Ordinary Advertising

It never ceases to amaze me how much I learn about this advertising/marketing business from reading anything but the trade journals. Case in point, last Sunday’s New York Times “News of the Week in Review” section offered up a fascinating article by Matt Bai in which he explained the key difference between two political campaign consultants–one of whom works for Ms. Clinton and the other for Mr. Obama–a distinction I would argue is every bit as important in our field as it is in the political realm.

Right from the start, Mr. Bai is quick to point out that “To refer generically to these strategists as ‘consultants,’ however, as if they were necessarily experts in the same craft, is to obscure important differences in how they got to where they are.” Because, as he goes on to say, David Axelrod, Obama’s advisor, is “an advertising guy” whereas Mark Penn, who works for Clinton, is “a pollster”.

And the more I read, the more I realized that what Mr. Bai was inadvertently doing was summarizing the sharp contrast between two mindsets and methodologies that predominate the field of persuasion, i.e. marketing and advertising. One is what you might call “the school of storytelling” and the other “the school of data-mining”, and which approach is chosen goes a long way toward explaining why so many communications efforts remain lifeless while others seem to take on a life of their own, even when either approach is executed quite well as the examples I’ll show you in a minute demonstrate.

But first, let me allow Mr. Bai to finish explaining with crystalline clarity what I’ve often struggled to make even remotely clear. Here’s how he describes Mr. Axelrod’s approach: “…he has a gift for telling personal stories in ways people can understand.” For the simple reason that “Such is the unwavering, almost defiant faith that Mr. Axelrod and his candidate have in the transformative (emphasis mine) power of their story.” Now, compare that with how he describes (with equal admiration) Mr. Penn’s way of going about things: “…a pollster tends to look at campaigns as a series of dissectible data points that either attract voters or drive them away.” Substitute viewers, readers or customers for “voters” and you pretty much have what we try to do. And at the core of this approach to “marketing”, if you will, is a practice methodology “…which values testable ideas and phrases over more sweeping imagery and themes.” as Mr. Bai concludes.

Sound familiar? Think about your own advertising for a second, the way your agency approaches an assignment or the way you do. Do you attempt to employ data to ratiocinate your way into the heads of your target audience? Or concoct a story to inveigle your way into their hearts? Or never mind your advertising, take a look at the two examples here and see if you get what I mean.

I’ve been using these two ads for years now because they do such a good job of illustrating something I often find monumentally difficult to explain: the unmistakable difference between a very acceptable ordinary ad and an infinitely better extraordinary one. Not surprisingly, both ads ran in the same issue of some bridal magazine–about five pages apart if memory serves. And both have a lot in common: beautiful settings and lighting, tasty art direction and clean typography, and two couples that both appear to be pondering what comes after the Earth moves, fireworks by the Grucci’s and toes curling like one of those birthday party horns.

But from that point on, all resemblance come to an abrupt end. Because, while the Four Seasons one employs a particular datum and then weds it (heh!) to an opinion to which the sponsor is certainly entitled, the Ritz ad draws upon a “truth” as I’m fond of saying, and uses it to allude to an engaging (double heh!) story. Which makes a world of difference to me and to a mere 10% of the advertising universe near as I can see.

However, for those able to appreciate the distinction, it’s a biggie. And quite possibly the single most critical factor in determining how powerful an ad really is. Now, as far as which approach will prevail in November I’m not qualified to say. But there is a significant body of evidence emerging from the worlds of neurology and behavioral economics that would suggest any effort at persuasion that strives to move us toward a particular point of view will ultimately triumph over one that tries instead to shove us in that direction.