Eye Candy...

Recently, someone gave me a referral, telling me the prospect needed more colorful, flashier ads.

I appreciate the referral. But disagree with the prognosis. I believe the ads needed more substance, not more eye candy. Forgive me if I rant for a moment: Advertising is not about showmanship. It's about salesmanship. It's not about fine art. It's about using art and words to persuade prospects to buy your product or service.

In the mid-90's I did an informal study of automotive aftermarket advertising. My goal was to determine what made an ad motivate readers. A trade journal shared their advertiser Reader Service Card (RSC) summaries with me. I made the assumption that the more RSCs an ad got, the more motivating the ad was. I Cross-referenced the RSC summary to each ad I studied over a series of months. I learned that "flashiness" is rarely a determining factor in an ad generating leads. Bigger ads did draw slightly more leads. More frequent advertisers generated far more leads than infrequent. But being "flashy" (bright colors, trendy design, cute women) didn't seem to make a difference.

I noticed five common traits in the biggest lead-generating ads. One of the most interesting was that "benefit ads" generated more RSCs. Black and white "benefit ads" pulled better than color "non-benefit ads" ads in the same category.

A few years later I did a smaller study using a different trade journal. Same methodology. Same industry. Same basic result.

In 1997, a third aftermarket publisher did their own study. Different methodology. Parallel results. (In their study, ads with technical copy scored 14% higher than ads without technical copy. Something I never studied.)

I believe if you did the same research today you'd get the same findings -- in almost any industry. (But, in the Internet-age, you might need to modify your methodology slightly.)

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against trendy design or bright colors. I often use them in our work. I'm against using flash as a substitute for substance.

When did you ever buy an item because the ad was flashy? You bought it because of a complex series of decisions related to various competing marketing messages. The higher the price, the longer and more complex the decisions. The flashiness of an ad is likely the least influencing factor.

For instance, I like the TV spots for Gatorade with athletes sweating in bright, Gatorade colors. But that doesn't make me want to run out and buy Gatorade. You?

Are your ads more about sizzle or substance? Do you have a USM (Unique Selling Message) that differentiates your offerings from the competition? Do your prospects and clients know why you're the best choice for them? Are all your marketing materials communicating that same message?

Do you think this tip would be better if I used no words and just lots of eye candy?