I saw a post on TomPeters.com (written by Steve Yastrow) today that makes a good point about the true power of advertising:
"Side effects may include..."
He talks about how annoying it is to hear about the litany of side effects that may or may not tag along with so many of the new wonder drugs on the market today.
Of course, we know the "side effect soliloquy" is mandated by the guv'ment to protect us poor, senseless consumers.
But is it really necessary?
No.
Anyone who knows marketing understands one pitch does not make the sale.
Unless your giving away gold, people need multiple exposures to your message before they decide if they want to do business with you. They need time to acquire information so they can judge whether you have something they want.
Even more so if you're selling drugs.
Yastrow rightly mentions that the TV commercial a consumer sees is just one part of the whole marketing event that may (or may not) move the buyer to making a purchase. The consumer will need a fair amount of educating before they decide to try a new drug.
The logic behind "protecting" us by sharing all the possible side-effects says they actually believe that one TV commercial will cause someone to rush out and try the new drug.
This is a perfect example of how old, mass-media violates the new rules of marketing and communications brought on by the Internet.
They miss the point that their ad is to begin or propel someone along a path. It's not to compel them to make a decision on the spot.
Doc Searls might diagnose this marketing muff as trying to "tell and sell" instead of working to "learn and earn".
My friend Lonny Kocina would probably call this a case of short-form advertising trying to do the work of long-form advertising.
Both would be right.
We who would communicate in this wondrous world of the 21st Century need to pay attention to the "new rules". Otherwise we'll waste a lot of time and money and accomplish little for our troubles.
Comment Preview