Ogilvy on Advertising
by Adrian Hanft, (11 comments)
Ogilvy arrogantly says, "As a former door-to-door salesman, I shall go to my grave believing that, given two minutes on television, I could sell any product on the face of the earth." It is precisely that arrogance that made me think I was really going to hate this book. After reading the book, however, I am willing to bet that he would only need one minute on television to sell any product on Earth. He is a fantastic salesman, and I would describe this book as a fantastic salesman doing a great job of selling his philosophy on advertising. So what is that philosophy, and where does the sales pitch end, and truth begin?
Ogilvy pushes research extremely hard. He backs everything he says up with statistics from unquestionable sources. It is no wonder he was able court and keep such huge clients. If you take one thing away from this book it would be that you can't argue with someone who has done their research. When your client sees you as the authority in advertising, you are the boss. You won't have to redo your ad because the intern thought you should make the logo bigger. You become the authority by doing your homework, in other words: research. That is a very valuable lesson.
Unfortunately, Ogilvy pushes the research thing way too far. He has a statistic for everything, and consequently leads the reader to believe that there is a formula for creating a good ad. It is ridiculous to think that if you plugged 10,000 surveys of the key demographic into a computer, it could spit out an effective ad. He goes as far as to show 2 layouts (one for short copy and one for long) and proclaims them to be the only perfect layouts. The problem is that when non design people read Ogilvy listing rules that are hard to argue, they get the impression that designing ads is just a matter of plugging numbers into an equation. This can only handcuff a designer. If you don't have the stats to back up why you broke the rules, non designers are going to force you to turn your layouts into the Ogilvy equation.
Ogilvy didn't have much respect for designers. This is most telling when he says that he was asked, "How many persons are employed in your print production department?" His response is, "I haven't the foggiest idea. I haven't been in the department for seven years. Why do you think it matters?" He gives detailed descriptions of all the jobs in an agency without mentioning graphic designers. I don't think the term "graphic designer" even appeared in the book. Ogilvy's philosophy worked for him because he had great concepts and great copy, not great design. It is no wonder that all his ads looked the same.
Plain design worked for Ogilvy, and it can still work today, but it would have been nice to hear Oglivy at least give a nod to good design. You are rarely going to have the luxury of having the quality of writing that Ogilvy was able to produce. Besides, if an ad isn't well designed, nobody will read it no matter how good the copy is. Good design can make up for average copy. Good copy can't make up for average design.
Overall, this is a must-read for anyone remotely interested in advertising. The book is packed with excellent statistics, and interesting examples. At times the information is dated, but most of it is still relevant today. Avoid taking Ogilvy's theory as the last word on advertising, and you will benefit greatly from the book.
Comments (11)
A. Eugene H. said:
Nice review. I bought the book and am reading it now.
Posted on July 12, 2004
Rob said:
Graphic design did not exist in the world of Olgivy. What existed were art directors and production artists. Graphic design is a strategic force for promoting or selling an idea, brand, product, etc…while advertising is a tactical way of selling something. Advertising and graphic design are two very different animals under that heavy umbrella known as marketing.
Posted on August 2, 2004
Adrian said:
Rob, I think you are over generalizing. Maybe the title of graphic designer didn’t exist in Ogilvy’s day, but graphic design was being done whether they had a name for it or not. Sure, advertising and graphic design are different things, but don’t overlook the relationship between the two. All advertising has to be designed. What do you mean when you say “graphic design is a strategic force?
Posted on August 2, 2004
Bennett said:
W. A. Dwiggens coined the phrase Graphic Design in the early twentieth century. I think it was in the twenties. So the phrase was most definitely around when Ogilvy was in his prime. Maybe graphic design wasn’t a huge force in the world of Ogilvy, but even a decision to keep things simple and fill the ad with body copy is still a design decision.
Even if Ogilvy didn’t appreciate design, his agency does today. You can tell that Ogilvy & Mather appreciates design from the work that comes from their branding division, BIG (Brand Integration Group).
Posted on August 4, 2004
Roy Hayes said:
There were no “graphic designers” at the national ad agencies where I worked in the 60s. None! They were called “art directors.” Often they were also brilliant illustrators, ‘cause you had to be able to actually apply a No.2 pencil to an art pad back in those days.
“Designers” seem to have arrived with the advent of computer graphics programs. Also, I realize that Adrian is a designer, but doesn’t he/she have a spell checking program? “Rediculous,” Adrian, is ridiculous. I hope that your designs are more carefully thought out than your attempts at writing. (And - should I be surprised that no one else picked up on this? How many designers does it take to spell “lightbulb?”)
“Good design can make up for average copy?” This is religious kant from a designer. It’s about as valid as “Good copy can make up for average design.” Both statements are boneheaded nonsense.
The truth is that crap is crap, and can’t be made up for by images or words. And this is why 98% of all current advertising is ignored, forgotten, resented, and sometimes even hated. Whether it is a page filled with dense, compelling text or an eyeball-grabbing image, it is the striking idea - presented in an attention-getting way - that is the keystone of great advertising.
While I’m sure that Adrian is a nice person, I’m afraid that his/her opinions here are as skewed as he/she represents Ogilvy’s to be.
Posted on August 11, 2004
Roy Haes said:
Adrian: “Good design can make up for average copy?” One other little remark, if I may: Remember the classic George Lois cover for Esquire, featuring John Sacks’s story about M Company? It was one of the very very few covers Lois did without using a Carl Fischer photo.
It was a black cover with the following text reversed out in huge white text: “Oh my God, we hit a little girl!”
Please show me how that great, award-winning design could have saved something like: “A report from some soldiers in Vietnam.” Thanks.
Posted on August 11, 2004
Adrian said:
Roy, Thanks for catching my typo. I noticed that you spelled your name 2 different ways. Is it Hayes, or Haes? I guess even “non-designers” make spelling mistakes. (I know that’s a cheap shot, but so was yours.)
I got a kick out of your website, especially the page about billboards. I bet we have more in common than it would seem. Thanks for your comment.
Posted on August 11, 2004
Adrian said:
Today I read a manifesto summarizing their book Creating Customer Evangelists, where Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba say the following, which I found interesting:
In 1980, ad agency pioneer David Ogilvy argued that ads must run at least nine times before a future customer grasps your message. Of course he would. He was an ad executive who made money from the size of your ad budget and the number of times you ran your ad. With this desperation marketing the mass advertiser pleads with you to please, please, please… nine or more times, actually…buy!
Check out the manifesto, it is a good read.
Posted on August 17, 2004
Marty said:
I believe that the one poster who said that Design was not part of his world is correct. Now making the statement that this means he had no respect for design is the true “arrogance”. It just wasn’t part of his day to day job. In agency work, the design and print production is usually jobbed out to freelancers and production work to houses that specialize in producing camera ready art for publication. He didn’t have a print production facility! He maybe had one person who’s sole responsibility was to make sure the ad got produced. I know of one Olgivy office that refused to let Art Directors even touch the computer. The idea was king.
You sound a bit muddled by what everyone’s jobs really are in the world. There are graphic designers, usually responsible for packaging, collateral pieces, brochures and that all important piece of the pie, corporate identity. There are art directors, their sole responsibility is advertising, billboards, print media (and more recently the web). Then the unsung heroes; the print production people who are responsible for making it actually WORK in a magazine or billboard or brochure. Don’t they teach this stuff anymore?
Posted on March 20, 2005
Bennett said:
Marty,
I work on collateral, brochures, corporate identity, advertising, billboards, print media, and production. This may seem muddled to some people, but it is the truth for many of us. I am glad your world is so black and white.
Posted on March 21, 2005
Salman Razak said:
collection of life time experince… i really like this book…
Posted on June 19, 2007