I’ve spent a good portion of the last decade sitting in the boardrooms of major corporations, explaining the truth about direct response advertising. Unfortunately, direct response is considered by much of corporate America to be the ugly and unwanted bastard stepchild of the advertising business, and there is a tremendous amount of misinformation in particular spread about it. Here is a sampling of the most common "DR Folklore" I encounter on almost a daily basis:
DRTV Myth #1: Only people living in trailer houses (and usually married to relatives) watch direct response television.
The Facts: While it is true that the above demographic is the primary purchaser of most of the get-rich-quick schemes sold on infomercials, the truth is that everyone who watches television also watches direct response. I’ve sold cell phones, Internet services, expensive consumer electronics, $2,000 exercise machines, $10,000 hair transplants, Lasik eye surgery, $500 tooth-whitening processes, $1,500 computers and $10,000 vacation packages to very upscale demographics via direct response television. Lexus and Land Rover market luxury vehicles via infomercials. It is quite possible to successfully and cost-effectively market to almost any economic target demographic via DRTV. It is simply a function of the proper creative, offer and media plan.
DRTV Myth #2: Direct response television always looks like your inebriated Uncle Willie shot it with his Handy Cam, and should feature a screaming pitchman and/or a celebrity last seen during the 1978-’79 season of The Love Boat as the primary spokesperson.
The Facts: While it is true that a lot of DRTV does fit the above profile, the creative approach and production quality of direct response television vary widely. DRTV attracts a large number of under-financed entrepreneurs, and their creative approaches often reflect their limited budgets. And the reality is that high-end production values are not always effective in selling every product, hence many marketers consciously choose a more hard-hitting production approach. DRTV is about salesmanship, so if it is done properly it should look much different than standard branded creative.
However, I’ve worked on DRTV campaigns for some of the best-known brands in the world, and almost without exception they insist on production qualities on a par with their traditional television advertising. Properly designed direct response is usually much more product, feature, and offer focused than most traditional advertising (which often translates to the fact that, unlike with many traditional commercials, the consumer actually understands what is being sold), but that doesn’t mean it has to be devoid of creativity. And, ultimately, production quality should first coincide with the marketing approach, and then be a function of budget. Major corporate marketers that want production quality on a par with their traditional television advertising need to be prepared to invest accordingly. (Though they will be surprised at the production efficiencies of most experienced direct response production companies compared to their traditional agencies.)
DRTV Myth #3: Direct response media is only available between midnight and 5 a.m., on low-powered WB and non-English speaking stations.
The Facts: Most broadcast stations and networks (including upscale networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, Bravo, Discovery, A&E and CNBC) accept direct response advertising, and it runs around the clock, seven days a week. In fact, during the recent media recession we were purchasing direct response media in prime time, fringe prime time, and major syndication slots quite effectively. Certainly there are many products and creative approaches that may not be approved to run by individual stations and networks, but those issues aside, quality media is available for direct response. Again, it all becomes a function of budget—better dayparts cost more. But good direct response is all about profitability, and smart DR marketers care less about where it airs, than where it airs profitably.
DRTV Myth #4: It is impossible to brand a product using direct response television.
The Facts: Although traditional advertising agencies would love to have you believe this one, it simply isn’t true. Prove it to yourself by taking this little test: Next time you are in a group of people, ask them how many have heard of the George Foreman grill, Bowflex, OxyClean, Ron Popeil, NordicTrack, or Tae Bo. Most likely everyone in the room will know those "brands" that were built via direct response. The truth is that depending on the product or service being marketed, direct response offers tremendous potential to brand, because marketers can achieve much higher media budgets through the efficiencies of "profitable advertising."
The power of direct response is especially apparent when you compare budgets of traditional campaigns versus DR. Twenty million dollars spent over 12 months on direct response television would be an enormous budget, and virtually everyone would see your message. But twenty million dollars spent on traditional advertising is potentially insignificant. Dozens of dot-coms "we never heard of" blew through that amount over the last holiday season. Now, I am not advocating that direct response is a total replacement for traditional branded advertising—because it isn’t. But for clients that have complex messages, tight advertising budgets, and benefit from a consumer response to their advertising, it should at least be a part of their marketing mix.
Unfortunately, accurate information on direct response television is often hard to find. Traditional advertising agencies don’t understand it, fear it, and consequently try to dismiss it. But in a business world that is increasingly being built on consumer-direct marketing models, many companies would be well served to get the facts and investigate the potential for themselves.
