Peter Georgescu's Forum essay ("Looking at the future of marketing," AA, April 14) made a lot of sense-especially to those of us on the ad side who have seen campaigns fizzle out or that are too entertaining to truly accomplish the client's marketing objectives.
However, I think the key to Mr. Georgescu's rules is to convince the client or prospective client that there is a correlation between research of brands and media (and allowing a budget for it) and the success of campaigns and, consequently, results.
Account executive, Sutton/Reid
Haggling but not happy
It's always interesting to see what can be done with statistics. In reporting on your car buyer survey with Automotive News ("Used car buyers generally happy with purchase," AA, April 7), you imply buyers like to haggle. There are two flaws in your assumptions: 47.6% of buyers didn't haggle, and 30.3% of those who did admitted to not liking it.
I conclude from this that potentially 63.5% of buyers would prefer not to haggle (almost 2/3), and in my experience the people who do haggle are biased in answering the question about whether they like it so as to support their actions.
Whether the current strategies of the megastores succeed, they will no doubt change car retailing for the better. Can anyone question the problems that exist in an industry where the consumer will willingly pay a third party (auto broker) to avoid the pain involved in the buying process?
Santa Clara, Calif.
Fox and the Peabodys
Isn't it ironic that in the same issue in which Bob Garfield lambastes Planters for misleading advertising ("Planters message is piece of junk food," AA, April 14), the Fox Network has taken some liberties in their self-congratulatory ad?
Fox claims "no other broadcast network won more [Peabody] awards." The last time I checked, PBS was still broadcasting. PBS recently received eight Peabody Awards, four times as many as Fox. Even a PBS station, WGBH in Boston, received more Peabody Awards than Fox, with six.
Perhaps the copywriters were more worried about how to word the disclaimer to be able to claim being "the new No. 2 network" to bother counting how many Peabody Awards anyone else won.
Director of Public Information
In defense of peanuts
I have been a reader of Advertising Age for five years and have always found the commercial reviews to be entertaining. Often they are direct, honest and critical. I have always appreciated the candor. However, I believe you have crossed the line with the latest review of the Planters commercial ("Planters message is piece of junk food," AA, April 14) . . .
The article was not only lacking research on the subject matter but the tone and content was as if you had a personal vendetta against that company ("What does Nabisco care if you die?"). If that is the case, then you have no business expressing it publicly to that degree.
As far as peanuts are concerned (I am a neutral party and do not depend on peanuts for my livelihood), to classify them as "junk food" is an ignorant statement.
John D. Kershman
Vulgar, but hardly special
Per your Candies shoes entry from reader Herbert Osman ("Ads we can do without," April 14) . . . First, the ad from Elle is not unique. It uses one of the oldest ploys: celebrity endorsement.
What does Jenny McCarthy represent? Sexy, outrageous behavior. Who reads Elle? The current generation of young women who, of course, want to be sexy and outrageous. How far can you extend Ms. McCarthy's image in this mainstream publication? Bingo . . .
Is it "disgusting"? "Vulgar"? Sure. But hardly special.
In "NHL Ice rinks set for August debut" (April 21, P. 2), the National Hockey League wasn't planning to disclose details of its global rink development initiative last week. But it did confirm that it had licensed various partners to build a single hockey rink/entertainment center in Birch Run, Mich., slated for an August launch. The league didn't say how the facility will play into its larger plan, and final decisions regarding the brand name for the entire initiative haven't been made.
In "Times Square to sell sponsorships for event" (April 21, P. 2), it is the New York office of Landor Associates that created a Times Square 2000 logo for its 10-year sponsorship packages.