Opinion should be left to politics and religion, Opinion has no place in advertising. Eight percent of the world's people being Protestants believe that both the Buddhists and the Catholics, and all others, are deplorably ignorant of the only true faith, which of course must be their own particular sect of Protestantism. And, neither Buddhist, Catholic, nor Protestant, can convince the 2 per cent of Jewish people that their opinion is wrong and should be changed. I can prove to you which advertisement will have the highest return on investment.
Too many CEO's seem satisfied to spend their money on mere opinions about advertising when they might have invested it on facts about advertising. Perhaps the salesperson was attractive you they got some good sports tickets. These are the Advertisers whose company must fail before they can be convinced that Branding is not enough and that customers have to be given a reason to buy.
Do you No a company that would give a salesperson a commission over a report from him that he was "Influencing Sales" for their other Salesperson? They would expect him to prove he was earning his salary by making a satisfactory record on sales. That is just what the advertising employer should demand from his advertising expenditure, proven sales, carrying a satisfactory profit. And, if he insists upon it he can get the kind of advertising which will actually produce sales instead of vague "Branding."
Advertising is and should be "Salesmanship-on-paper." If it is anything less than Salesmanship it is not real Advertising, but only "name recognition." And, "General Publicity" admittedly claims only to "Brand," to make sales easier for the salespeople.
Poor advertising gives the same bad excuses a Salesman who failed to earn his keep in actually selling products or services. Brading, or any other advertising, should be judged by the same standards as the Salesman; by the goods it is clearly proven to sell divided by the amount invested.
Too many CEO's seem satisfied to spend their money on mere opinions about advertising when they might have invested it on facts about advertising. Perhaps the salesperson was attractive you they got some good sports tickets. These are the Advertisers whose company must fail before they can be convinced that Branding is not enough and that customers have to be given a reason to buy.
Do you No a company that would give a salesperson a commission over a report from him that he was "Influencing Sales" for their other Salesperson? They would expect him to prove he was earning his salary by making a satisfactory record on sales. That is just what the advertising employer should demand from his advertising expenditure, proven sales, carrying a satisfactory profit. And, if he insists upon it he can get the kind of advertising which will actually produce sales instead of vague "Branding."
Advertising is and should be "Salesmanship-on-paper." If it is anything less than Salesmanship it is not real Advertising, but only "name recognition." And, "General Publicity" admittedly claims only to "Brand," to make sales easier for the salespeople.
Poor advertising gives the same bad excuses a Salesman who failed to earn his keep in actually selling products or services. Brading, or any other advertising, should be judged by the same standards as the Salesman; by the goods it is clearly proven to sell divided by the amount invested.
About the Author:
Dennis Gartland is an expert at testing ad campaign on the internet visit our site or contact us to learn more about pr advertising Click here for information on effectiveSearch Engine advertising
No comments:
Post a Comment