Thinking short and long

Brand activation (sales now) vs long term brand building. Both work. Both are needed. But usually there’s so much pressure on growth and metrics that activation gets prioritized.

An essay I just read recommends budget allocation of 60% brand building and 40% activation. Though I can hear Dan Kennedy (the famous direct response copywriter who advocates no brand building) screaming this is wrong, the essay’s point is advertising is an investment, not a cost. And it’s illustrated by this story.

An ad exec sells his share in the company, cashing out and making riches. He invites a friend out to lunch and offers to drive him home at the end of the meal. The friend balks and says no, it’s only a 10 minute walk. But the ad exec insists and the friend gives in and when he sees the car, he knows why the exec wanted to drive him home: it’s a brand new Aston Martin.

“I bought this because of an advertisement.”

“No kidding?”

“I saw the ad when I was 14”

Three decades after seeing that ad, the exec made the purchase. It wasn’t a no-money-down or creative leasing structure - not an activation marketing approach. It was a deep emotional appeal - long-term brand building - that carried the sale.

CMOs have the shortest careers in the C suite. If sales are down, it’s probably marketing’s fault. This pressures us to think short term at the expense of long term. Winning creativity awards doesn’t always generate sales, and a lot of the books you’ll read downplay winning advertising awards as frivolous. But what if they do sell more? One study found over the long haul, award-winning campaigns sold 10x more than non-award winners.

Source material: https://www.wpp.com/-/media/project/wpp/files/bullmore-collection/a_20th_century_lesson.pdf