Is it possible to guarantee results form advertising? If you approach advertising as a science instead of an art results are fairly predictable.



Though it is just an inquiry, you are starting to see a return on your investment. This is the first proof your advertising is working.

But, in either case, it is just an Inquiry for the goods, of one sort or another. It is the first practical evidence that the money spent is earning something tangible in return.

When she talks to a retailer it there are 2 to 3 times as many chances of substitution. The salesperson may try to sell the customer a higher commission item or the one that is in stock. Whereas if the customer orders online or by phone there is less of a chance of substitution.

The ad which pulls consumers into retail outlets must be as full of influence as profitable mail order advertising. The consumer must be fortified against substitution.

Therefore, the Advertisement which sends Consumers to Retailers, should be as full of Conviction as the successful Mail-Order Advertisement, in order to fortify that Consumer against substitution, Don't keep it, and Here's-something-better.

The ad must give them a better reason to buy our product or service than he is likely to get from the Salesperson for the competitions goods that Salesman will want to substitute. It must give him this reason in such undeniable form that he can comprehend without effort, so absolutely that he will believe our reasoning Claims. It must accomplish this in spite of his natural distrust of all Ads statements. Therefore not more than 1/4 of those who, out of mere curiosity, buy the first package, through "branding" ever buy the 2nd or 3rd consecutive package of the same product. Because they do not buy on Conviction In the Meantime, it usually takes about all the profit in the first purchase of any "branding campaign" to pay the cost of introducing it to the Consumer through Advertising.

In contrast to general publicity "Reason-Why Advertising" or Salesmanship-on-Paper, ROI is predictable. Consumers need only be convinced 1 time, through "Reason why advertising" or "Salesmanship- on-paper," we thus convince him, and more than fortifying him against substitution.

Because, through General Publicity, his attention had only been "attracted," not compelled and enduringly impressed with a logical understanding of these qualities. But, when once convinced in advance of purchase, through "Reason-Why" Salesmanship-in- Type, that the qualities claimed for the article do exist in them, he starts using that article with a mental acceptance of these qualities.

We also help his imagination to find and recognize, in the article advertised, the very qualities claimed and proved for it in the Copy. These qualities he might never have discovered for himself, nor appreciated if he had casually discovered them, in a mere Curiosity purchase.

Any Advertiser who uses mere "General Publicity" when he might have all that and, in addition, a positive Selling force combined with it is losing 50 percent to 80 per cent of the results he might have had from the same identical appropriation.

The difference in Results from Space in which this direct selling force of "Reason-Why" has been used, and in results from similar space filled with "General Publicity," is often more than 60 per cent. Conclusive tests on Copy have clearly proved this, and preceding article cites a vivid example of it from actual experience