70’s and 80’s USSR commercials

Get To Know, and Use, AIDA

http://youtu.be/wVQPY4LlbJ4

The acronym AIDA stands for Attention, Interest, Desire, Action, and it is one of the founding principles of most modern-day marketing and advertising. In fact, it's often said that if your marketing or advertising is missing just one of the four AIDA steps, it will fail.

While that's not strictly true (a branding or awareness campaign does not necessarily need the Action step) you need to know about AIDA, and use it whenever possible. It's a rule you need to learn well before you can break it.

Where Did AIDA Come From?

American advertising and sales pioneer Elias. St. Elmo Lewis, a legend inducted into the advertising hall of fame in 1951, coined the phrase and approach. It started way back in 1899, when Lewis talked about "catching the eye of the reader, to inform him, to make a customer of him."

By 1909, that had evolved several times, becoming "attract attention, awaken the interest, persuade and convince." It's not far from the AIDA model that is now used throughout the world.

The First Step of AIDA - Attention

Also called "Awareness," this is the part often overlooked by most advertisers today. It's just assumed that people will find the product or service as interesting as the client does, but that's rarely the case. Sadly, so many ads jump straight to Interest, and thus bypass Attention, that the ad is doomed to failure. An ad can be as clever or as persuasive as you want, if no one sees it, what's the point?

To attract the attention of the consumer, the best approach is called disruption. This is a technique that literally jars the consumer into paying attention. It can be done in many ways, including:

Location: Placing ads in very unexpected situations. This is often called guerrilla or ambient media.

Shock factor: Getting people to pay attention can be done easily with a shock. This can be done in many ways, a very common one being sexually provocative imagery. Of course, whatever you do should be tied to the product in some way.

Personalization: It's hard to ignore something if it is aimed at you specifically. This is no longer the case with direct mail, as it is all personalized. But imagine reading a newspaper ad and seeing your name in the headline. Would you read on?

The Second Step of AIDA - Interest

Once you've got their attention, you have to keep it. This is actually trickier than the first step, especially if your product or service is not inherently interesting to begin with (think of insurance, or banking products).

Many companies have managed to navigate this beautifully by getting the information across in an entertaining and memorable way. Geico commercials do this very well, with the Geico Gecko and Cavemen ads adding tons of personality to an otherwise dry subject matter.

The Third Step of AIDA - Desire (Or Decision)

You've grabbed their attention, and you've kept it. Now, it's your job to create desire. You must turn the story you've told into one that is not only extremely relevant to the prospect, but also irresistible. Infomercials actually do this very well, by showing products in dozens of different situations. "Sure, it's a nice frying pan, but did you know it can also cook a whole roast chicken, and do sides at the same time? And it can make dessert too, plus it's easy to clean and takes up no counter space." You keep layering on the facts, mixing in come character and persuasiveness, until the viewer or reader has only one conclusion - "this thing is definitely for me! In fact, I'm amazed I've been able to live without it for so long!"

In the infamous Glengarry Glenn Ross scene featuring Alec Baldwin (at his very best) this step is called Decision. It's also just as relevant, but takes the additional step to assume the desire has already been fulfilled, and a decision to buy has been reached (or not, if you have done a poor selling job).

The Final Step of AIDA - Action

If the consumer is still with you at this point, you have one job left to do. It is, of course, the most important job, and is often referred to as "closing the sale." In a courtroom, this would be the final summation from the lawyer. He or she has already laid out the case, now it's time to seal the deal and convince you to agree with their argument.

The same is true with selling a product. And once again, infomercials do this well (although it's crude to say the least). After demonstrating the product, and convincing you that you need it, they close the sale with an amazing offer. This is the Call To Action (CTA). They'll start out with a high price, chop it down again and again until it's a third of the original price, and then give you a two-for-one deal and free shipping. You're officially on the hook at that point.

Letterhead Evolution

Long before people have been sending messages to one another. Before paper was invented,  people used different materials for their letters, they used leather, clay, plant leaves and papyrus.  As time went by and paper was discovered, people began creating their letters in a more formal way. It was not until the Industrial Revolution during the 19th century that letterheads that we know today came to life.

The existence of printing presses and the advent of Industrial design – which could’ve been a precursor to the minimalist movement of the 1960s – caused the ubiquity of letterheads among prominent people and businesses during that time. It may have also caused the departure from the bourgeois and intricate style of Art Nouveau and the Victorian style of design.

The departure from Victorian style and Art Nouveau led to a change of heart in design. With the guiding philosophy of Industrial design – functionality over form – people began adopting simpler designs that was easier to produce and cheaper.

It was during the 20^th century that we saw the bloom and importance of the letterhead. It allowed people and, especially, companies to create an identity for for their business. It gave way to different ideas and application of advertisements and new art movements that came after the 19^th century.

Early Part of the 20^th Century

During the advent of the 20^th century, people and businesses used varying designs on their letterheads. With most prominent people using simple and minimalist designs, and businesses used differeng images that can be attributed to their industry.

Latter part of the 20^th Century

We saw the rise of radio and television during the latter part of the 20^th century. With the rising advertising industry, the need for a corporate identity becomes more apparent. During this period we saw different changes and the rise of rebellious youth, which could’ve influenced the different design styles that were used during this period.

The 21^st Century

The current designs of letterheads has evolved – from the functional minimalist to the radical post-modern style of design. Designers today have a knack for combining different influences derived from past art movements; from Minimalism to conceptual art to post-modern styles of design.

Letterheads has become played a pivotal role for a lot of people – from personalities to businesses – it has allowed people to create an identity for other people to know who they are, and what they do. It has provided an avenue for businesses to explore and reach out to the people.

Ambush marketing

As would be expected, along with increasing viewership and increasingly prohibitory sponsorship costs, ambush marketing has developed into an art form. FIFA says such tactics "lack decency and creativity." Indecent? Maybe. Uncreative? Anything but. Highlights in ambush marketing history include: 1984 Olympics: Kodak sponsors TV broadcasts of the games as well as the US track team despite Fuji being the official sponsor. Fuji returns the favor in kind during the Seoul 1988 games of which Kodak is the official sponsor. At the 1992 Barcelona Olympics Nike sponsors press conferences with the US basketball team despite Reebok being the games’ official sponsor. In the greatest ambush marketing feat of all time Nike’s man Michael Jordan, Air Sponsorship himself, accepts the gold medal for basketball and covers up the Reebok logo on his kit. 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway: In response to official-sponsor Visa’s claims that American Express is not accepted at the Olympic Village, AmEx creates an ad campaign claiming (correctly) that Americans do not need “visas” to travel to Norway. The 1994 Visa-AmEx affair was a continuation of a scrap featuring the exact same campaigns from the 1992 Winter Olympics. 1998 World Cup, France: Nike again. 2000 Sydney Olympics: Qantas Airlines’ slogan "The Spirit of Australia" sounds strikingly similar to the games’ slogan "Share the Spirit." Qantas claims it’s just a coincidence to the sound of official-sponsor Ansett Air helplessly banging its fists on the conference room table. 2002 Boston Marathon: Nike strikes again. As adidas-sponsored runners come off the course they are treated to spray-painted ‘swooshes’ honoring the day of the race, but not the race itself. And where does the law stand in such cases of ambush marketing? Usually somewhere out of view. Unlike piracy or counterfeiting, ambush marketing cases are rarely actionable, especially if the ambushers know what they are doing. In 1992 the granddaddy of boy bands New Kids on the Block sought legal action against newspaper USA Today, when it set up a charge-per-call service asking readers to tell them what they thought of the New Kids. The New Kids’ suit (like their careers), ended unfavorably. For those finding themselves on the working end of an ambush marketing campaign, the real question is one of ethics. Is ambush marketing an ethical business practice? The ambush marketing cases that get the most press are those involving heavyweight brands with massive resources, such as Nike, adidas and Reebok or Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Between such large and equal players, ambush marketing is deemed a last ditch technique to use when no other forms of competition are available – the corporate sponsorship answer to Mutually Assured Destruction.   However, for some, ambush marketing is the only way to compete. To become the official sponsor of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Anheuser-Busch paid more than US$ 50 million. In accordance with its agreement, it got all rights to use the word "Olympic" and the five-rings logo. Schirf Brewery, a local (and very small) company, came up with the rather ingenious (and apparently legal) idea of marking its delivery trucks with "Wasutch Beers. The Unofficial Beer. 2002 Winter Games." In accordance with copyright rules, Schirf had avoided using either the word 'Olympics' or the five-ringed logo. However, it had without a doubt connected itself to the games. One might be more inclined to sympathize with the woes of a local microbrewery over, say, adidas. In other words, does Goliath have an unfair competition claim against David?Is ambush marketing simply a natural evolution in a game where the stakes are so high that quaint ideas like Kant's categorical imperative and the Golden Rule are perversely unrealistic? It would appear so. Probably the most outright and unapologetic (not to mention successful) brand to embrace ambush marketing is Nike. If you are a major footwear producer, Nike has ambushed you: Converse in Los Angeles in 1984; Reebok in Atlanta in 1996; adidas on just about every continent in every two or four year competition. Strategically avoiding sponsoring events and thus exposing itself to its own tactics, Nike instead sponsors teams or individuals. In the upcoming 2002 World Cup, sponsored by adidas, many of the top teams such as Brazil are outfitted entirely in Nike gear. In this, adidas has no recourse. Nike also sponsored the US hockey team at the 2002 Winter Olympics and got plenty of exposure despite not paying the Olympic Organizing Committee a penny. In addition to such focused sponsorship, Nike is spending US$ 18 million on its 2002 World Cup ambush by funding bus-side screens to display the latest scores and hosting a mysterious "Scorpion" tournament featuring some of the world's best footballers. Nike’s ambush of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics is still seen as the ambush of all ambushes. Saving the US$ 50 million that an official sponsorship would have cost, Nike plastered the city in billboards, handed out swoosh banners to wave at the competitions and erected an enormous Nike center overlooking the stadium. The tactics devastated the International Olympic Committee’s credibility and spooked other organizations such as FIFA into adopting more assertive anti-ambushing strategies. The result of all of Nike’s ambushing appears to pay off though. Following the 1996 Atlanta debacle, many thought Nike had been an official sponsor of the games. More recently, a December 2001 study found that, from a list of 45 likely sponsors of the 2002 World Cup, 20 percent of those polled picked Nike. Rick Burton, executive director of Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the University of Oregon, points out the obvious, "Nike has done nothing illegal." Simon Pestridge, Nike’s brand manager, explains more diplomatically in an interview with MSNBC in February of this year: "Nike likes to come at things from a different angle." Industry agreement is that, while getting ambushed is as inevitable as taxes and that other thing, there are steps a brand can take to minimize the damage. Merrill Squires, managing partner of the Dallas-based Marketing Arm, said in a 1999 interview with ABCnews.com, "The weak link is marketers who sign a sponsorship deal and don’t look at it carefully. They need to negotiate for every potential right to block out competitors." This blocking out is an option the Olympics offers sponsors, giving them first crack at all available commercial time or billboard spaces in their industries. Unfortunately, marketers don’t always take advantage of such offers, considering them potentially too costly. Obviously, as ambush marketing becomes more and more widespread – and acceptable – the biggest losers will be the events themselves. Organizations such as the Olympic Organizing Committee and FIFA rely on the revenue from corporate sponsorship for survival. As brand marketers increasingly view "official" sponsorship as equivalent to flushing wads of cash down a bottomless toilet, organizers will become more and more strapped for the means with which to host the events. With more questions and accusations than answers, the bottom line is that ambushing is probably just the next step on the marketing evolutionary ladder. Never a gentle industry to begin with and with consumers becoming increasingly conscious about being the end of the means, brands that spend their time sniveling about "fairness" will most likely have little audience for their whimpers. Adidas America spokesperson Travis Gonzolez sums up the ambush marketing debate, "If everyone throws up their logos, it’s all-out war." Nike’s Pestridge, ever the diplomat: "We play inside the rules and we bring a different point of view that’s true and authentic to sport." "Sport," George Orwell once said, bridging both, "is just war minus the shooting."             Abram D. Sauer is a writer currently living in New York. He was a columnist for The China Daily while living in Beijing and is co-founder of Chopstickfactory.com .

Q: Does it work? to advertise without showing product???

A: You don’t always need to show the product you’re selling

Agency: TBWA Praha, Czech Republic

Agency: Publicis, Paris, France

Agency: Euro RSCG, Singapore


Agency: Publicis, Paris, France

Agency: Saatchi & Saatchi

Top 10 ad cliches.

1) The woman having an orgasm while eating breakfast. (Or washing her hair, or eating yogurt, or...) Who would’ve ever thought granola was that satisfying.
2) Dumbass dad. Can’t operate a cell phone or any tech without help from a teen. Has no sense of fashion. Aslost in Lowe’s as Tom Hanks in Castaway.
3) Food porn flyover close-up money shot. It’s at the end of every food commercial for about :10 seconds. (If they could, clients would have it be the full :30.) Unlike regular product shots for cars and such, food requires a sultry voice beg you to partake in succulent shrimp, a juicy steak, or hot, steaming coffee.
4) An [anything]–vention. Shop too much? Work too much? There’s an intervention with your name on it, and friends who care.
5) Cute wordplay. The border between clever and pun clearly overrun with this one. I will not “meat” my vegetables. I will not “Kraft” my salad or whet my “appuretite.” I am not “shopportunistic.”
6) Funny accents. Lottery, the biggest offender. Tech sector. Sports stores.
7) Top 40 songs. Hits of the past, unite! Jingles are dead for the most part because they require originality and something new for customers to buy into. Not so, classic hits. Brands would rather license the tried and true memories from your past, even if they have no real connection to the product. 

8) The clueless office. Your office? Cool. Theirs?
9) Cute pets.
10) The perfect driver. 

from make the logo bigger by mtlb