It’s hard to turn a blind eye to these domestic violence ads

Having been in the ad business for some time, I’ve become pretty discriminating. Creativity is all well and good, but no brief ever listed it as a business objective. Conversely, ads with nothing different or memorable aren’t worth writing about.   

It’s not often that I see an ad that does both well. So imagine my surprise when I saw two them on the same day (actually they were back to back on Adfreak) for the same cause no less.

This one, created by Ireland Davenport for the Salvation Army in South Africa, cleverly capitalizes on the buzz of “the dress” to call attention to domestic violence.

4 things technology has made worse

Image courtesy of Feelart at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I promise I’m not an old curmudgeon bemoaning progress. At least not yet. I don’t resist new technology or trends. On the contrary, I love the latest advancements. The capabilities we have at our disposal make work and personal endeavors so much easier it’s hard to imaging how we did things without them.

But for all of the advantages technology brings, there are drawbacks. Here are four things that have deteriorated in the technological age, and what it means for marketers and advertisers.

The #1 thing holding your marketing and advertising back

I’m an adman, so you might expect this to be a rant about how clients need to take more chances and trust their agency or in-house creative teams. That’s a pretty common gripe among us creative types, after all. And truth be told, a lot of great ads do get watered down this way. But that’s not the biggest thing holding it back.

What’s really keeping marketers from their greatest success is the very way they think about marketing. There are debates raging all over the blogosphere about marketing media and disciplines. Above the line advertisers look down on direct response, while the direct marketers dismiss the former for lacking measurable results. It can get heated.

If your content disappeared tomorrow, would anyone miss it?

Would anyone miss your content if it all disappeared?

As marketers, we tend to dive headlong into new methods and trends. Content marketing is no exception. In fact, 92,000 new articles are posted online every day. And that’s just one form of content.

It’s easy to understand the appeal. Content marketing is cost effective, versatile and, when done right, leads to long-term success. So we create and curate to feed the content marketing machine. And it’s hungry. But if your content all disappeared, would anyone miss it?

Before you answer that question, give some objective thought to the following.

Advertising silos could be killing your results

Image courtesy of Lavoview at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The great thing about the Internet is that it gives everyone a voice. The bad thing about the Internet is that it gives everyone a voice.

From a positive standpoint, companies and individuals can get their messages out quickly and affordably, building their reputations and attracting followers.

On the flip side, anyone can claim to be an authority on any given subject. And bad advice is more widespread than you might think. I probably shouldn’t be by now, but I’m still surprised by a lot of what I see online. 

My best advice for writing direct marketing that works

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Getting people to take action, right now, without ever interacting with them face-to-face is really hard. In fact, a response rate of just 3% is considered a great result in many instances. Worst of all, we often make it even harder than it has to be.

That’s why what I’m about to share is my absolute best advice for writing direct marketing that works. If you follow this, you’ll get out of your own way, simplify the task at hand and improve your response rate.

So what is this magical pearl of wisdom?

Why your PPC results stink

If you’re reading this, then you’re likely frustrated with your search engine marketing efforts. Maybe you’re losing money on your ads, and even worse, you’re not sure why.  It’s probably one or more of the following.