In Reply to: This is the purpose of awards. Promotion. Commerce. Sell more ads. posted by samtellig on April 30, 2015 at 14:14:09:
Well, IMHO, even though the Shahinians are lovely people, they are not the only people I know (many of whom are performing musicians) who suffer from the "If I build it they will come" school of thought. Conducting well or playing a concerto well is a given, thousands of people can do those things. The jobs go to people with great people skills who nurture their careers as fervently as they strive to improve their art. IMHO Itzhak Perlman could have made a great businessperson or a great politician.
Getting back to audio, I myself think that it is tragic that Shahinian has no US dealer base. Building great loudspeakers, on its own, is not enough. And I have to think that the Shahinian historical anti-marketing posture is in some respect at least partly responsible for that. Dealers cannot do all the selling themselves. Customers need education and customers need their good impressions validated. Ads--good ads--can help educate and validate, and help drive showroom traffic. (Well, at least in the old days.)
I think as many companies have failed because of not advertising (and I think one must conclude that at present Shahinian is not successful in the US) as from advertising with poor ads, or buying too many ads while having not enough dealers (e.g., Timbre Technologies).
Ads are NOT just payoffs to the magazine, and ad copy is not always mere self-congratulation. Ads at best are educational in that they connect the product's benefits with the prospect's needs.
One of the most effective ads in history is Ogilvy's Rolls-Royce ad. Everybody remembers the grabby headline, but most people don't remember that the guts of the ad was 13 factual statements of Features, Functions, and Benefits. "This is what's in it for you."
Instead of running a product shot with a couple of unsupported self-serving conclusions, audio manufacturers would do well to use Ogilvy's Rolls ad as a template.
Do you disagree?
ATB,
John
PS: Yes, you once could buy a Rolls-Royce for $13,995. LBJ and Nixon and Ford and Carter fixed that! (Asbestos cassock and surplice on...)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Not advertising is not always the smart choice--LONG - John Marks 06:51:11 05/01/15 (17)
- RE: Not advertising is not always the smart choice--LONG - RGA 03:48:23 05/04/15 (5)
- I obviously disagree - John Marks 07:35:31 05/04/15 (4)
- RE: I obviously disagree - RGA 08:04:03 05/04/15 (3)
- RE: I obviously disagree - jamestavegia@gmail.com 08:27:25 05/04/15 (2)
- Sorry, I had the opposite reaction to that ad, I thought it was "Grey Poupon" all over again - John Marks 09:14:20 05/04/15 (1)
- RE: Sorry, I had the opposite reaction to that ad, I thought it was "Grey Poupon" all over again - jamestavegia@gmail.com 11:49:49 05/04/15 (0)
- RE: what would that same model Rolls (1959) go for today? [n.t.a.] - wangmr 05:00:22 05/03/15 (4)
- From $4000 to over $200,000; it all depends! - John Marks 10:58:35 05/08/15 (3)
- RE: From $4000 to over $200,000; it all depends! - Sanlanman 12:10:28 05/09/15 (0)
- RE: From $4000 to over $200,000; it all depends! - BubbaMike 17:56:31 05/08/15 (1)
- I agree with you! - John Marks 18:20:46 05/08/15 (0)
- RE: Not advertising is not always the smart choice--LONG - -æ- 13:47:03 05/01/15 (5)
- I tried uploading the ad but the icon is broken, let me try here. - John Marks 15:10:51 05/01/15 (4)
- RE: I tried uploading the ad but the icon is broken, let me try here. - -æ- 16:49:20 05/01/15 (3)
- No go on that. Try this, - -æ- 17:47:29 05/01/15 (2)
- HAH! I have a one-page version with 13 FFBs and cropped photo! - John Marks 10:08:57 05/02/15 (1)
- That one-pager seems to have loaded. nt - John Marks 10:21:30 05/02/15 (0)