Makeover Maven's Suggestions
by Adrian Hanft, (5 comments)
I stumbled across an article in Direct Magazine where a self-proclaimed "Makeover Maven" finds bad ads and gives them a makeover. The reason I am writing about this is because he really ruined an ad that really wasn't that bad. Guess which add above he designed. The ad on the right is what the ad looked like after the Maven had his way with it. Here are the three arguments he made in support of his ad followed by my comments about why he made the ad worse.
1. Clarify and strengthen the promise in the headline.
Well, you succeeded in making the headline longer. Unfortunately, you took all the life out of it, and now there is no connection to the image. If that wasn't bad enough, you added a subhead that successfully bores the reader before they even get to the headline. And why did you change the photography from one dominant graphic that supports the headline to three low impact shots with no connection to the text? The Maven's rational: "a young couple running through the surf doesn't really convey anything beyond 'Take the million and run.'" At least thats better than three photos that have nothing to do with the headline.
2. Sell the sizzle, not the steak.
Are you kidding me? SHOW THE STEAK! Nobody is going to stop to read a page of 8pt type explaining to me why I should buy a steak. You covered the whole page with type, and three same sized photos. Where is the white space? Where is the hierarchy. Sorry sir, but noone is going to read your ad.
3. Strengthen the interactivity.
The Maven actually makes a couple of good points here about about sending them to a Web site that tracks the success rate of the ad. The ironic thing is that if they were to take his advice about the ad, when they tracked the success of the ad through the Web address, they would realize that nobody read the ad because of how poorly it was designed.
I emailed my comments to the Makeover Maven, and I will let you know if he responds.
Comments (5)
Bennett said:
This reminds me of a spoof article in CA, that tries to improve the famous VW “Think Small” campaign. I think they re-ran the article in the CA 40th anniversary edition a few years back. I’m sure it initially ran around the same time that the famous Doyle Dane Bernach VW ad was initially in use. The article made everything bigger, illustrated the car, changed the headline to “THINK BIG” and then preceded to fill the ad with type. They changed the ad in steps and it slowly morphed into what every other vehicle ad looked like in that era. Written in the margins were very entertaining reasons as to why the changes were made. It is very funny. Maybe I will be able to find a copy of it online.
This change isn’t as drastic in this example, and the original ad is no “VW” ad, but the scary thing is that this is real. This guy must have no experience in advertising, which gives him no right to “improve” on any ad. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.
Posted on June 21, 2004
Adrian said:
The following is taken from an email from the editor of Direct Magazine:
Adrian:
Tom Collins recently forwarded your review of his Hilton ad makeover from the April Direct. We’d like to run your letter and Tom’s reply in an upcoming issue, but we’ll need your permission first.
Both your letter and his reply will be edited before we run them in the magazine.
Please let me know what you decide, and thanks in advance for your help.
(name withheld) Managing Editor Direct New York
Posted on July 9, 2004
Adrian said:
By coincidence, I found the following in a review of a book called Selling the Invisible. The review said:
“Don’t sell the steak. Sell the sizzle.” In today’s service business, author Beckwith suggests this old marketing adage is likely to guarantee failure.
Wow, that makes me want to read his book! Maybe Tom Collins should, too.
Posted on July 14, 2004
Adrian said:
I went to Direct’s Web site today to see if I was in their new issue. I wasn’t, but I thought I noticed a different tone in Thomas Collins’ July article. Maybe it was my imagination, but he didn’t seem quite as confident. The most telling example came in his last paragraph where he says about his most recent makeover:
“Frankly, I think their ad is handsomer than mine, but mine would pull many more orders. Perhaps sales-oriented art direction could combine the virtues of both. Meanwhile, which would you prefer, awards or orders?”
If nothing else, he is acknowledging the benefit that good design could bring to a direct mail piece. The more I learn about direct mail people, the more I realize that they very often despise creatively designed ads produced by agencies. I applaud Thomas Collins for suggesting that the virtues of an ad agency combined with the virtues of direct mail could make an even more effective product. I think that is what he was saying, and I agree.
Posted on July 21, 2004
Scott said:
I come to this discussion late, but thought that a couple of things should be apparent with Collins’ critiques. He frequently squeezes shots off at graphic designers, and most of the time I daresay that graphic designers deserve those shots. Usually the offense is sacrificing readability for design’s sake. He’s right about that even if his makeovers are ugly.
However, one thing that I might take exception is this quote:
“The ironic thing is that if they were to take his advice about the ad, when they tracked the success of the ad through the Web address, they would realize that nobody read the ad because of how poorly it was designed.”
It isn’t that badly designed. It’s not unreadable. In fact, it is arguably more legible than the original due to larger text. The headline gets visually buried, though, and that’s an issue since it doesn’t carry much water in terms of guiding a reader into the text.
The length of the text is not an issue. A common misconception is that people won’t read long copy. Long copy makes high-end design more difficult. Long copy actually works, and works well, with a strong headline. Sure, casual readers won’t delve into it, but buyers will. In Collins’ world, that’s what matters. In fact, most direct response studies bear out the fact that long copy outsells short copy.
The challenge for art directors is making a long copy ad look good, and the challenge for copywriters is to craft a headline that draws buyers into that selling text.
Posted on December 15, 2006