old country geezers out on camel county 107.9 fm hd2

[davideduardo]

I learned at a very young age that advertising, like politics, is lying by commission, omission or fraud.

I tend to think more about the slogan of McCann-Erickson: "The truth well told."

As a person who enjoys writing copy, I always found that ads that pointed out the true, real advantages of a product, service or retailer and which added in just the right amount of flair and puffery produced results as well as repeat business.

If you can dig up a copy of the masterful "Confessions of an Advertising Man" by David Ogilvy, you will see that the crafting of a good ad was very much based on the truth combined with good writing and good artwork.

I suspect that advertising prohibition is based on the assumption that old people live on Social Security and could not afford the product in the first place.

There are no "advertising prohibitions" but, rather, demographic specifications. For many things, they may be as broad as "persons 18-49" but may also be things like "men 21-49" for beer or "Hispanic assimilated females 25-44" for some food and household products.

Some of the buy specs have to do with whom a product was designed for, and others have to do with where research indicates that the return on ad investment justifies the buy. Selling to 35-44 women for a beer account produces a negative ROI... women for the most part do not determine brand preferences for any significant amount of beer sales.

And people 55-64 are generally not on Social Security (a few do retire at 62, but the demo cell is mostly made up of non-recipients) but are shunned by advertisers because they find that it costs more to make a sale than the profit on the sale in that age group.

Over 65, where half of those who are retired have no income except an average of less than $1,000 a month in Social Security and where the average net worth is about $77,000, there is not as big an amount of discretionary spending as might be thought.

Radio ads seem to be directed at younger folks who buy based primarily upon price.

No, that is not true at all. Young people buy based on price, value and the perception that what is being bought enhances their self-image or makes them happy. Think "Apple" for the hallmark example of not shopping based on price.

 

[landtuna]

If you can dig up a copy of the masterful "Confessions of an Advertising Man" by David Ogilvy, you will see that the crafting of a good ad was very much based on the truth combined with good writing and good artwork.

I think I read that in school some years ago. And you are right, that would be the right way to craft an honest ad. And there are some out there that are very well written and truthful to boot. The best ones tend to push the image or popularity of their product. Anhauser-Busch's Budweiser is probably the best example of this when showing off their Clydesdales and old-timey beerwagons and the camaraderie of drinking with your buddies. Since beer is mostly an opinion choice they can't very well claim it is the "best tasting". Subaru is another, stressing safety, as was Volvo.

But most ads are not. And anything with fine print, or in the case of radio, spoken too fast to be understood is to be discarded immediately.

No, that is not true at all. Young people buy based on price, value and the perception that what is being bought enhances their self-image or makes them happy. Think "Apple" for the hallmark example of not shopping based on price.

A few trips around the mall make me believe that young shoppers, particularly females, have very little sense of value (especially with "in" labels and the like) but do buy on selling their self-image to their peers. They will spend $125 on a pair of jeans having some fashionista's label even though the product is no more well made than any other name brand and can be produced in Thailand for less than $8.

As for Apple, they have made some very good products but they have also sold the "aura" or image that only geniuses work there and it's OK to buy proprietary products at an inflated price because you're too dumb to figure them out yourself. There are a whole host of luxury cars that sell the number of gadgets instead of the basic car. BMW tells you it is "The Ultimate Driving Machine" but doesn't say it requires almost constant maintenance (hence they are sold with maintenance contracts included). Volvo sold safety but repairs would break the bank. M-B much the same. The ads only tell a little piece of the story and if you buy in response to the ad you will likely be unpleasantly surprised.

I am frequently surprised to watch a grocery ad on TV telling me something is on sale for a certain price and is the best price available then open up the newspaper insert and find the same exact product for less. Happens all the time. Guess what happens to the perceived integrity of the TV ad and any thought I might have had to listen to them in the future?

 

[davideduardo]

A few trips around the mall make me believe that young shoppers, particularly females, have very little sense of value (especially with "in" labels and the like) but do buy on selling their self-image to their peers.

That's exactly the definition of "value" that motivates sales: how much is it "worth" to you?

If a cheaper product does not make you feel good, then it has no value.

There are a whole host of luxury cars that sell the number of gadgets instead of the basic car. BMW tells you it is "The Ultimate Driving Machine" but doesn't say it requires almost constant maintenance (hence they are sold with maintenance contracts included).

Now it's my pet ox that is being gored. I've had Land Rovers, Infinity, M-B and BMW. In the family, we are on our second pair of BMWs now. I don't recall any car with the road feel, solid build and reliability of the BMWs. Considering the complexity of the added options, there have been very few issues.

To me, the BMW is my definition of good value as I enjoy driving them, feel particularly safe in them and I like the look and feel.

Volvo sold safety but repairs would break the bank.

I had Volvos in Puerto Rico, where it was considered the "nice" car that really held up on the very bad tropical roads. It didn't fall apart, was high enough (unlike BMW and M-B, in this case) to not hit road irregularities, and very safe and reliable in a location where street crime was significant. And it hardly ever broke, and even when broken could still limp in for pretty reasonably priced repairs.

So you see, our metric for value may be different, and I find great value in what you find to be expensive or unreliable or just annoying. ;D

 

[landtuna]

That's exactly the definition of "value" that motivates sales: how much is it "worth" to you?

If a cheaper product does not make you feel good, then it has no value.

I would agree that esoteric value may be in how the buyer feels about the product but that doesn't change the fact that premium prices are charged for products that are made in factories right next to basic versions that cost much less and look and wear just as well. Women's clothes and accessories fall into this description rather well.

Now it's my pet ox that is being gored. I've had Land Rovers, Infinity, M-B and BMW. In the family, we are on our second pair of BMWs now. I don't recall any car with the road feel, solid build and reliability of the BMWs. Considering the complexity of the added options, there have been very few issues.

To me, the BMW is my definition of good value as I enjoy driving them, feel particularly safe in them and I like the look and feel.

I knew this would hit a nerve. ;D In my defense I did not challenge BMW's advertising that they are not a good road car. I've driven them and I agree. However, they are like Porsche, M-B and Range Rover in that they require expensive and frequent maintenance. If you research the various luxury cars on pubs like Edmunds.com (and others) they very rarely make it to the top of a list based upon "value" (expressed as cost of ownership). Personally, my 2000 Toyota Avalon lasted 11 years and 100,000 miles without a single repair (just normal maintenance). We sold it to our daughter who now has 150,000 miles on it and it has had just one minor repair. The original purchase price was significantly less than the other cars you list. That, to me, is value (even though it would not have won track day against BMW).

Do you remember reading about the Hyundai Genesis sedan when it first came out? It was in the same class as the bigger BMW's and MB's but people weren't buying it because it didn't have the right badges and was about half the list price. A significant number of buyers removed the 'Hyundai' badge off the car so it wouldn't be readily identified as a Hyundai (which, years ago, had a not-so-hot reputation). Some people just have to have the right label and that, to them, is value. But not to me.

I had Volvos in Puerto Rico, where it was considered the "nice" car that really held up on the very bad tropical roads. It didn't fall apart, was high enough (unlike BMW and M-B, in this case) to not hit road irregularities, and very safe and reliable in a location where street crime was significant. And it hardly ever broke, and even when broken could still limp in for pretty reasonably priced repairs.

Wifey once owned a business which required a long commute so she bought a used Volvo diesel sedan. It got 40 MPG on the highway and just slightly less in town but drove like a truck. It only broke down once, in SoCal (broken fuel rail) and that simple part required a week to obtain and was something around $200. The original list price in 1983 was over $40,000. Two of my kids learned to drive in that car and there wasn't a living mosquito within 50 miles of my house for two years. They couldn't kill it, which is commendable, but it wasn't really a great value even at the low price I paid.

So you see, our metric for value may be different, and I find great value in what you find to be expensive or unreliable or just annoying. ;D

What was that old saying? "Different strokes for different folks"? ;D

 

[landtuna]

Getting back to our discussion on advertising.....

An interesting article today in Yahoo Finance illustrates somewhat how I feel about commercials. The Consumer Federation of America did a survey and lists the top 10 consumer complaints and wouldn't you know, advertising was right up there in the top spot (false vehicle advertising), #4 - false retail sales advertising, and #10 - home solicitations and violations of Do Not Call.

In my market vehicle ads and retail ads are the most common (at least on the stations I watch and used to listen to) however, all ten listed categories could be subject to advertising issues since that is usually the first connection between consumer and business.

In a nutshell this is a good example of why I pay no attention to commercials regardless of where they originate.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-10-consumer-complaints-144500757.html

 

[johndavis]

In a nutshell this is a good example of why I pay no attention to commercials regardless of where they originate.

...and that is why most people buy 18-34 and 25-54.

Hey, you asked...

 

[landtuna]

In a nutshell this is a good example of why I pay no attention to commercials regardless of where they originate.

...and that is why most people buy 18-34 and 25-54.

Hey, you asked...

That's funny. My understanding is you reach the pinnacle of knowledge at age 17 and just get dumber after that. ;D