. But, once the client leaves, the brand marketers tell the direct marketers to shut up and stay out of the way, while they produce some more brand advertising.

If all else fails…Buy One! - Sometimes, the client demands accountable advertising, so the brand marketers go out and acquire a direct agency. This usually leads to degeneration of the duck pond, as the brand marketers try to turn the direct agency into a brand agency.

Then you get the Chicken in Duck's clothing - The client keeps talking about direct advertising. Rather than lose the account to a bunch of direct marketers, they grab one of their brand marketers - who's been displaying direct tendencies and they dress him up like a direct marketer. Eventually, the client realises that that the brand marketers have pulled a fast one on him, and he calls in the direct marketers.

But wouldn't it be so much better for everyone, if we could all just put self-interest aside and work in the customer's best interest?

Jon then spent the rest of his presentation giving a number of case study examples of how their agency have incorporated strong branding elements into their primarily direct response focus, and described some of the immense success of this approach for many of their clients. He summarised it all by proposing a new definition for direct marketing:

'Direct marketing is broadly defined as direct communication designed to deliver the brand vision and promise to a consumer, and generate response in the form of an order, request for further information and/or a visit to a store or other place of business for the purchase of a specific product or service, while building brand awareness amongst the target audience.'

I have no doubt that there are many readers who would take issue with this analogy and perhaps even with the concept described in this approach - but can assure you that the presentation hit a very fragile 'nerve' in San Francisco - one that I have no doubt needs airing here in SA too.