Opinions on Advertising are as conflicting as opinions on Religion. Forty per cent of all the people in the world are Buddhists, and are of the Opinion that Buddhism is the only true religion. Twelve per cent of the world?s people being Roman Catholics, are firm in the opinion that the remaining 88 percent are wrong, and sure of damnation accordingly.
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.
No company would give a salesperson a commission over a report from him that he was "Influencing Sales" for their other salesmen. What the advertising mployer would demand from his Salesman would be profitable Orders. He would demand Sales, clearly made by the Salesman himself, each sale carrying a given profit over cost for the employer. That is just what the advertising employer should demand from his advertising expenditure, too-Sales-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 a vague "General Influence on Sales."
Because, true Advertising is only "Salesmanship-on-paper" after all. When it is anything less than Salesmanship it is not real Advertising, but only "General Publicity." And, "General Publicity" admittedly claims only to "Keep the Name before the People," to produce a "General impression on the Trade," and to "Influence Sales" for the salesmen.
Bad Advertising makes the same lame excuses as a Salesman who failed to earn his salary in actually selling goods. But General Publicity, or any other Advertising, should be judged by the same standards as the Salesman is judged, viz., by the goods it is clearly proven to sell at a given cost per dollar invested in it. - 15246
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.
No company would give a salesperson a commission over a report from him that he was "Influencing Sales" for their other salesmen. What the advertising mployer would demand from his Salesman would be profitable Orders. He would demand Sales, clearly made by the Salesman himself, each sale carrying a given profit over cost for the employer. That is just what the advertising employer should demand from his advertising expenditure, too-Sales-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 a vague "General Influence on Sales."
Because, true Advertising is only "Salesmanship-on-paper" after all. When it is anything less than Salesmanship it is not real Advertising, but only "General Publicity." And, "General Publicity" admittedly claims only to "Keep the Name before the People," to produce a "General impression on the Trade," and to "Influence Sales" for the salesmen.
Bad Advertising makes the same lame excuses as a Salesman who failed to earn his salary in actually selling goods. But General Publicity, or any other Advertising, should be judged by the same standards as the Salesman is judged, viz., by the goods it is clearly proven to sell at a given cost per dollar invested in it. - 15246
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 our Cleveland Adertising Agency Go to Net Advertising group for information on effective advertising interactive
