This is the most viewed video I’ve ever released on YouTube.
I’m pleased to report it outpaces its nearest competitor, from my pals the Ylvis Brothers, by 24,000 views.
Of course, I’ve had the Ylvis Brothers’ video online for only 2 years vs. 4 years for my “Bobby View Ruined My Life” video.
And theirs has a lot more “thumbs up” and fewer “thumbs down” than mine.
But still I gloat.
Years ago I found myself mulling over what I learned about love and romance from the pop songs I grew up hearing on the radio.
That took me to my computer, where I organized my thoughts and put them in writing.
My friends liked it.
One day one of them said, “Y’know, that thing about Bobby Vee is the best thing you’ve ever written. You should do something with it.”
I’m pretty sure that was his way of saying everything else I’ve written isn’t very good. But I rewrote the “essay” for video, found the appropriate audio clips, and produced the piece.
If you don’t know who Bobby Vee is, there’s no point in your watching the video.
Usually you want to avoid saying “Best Price” in your radio campaign, but for a different reason.
As we’ve discussed, “Competitive Prices” conveys the message, “Hey, our prices aren’t any worse than most other places’ prices.”
If your radio advertising campaign boasts that you have the best prices, then you are positioning whatever it is you sell as a commodity.
Commodities are interchangeable; to the end consumer, one is pretty much as good as another.
When your product or service is a commodity, “price” is the only thing that matters to the consumer.
Example: Gasoline. Although some oil companies will insist that their gasoline is better for your automobile than their competitors’ (and they may be correct), most of us buy the cheapest gas around.
You want to fill up your tank, there are two gas stations across the street from each other, and one is advertising gas at 5 cents a gallon less than the other; which one do you choose?
Most of us select the cheaper option.
In fact, we’ll drive several blocks further to save a nickel a gallon. After all, if we add 12 gallons to our gas tank, we’ve saved a cool…uh, 60 cents.
Light bulbs. Same wattage, same estimated life? We buy the cheapest ones.
Shoelaces. We carefully compare the specifications of competing brands, and if two brands are identical in tensile strength, slippage, knot security, abrasion resistance and water wicking resistance, we buy the cheaper brand.
(Or maybe you just make sure they’re the same length. Some of us, however, like to do our research before making a shoelace purchase.)
If you just want to buy some aspirin and have no special loyalty to a particular brand, you buy the cheapest generic brand on shelf.
The advent of “compare to…” store brands vs. national brands has brought the commodity concept to new categories or subcategories.
Example: I don’t buy just “aspirin.” I purchase Extra Strength Excedrin (is there any other strength of Excedrin?) not because of its advertising or its powerful positioning (“an Excedrin headache”).
I buy Excedrin because the combination of aspirin, acetaminophen and caffeine does a better job of getting rid of my headaches than aspirin or acetaminophen alone. Bonus Tip: Wash it down with Diet Coke, and the soft drink’s caffeine serves as a booster for Excredin’s caffeine.
For me, it’s not Bayer’s or Tylenol or Advil; it’s Excedrin. I don’t care how much cheaper the others might be; it’s gotta be Excedrin.
Except…
When I’m shopping at a branch of a national drugstore chain that sells its own generic product that appears to be exactly like Excedrin but significantly less expensive, I gladly reach for the cheaper, generic alternative.
Identical products, but one is 3 bucks less than the other? That’s an easy choice to make.
And the stores make sure I know their brand is identical to the Big Name brand. Their packaging mimics the colors of the Big Name brand. The two brands are sold side by side, and the cheaper one might even say, “Compare to {Big Brand}.”
Identical ingredients but one is significantly less than expensive than the other? Another easy choice.
\Excedrin costs around $10 for 100 tablets or caplets.
CVS’s “Added Strength Headache Relief” sells at $8 for 100 tablets or caplets.
Wal-Mart’s “Equate Headache Relief” costs just 2 bucks for 100.
(Probably Costco sells its own house brand. But I don’t know where I’d store a 40-gallon container of generic Excedrin.)
The products are chemically identical, and they produce identical results for users. At least if you’re shopping at CVS or Wal-Mart, Excedrin has been transformed into a commodity.
If your advertiser is offering “the cheapest available anywhere,” they’re can’t also offer “the best.”
If their competitive advantage is having the lowest priced widgets in town, then their strength can quickly turn into a weakness when someone else comes along with the same widgets but at an even lower price.
By contrast, you’ll never see Apple advertising “the lowest price computers on the market.”
Neither will you see an Apple Store advertising “the lowest prices for computer peripherals” — because their cables and cases and adaptors sell for twice as much as the identical products at the nearby Big Box stores.
Back to Thom’s original question: If you’re advertising a commodity and your big selling point (your Unique Selling Proposition) is that you do have the lowest prices around, then make that the focus of your radio ad campaign.
Don’t talk about convenience, free parking, or the expertise of your staff. If you’ve chosen to compete on price, don’t simply mention it. Hit it hard. Again and again.
And hope that someone even cheaper than you doesn’t enter your market.
Rishika Vazirani asked this question about radio commercials on my Facebook page:
“Was wondering if you know any agency who ‘pre-tests’ radio creatives?”
Off-hand, no. But I’ll be glad to give you my opinion on the way some people misapply “scientific measurement” to pre-test radio campaigns.
Seven years ago I was contacted by a smart, successful radio owner who is well-known as a pioneering maverick. (Let’s call him Pioneer.)
His overall goal: “Change the radio industry to produce better {commercial} copy.”
His strategy: “Train copywriters at big agencies.”
His tactic: Have an “expert” train 3 people to apply the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) to review potential commercials and, applying what the guy taught them, determine whether a spot is “engaging.”
The Theory: The more “engaged” listeners are, the more likely they are to buy the product or service being advertised.
I originally understood the proposal to be to test the commercials on volunteer listeners and use FACS to measure subjects’ autonomic facial reactions to determine their level of “engagement” with the commercials.
Instead, those 3 newly minted mini-experts simply review commercials and assign them FACS ratings.
The Expert, I was told, was not claiming to be an authority on creating successful radio commercials. He had a Ph.D. in something or other. As far as I know he’d never created a successful radio spot (or even an unsuccessful one).
Still, he had developed a list of principles for creating “engaging” ads.
One was:
“If the commercial consists of a dialogue, engagement tends to increase.”
In reality, it all depends upon the situation, the type of dialogue, and the copywriter’s ability to create compelling, relevant dialogue.
The Expert undoubtedly was referring specifically to “dialogue spots” — two people, inside the commercial, talking to each other.
That’s one type of dialogue spot, but it’s not the only kind. The Expert didn’t understand that.
A second kind of dialogue spot is one person talking directly to the listener. Not shouting or proclaiming; talking. Done well, the listener’s internal response constitutes the other end of the dialogue.
And there’s a third type of dialogue commercial: The monologue spot that is an inner monologue, spoken aloud. The listener hears a representation of what the character is thinking and mentally or emotionally responds to it.
When done well, the “two person dialogue spot” certainly works. Dick Orkin has built his advertising career on doing that very well.
But there are some limitations to that model:
1. For most people, writing dialogue that is believable, relatable and compelling is difficult. Even for professional dramatists.
In the world of theater, if you say “someone who writes great dialogue,” the unanimous, reflexive response is, “David Mamet.”
That illustrates two things:
David Mamet is great at writing dialogue.
Few playwrights excel at dialogue. Hence, “David Mamet” wins by default.
Because writing dialogue requires both talent and a high level of craft, that type of “dialogue spot” shouldn’t be thought of as the “default mode” when writing a commercial.
2. The purpose of the two-person dialogue spot is for the listener to be influenced by a conversation that is relevant to the listener’s situation.
The more relevant and compelling the message, the less distance you want between the commercial and the listener.
Example: You’ve just been diagnosed with leukemia. Which would you rather hear: Two people talking about how to treat leukemia — or one person telling you how to treat your leukemia?
I teach writers that a good commercial is one that enters a conversation the prospect already is having. (Thank you, Robert Collier, for having promulgated that concept.)
That conversation might be between the prospect and a third party, or it might be going on solely in the prospect’s head.
Entering that conversation is much more powerful than attempting to begin a new conversation.
3. The best commercial copywriters have their own preferred ways of entering into a conversation with the listener. They don’t make a conscious choice; they simply write according to their strengths.
For Dick Orkin, it’s the “two person dialogue spot.”
April Winchell — one of the most talented radio copywriters around — frequently employs a distinctively different style: one person — a believable “character” with exaggerated characteristics — delivering the sales message with brilliantly funny dialogue.
Dick Terhune specializes in one-person spots, with each “person” tailored to the needs of the campaign.
Some great copywriters are accomplished musicians, and they are much more likely than others to include customized music, lyrics, etc.
I’m a “word” guy, and as a writer I learn toward gentle sarcasm.
Probably half of what I write is one person speaking to the listener, while the other half is a two-person dialogue. But it’s never the “Say, Jane, where did you get those beautiful fingernails?” kind of dialogue that fills most commercials.
The Expert Passes Judgment.
I was asked to provide 5 radio commercials that I thought would test well; these would be forward to The Expert to “test.”
I sent them 5 spots I guessed would test well. I didn’t, however, indicate how successful any of the commercials were.
Instead of “testing” the commercials, The Expert critiqued them from a creative standpoint.
He liked 3 of them.
He thought the punchline to one of them was funny. But I guarantee he couldn’t have explained why it’s so funny in the context of that commercial and why it’s so effective.
Being funny isn’t enough. The laugh line needs to reinforce (or carry) the sales message.
He gave the 4th spot a failing grade because he “didn’t understand and couldn’t relate to” it. The campaign worked like gangbusters with the target audience: teenage girls. But he’s not in the demographic, and he doesn’t understand the very sophisticated method (“Pacing & Leading”) that was used to tell that story.
And the 5th commercial? Well, let’s come back to that one later.
I told my Pioneer friend, “None of his critiques considered the goals of the campaigns or the audiences to whom they were addressed. If the target audience for each commercial isn’t factored into the analysis, you’re going to end up with some seriously flawed data. If he’s going to go around giving people ‘creative’ advice, critiquing what’s good and what’s not good about a commercial, that’s a serious problem — because he’s not qualified.”
What Is an “Expert”?
Several years ago one of the largest ad agencies to specialize in Direct Response radio advertising hired me to coach their copywriting staff.
Twice, actually.
The first time, when I checked into my hotel I was handed a large manilla envelope.
Hmmm. What’s this?
The envelope contained 5 pairs of radio commercial copy, for a total of 10 scripts.
It was accompanied by a note from the President of the company:
“Dan…Please review these five radio campaigns, and for each one tell us which you think performed better.”
As a direct response agency that carefully tracks results, they knew exactly how well each had performed. They had tested them against each other in the only arena that matters: on the radio.
Great. The real message to me was, “You’re an expert at this stuff? Prove it.”
Just what I needed. If my predictions flopped, my credibility would be shot.
I read the 5 pairs of scripts and indicated which one in each was likelier to have performed better.
The next morning, we all sat around a big conference table as the company president went through my selections.
“Pretty impressive, Dan. You got 4 out of 5 right. The only one you got wrong was for (CLIENT).”
I enjoyed the “pretty impressive” compliment for 3 or 4 seconds before becoming defensive: “What? You’re telling me that this one performed better than the other?”
Yep.
Inconceivable. That script was a mess; I could barely follow it.
“Do you happen to have a copy of the actual commercial? I’d like to hear it.”
He did have a copy of the commercial that had aired on the radio. He played it for the rest of us, and after 5 seconds I said, “That guy’s a platform speaker, isn’t he?”
He nodded.
A platform speaker is someone who speaks from the stage, to a live audience, with the sole purpose of selling something.
Think Tony Robbins.
Immediately I could tell 3 things from those 5 seconds.
1. The guy on the recording was Australian.
2. He was an experienced platform speaker.
3. He was very good (i.e., very persuasive).
He could’ve sold anything to anybody.
From reading the script, I had no way of imagining how those words would sound coming out of that guy’s mouth.
That’s why to this day when I’m asked to “predict” the winning commercial script, I’m careful to ask, “Who will be delivering the copy?”
Still, with no warning and no preparation, 4 out of 5 wasn’t bad.
Which leads to the ultimate definition of “an expert.”
An expert is someone who can predict the results.
You know how after there’s a big swing in the stock market — prices dramatically rise or fall — all these “experts” appear on radio and TV to explain why it happened?
That’s not expertise. It’s not particularly difficult to predict what will happen after it happens.
Those aren’t experts; they’re talking heads.
The expert is the one who predicted the stock market swing before it occurred…and explained why it would occur.
I could’ve sent “The Expert” a radio campaign I recently had produced that tripled the client’s online sales in a single week. He would’ve reported the spot was boring and confusing.
Why?
1. He’s not the kind of person my clients were trying to reach.
2. He’s not…I hate to say it, but…He’s not an expert.
The Fifth Commercial
Remember how I’d sent the Pioneer five radio commercials that I thought were good?
Here’s The Expert’s response to the 5th ad, verbatim: “There is nothing at all funny about that commercial.” He gave it a failing grade.
You can’t objectively state “there’s nothing funny about that.” Humor is 100% subjective.
He can say, “I don’t find anything funny about that” without fear of contradiction.
The commercial was a parody. Probably he wasn’t familiar with the genre being parodied, so to him it wasn’t funny.
Here’s the commercial.
My question to you is not “Is it funny?”
Remember, “funny” is 100% subjective. I wouldn’t expect everyone to find this amusing.
My question is, “Is it funny to you?”
How to Pre-Test a Radio Commercial
Play it for a number of people in the target demographic — individually — who know nothing about the ad campaign.
Ask them:
1. What’s the one message you get from that spot?
2. What’s the one action the advertiser wants you to take?
Those 2 questions measure the clarity of the message the commercial delivered.
3. How has it affected the likelihood of your taking that action?
The third question measures the spot’s relevance and persuasiveness.
Dan, I have told clients never to give listeners more than one contact choice, for the reason you give (it paralyzes them, which I learned from you several years ago). Most accept it, but some flip right out, saying “But it makes sense to give people a choice!” They’re afraid that some people don’t have computers and figure that choice will increase the response rate.
What can I say to them, or are such people beyond redemption and should I just tell them, “Okay I’ll put your web and physical addresses in the copy but if the response rate isn’t so hot, remember what I told you!”
Face Logic
Those clients are falling victim to the fallacy of “Face Logic” — on the face of it, it seems to make sense. But what seems “logical” isn’t always accurate.
When your clients fight you on this, it means you haven’t done your job. You haven’t already established yourself as the expert on radio advertising.
Clients who already perceive you as The Expert wouldn’t dream of contradicting you or arguing with you.
They might ask for clarification. They might say, “I don’t understand.” But they won’t flip out and insist you must be wrong.
The Two Keys to Winning The Argument
The two keys are:
1. Establish yourself as the expert.
2. When necessary, educate the client.
I conduct seminars for radio and ad agency account executives on how to educate clients.
I’ve written an inexpensive (yet valuable) e-book on the topic: HOW TO EDUCATE YOUR RADIO ADVERTISING CLIENTS. It’s really not a difficult task to accomplish… if you’ve educated yourself in the process.
You could tell the client that it’s been proven over and over again that increasing the numbers of Calls to Action decreases response.
If you haven’t established yourself as the expert, the client won’t believe you.
You could tell the client to read THE PARADOX OF CHOICE by Barry Schwartz, which is filled with marketing examples of this phenomenon.
It’s easy to read and costs less than 9 bucks.
But the client won’t read it. Everyone reading this blog posting, however, should read Barry’s book.
You could say to the client, “You can see for yourself by doing a simple split test. For six weeks, we’ll alternate commercials with identical schedules.
“On Weeks One, Three and Five the commercials will give both your Web address and your street address.
“On Weeks Two, Four and Six the commercials will give only your Web address, which you already have told me is how the majority of your new customers establish ‘first contact’ with you.
“We’ll keep a close tally of the responses and compare the number of new leads you generate during the single Call to Action weeks vs. the number of leads generated in the multiple Call to Action Weeks.
“Because I haven’t succeeded in making you believe I know much more about my business than you do, you can look at the numbers yourself. It’s an expensive way to learn this lesson, but if that’ll make you feel better….”
That won’t be a perfect experimental design, because it doesn’t control for “order effects” — i.e., it’s possible that the second week might always outpull the first week (for example).
But that doesn’t matter because:
1. Even if there is an order effect, the overall results will be striking.
2. The clients won’t agree to do it anyway. They’ll prefer to insist they’re right than to put their “convention wisdom” to a real test.
For a truly valid test that controls for such variables, you’d need to run identical schedules on identically programmed and identically performing stations in identical markets with identical audiences. But unless you’ve discovered a parallel universe — that happens to have commercial radio — such a test is unlikely.
So we circle back to you, the copywriter or you, the account exec: If you want to provide your clients the most for their money, you need to:
1.Educate yourself to the point where you do have genuine expertise in radio advertising.
2. Make that expertise clear to the client at the beginning of and throughout your entire relationship.
\
