Who can tell a blockbuster ad:

Who else wants to have a crack at ted nicholas' challenge to recognise a blockbuster ad?

Two ads, you have to recognise the $1m ad..... I think I know which it is from knowing ted nicholas' history, but you also have to say why

2 of us have had a go from the forum and ( I think) we are on different sides of the choice.....

http://www.daniellevis.com/

 

[INDIZINE]

Im going for No.1 Because the sentences are short enough to be absorbed and understood quickly. Also, it is easier to put yourself in the other guy's shoes and relate to the situation.

 

[Matt1959]

I know nothing about this, but for me its No 2 as more people get frightened than get angry. 2nd one also gets straight to it and makes you think whereas the first one is more vague and for me, sends a less strong message...

 

[garyk]

For me its no.2 just because it has a slightly more WIIFM (Whats in it for me) approach than #1, but hey I could be completely wrong! Thanks for the heads up on the site kr, looks pretty good and had never seen it before.

Gary

 

I declined to say...

For me it is all about headlines

And an assumption that the audience was joe public: via full page newspaper ads, nicholas's favorite medium

I picked #1 , because the headline is selling a dream.
little guy gets rich.

Wherre #2 is selling prevention of disaster. Prevention is a very hard thing to sell.

Ask a burglar alarm company: the people they sell to are basically people who have been burgled, or their neighbours!! - ie they sell after the disaster, not before it

And also , it is about protecting what you already have: there are far fewer haves that want to protect, than have nots that want to buy the dream to be a have, and are angry that others have made it , not them

but you are in good company on #2 - steve G voted that way, so I may well be very wrong!!!

 

[directmarketingadvice]

It's probably worth pointing out that Ted Nicholas probably didn't know which ad was better until he tested them.

Steve

PS I could find out the answer in a couple of hours if I rummaged through my files so, I reckon the votes are a mixture of people taking educated guesses and those who already know the answer and are justifying the result with hindsight.

 

[CKG]

For me it has to be number 2.

As regards number 1. It's a bit too open ended for me with no real promise or proof. Might save a few quid in tax, great. It aint gonna make me rich though..

I'm more sold on the pain of loosing my assets.

 

It's probably worth pointing out that Ted Nicholas probably didn't know which ad was better until he tested them.

Steve

PS I could find out the answer in a couple of hours if I rummaged through my files so, I reckon the votes are a mixture of people taking educated guesses and those who already know the answer and are justifying the result with hindsight.

Interesting that the vote is well split at present.

Did you ever buy ted nicholas' $200 swipe book - all his most successful ads, and how they performed?

It has just reminded me to go look for it again.

M

 

[directmarketingadvice]

If anyone's interested, the comments I posted were:

"I think it depends on the audience. Who was this ad aimed at?

My guess is, if it was sent out to a list of non-incorporated business owners, the second ad would pull well.

So, I’ll go with #2.

And my reasoning is that people will do more to avoid losing what they have than they’ll do to make money.

Also, I agree with a previous poster that said the headline of the first ad doesn’t really fit the body copy.

(and the notion of saving money - “zero taxes” - is hidden away … and not backed up very well in the excerpt we were shown)."

However, it's a bit like flying blind as:

(1) we've no idea who the audience is - for example, if it was sent to "hobbyist" businesses, the first might have more appeal as they'd have so much more to gain than to lose.

(there was a big thing in the US in the 1990s where people set up companies so they could write off a load of personal expenses ... a "board meeting" with the wife at a fancy restaurant etc.)

(2) don't get to see the whole letter (the first letter is only really starting to get going by the time Levis cuts is short).

So, it's a big crapshoot.

I've gone for the second as it's "more to the point" but, as Kimrunner said, it's hard to sell protection to a prospect that's not already worried.

Did you ever buy ted nicholas' $200 swipe book - all his most successful ads, and how they performed?

I thought about it, but it didn't push me over the edge.

However, I've got some old CDs with Ted Nicholas and I'm sure this letter is mentioned in it.

I should really go back and listen to them.

Steve

 

[Calypso]

For me it's number 1, because of the headline. I didn't read all the copy in either, and based my decision on my reaction to the headlie, as that is what alot of other people would do!

 

[Sally@CC]

I didn't read either headline, so it has to be No 2 for me. The first line in No 1 didn't grab my attention at all and make me want to keep reading, whereas No 2 did.

 

Was anyone else on the call last night?

Ted Nicholas is an inspiration... I have always liked the smooth flow of his copy, and for those that dont have it get a copy of "magic words" or "turn words into money!

The answer to the riddle was choice 1

"the only way for the little guy to get rich" -

And whether or not the emotions of anger is more powerful than fear, or other justifications, I think the reason is more basic than that:

Nicholas advertised in the main in regional and national newspapers: so it is all about resonating with the bulk of the audience, and to an audience of general public, all shapes and sizes: the dream for the little guy to get rich - the american dream is selling hope to many who have none.

Some have said, that the early paragraphs of the letter are not direct enough: but I am a believer in Joe Sugarmans principle of the "slippery slope" (adweek copywriters handbook): the primary objective of a headline is not to sell at any level: it is simply to get you to read para 1, then para1 should make you read 2 until you are slipping down the slope, being gently guided towards where the end goal is for the copy. So provided the headline gets you to read: it only has to resonate: not alarm or scream a benefit: just grab sufficient attention for you want to read on.

And most "Little guys" do want to "get rich" and believe that there is no way: so to be told there is , is enough for them to read on

 

[INDIZINE]

so in effect it basically followed the AIDA principle.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

And whether or not the emotions of anger is more powerful than fear, or other justifications, I think the reason is more basic than that:

Nicholas advertised in the main in regional and national newspapers: so it is all about resonating with the bulk of the audience

I agree.

I think the reason the ad won is that it was talking to the audience.

It talked about cutting taxes to people who wanted to pay less tax (i.e. everybody). The second ad talked about protecting yourself against business lawsuits.

I think that, if you changed the audience to business owners, the second ad would have won.

So, it was a pretty meaningless survey when the key information was missing (as I said on his site last week)

Anyway, it's good to see Ted still out there doing the rounds. He's well worth listening to.

Steve