Direct Response Works -- the Products Being Sold However ...

The Lessons Learned From Cash4Gold's Super Bowl Spot

Posted by Bob Garfield on 02.09.09

These days, when you say anything about direct response, you tend to get a direct response.

Such as after the Super Bowl, where the ads featured all the usual furry animals; all the usual cheesecake, all the usual guys getting hurt and one remarkable exercise in transactional commerce direct-to-moron.

We don't hate direct-response at all. We mainly just hate the companies that use it.

This, of course, would be Cash4Gold, the appeal from the famously destitute Ed McMahon and MC Hammer for you to send your old jewelry, dental work, nuggets, fleeces, parachutes, oldies, cages, rules or whatever in exchange for hard cash. Ad Review saw this ad in the Super Bowl and shuddered -- not because it was a sad exercise doomed to fail, but because it was a sad exercise certain to succeed.

We predicted it would have the highest ROI for any advertiser on the big game, and lamented it, too.

That's where the direct-response came in.

bob, your comments on the cash4gold ad show your naivete. the true goal of advertising is to generate sales, which this ad certainly will do (you said so yourself). –New York, NY

@Bob Your commentary on Cash4Gold comes off as sanctimonious. You correctly state this ad will likely have a better ROI than any other commercial, so then, why is it so bad? Is the purpose of commercials to sell products or for ad execs to feel good about how smart and funny they are? Wheeling

David Ogilvy said if it doesn't sell, it isn't creative. Lester Wunderman energized these words with action and founded our agency and an entire industry around it. After 50 years in business, there isn't a better credo for marketers to embrace. -- David Sable; Vice Chairman; COO Wunderman -- NY, NY

And, courtesy of Twitter, this neat little tweet professing to know Ad Review's deepest, darkest biases:

He hates dir-resp.

Well, sorry to inform you, he doesn't hate dir-resp. As he has made quite clear over the past 24 years, he rather fancies direct response -- partly because it fulfills the most rudimentary function of advertising, i.e., delivering news, and partly because, unlike most of the brand messaging out there, it isn't ashamed to sell.

Selling is good. Selling encourages people to buy. Most of the time, buying is good. Selling and buying make the world go 'round. We're for that, and always have been.

In fact, over the years, we've also constantly, obsessively, often caustically lambasted marketers and their agencies for forsaking the art of the sell in favor of the art of winning trophies -- this by being totally hilarious or spectacular in 30 extravagant, militantly unpersuasive seconds. So, no, we don't hate dir-resp at all.

We mainly just hate the companies that use it.

Bcse, by and lrge, they are slz bgs.

They are too many of them schlockmeisters, ambulance chasers, con artists, fly-by-nighters. They sell credit repair, psychic advice, penis extensions, nuisance litigation, worthless "collectibles," miracle diets, cash for car titles, get-rich-quick schemes and 17¢ on the gold-value dollar for your heirlooms. Perhaps most of these businesses aren't actually criminal, but many of them are parasites, feeding on the ignorance, greed, stupidity and panic of the most gullible and the most vulnerable.

All of which sleaze, naturally, rubs off against not merely morally upright direct-response advertisers, but all advertisers all the time. Yes, on a case-by-case basis, some dir-resp advertisers will enjoy extreme success -- but success is not the only measure of success. Jim and Tammy Faye were successful. Jenna Jamison is successful. Al Qaida is successful.

Want them representing you?

13 Comments

By Bob_Knorpp_@thebeancast | Greensboro, NC February 9, 2009 08:26:39 am:

I would agree with you. But I think there's a deeper issue underlying the comments. That's the fact that we only seem to call things "direct response" or "infomercial" when we think they are bad.

All the talk this year about DR actually being in the Super Bowl was framed in a derogatory way because the ads were admittedly by shady operators. But what about Denny's? That was direct response. Not a great ad, by any stretch of imagination, but we don't call it DR because it met our minimum standards for an "acceptable" TV ad.

This goes on all the time. You rarely hear people call GEICO or Progressive and the slew of American Express ads "direct" but many (dare I say most) of them are DRTV. We reserve the monikers of "Direct" and "infomercial" for what we perceive as "bad commercials" and that does a disservice to an advertising discipline that can do a good job for clients in need of ROI.

So no hate from me. Just want to set the record straight.

Permalink

By Mayrah | San Antonio, TX February 9, 2009 12:17:01 pm:

Bravo, Bob Knorpp - thank you for setting the record straight! Bob Garfield just take a look at the U.S. Army commercials - what do you think these are? Not strictly branding, I assure you...

Permalink

By MarkKolier | WILTON, CT February 9, 2009 05:47:26 pm:

And I am wondering if Denny's did anything to capture the data of the 2MM+ people driven to have a free breakfast @ Denny's last Tuesday. And if so what will they do with it?

Mark Kolier/Wilton, CT

Permalink

By jms1027 | DALLAS, TX February 10, 2009 02:22:32 pm:

These "shady operators" have every right to the airwaves. There are plenty of folks who would place advertising professionals (and those who write about us) in the bucket of slop Garfield reserves for the lowly likes of Cash4Gold regardless of who we are representing. Remember, we're the ones who make people buy things they don't need and can't afford.

Alas, this is America, Bob! Like 'em or not, these people have the same rights you and I enjoy. And that includes the one spelled out in the First Amendment.

Permalink

By David_M | Portland, OR February 11, 2009 01:54:40 am:

Most of the blue chip advertisers traditionally present in the SB are not selling a service which is somewhat shady at best. There are dozens of articles about the borderline fraudulent nature of Cash4Gold, the integrity of that company is highly questionable.

Admittedly, such services do, unfortunately, have equal access to the airwaves and eyeballs. That does not mean that they should be encouraged, nor should traditional advertisers allow their disreputable business practices and services to tarnish the reputation of advertising as a whole.

Permalink

By Bob | Anytown February 11, 2009 06:03:23 pm:

@John Sullivan,

I don't really get your point, but I certainly did not suggest that Cash4Gold has no right to advertise. On the other hand, I promise you this: NO company has a first-amendment right to advertise. Any medium is permitted to set whatever rules it wishes for accepting advertisers, including matters of content, style, tone, and reputation. The 1st Amendment concerns ONLY the government stifling free speech, and even that isn't absolute.

Permalink

By trendwolf | SPRINGFIELD, MO February 12, 2009 12:03:18 pm:

Does John Sullivan recognize the irony of his defending Cash4Gold's right to express itself while simultaneously chastising Bob Garfield for expressing himself?

And by the way, Mr. Knorpp, not only was the Denny's ad with Scorsese dir-resp, but it was fkn brllnt dir-resp advrtsng. Anyone who didn't LOL was asleep!

Permalink

By Bob_Knorpp_@thebeancast | Greensboro, NC February 12, 2009 02:57:56 pm:

The Denny's ad gets into a whole 'nother discussion that Ken Wheaton is moderating in the Big Tent blog concerning racial stereotyping of Italian Americans as mob guys. Not to mention it was kind of an expected plot line. But you're right in the end in terms of it's effectiveness as DRTV. It just wasn't the whole package, in my humble opinion. It was well-produced, mildly funny and tied to a brilliant promotional strategy that full considered the math of program ahead of time.

But to each his own. Who am I to tell you it wasn't "fkn brllnt dir-resp advrtsng?" ;-)

Permalink

By mrtanner69 | MADISON, WI February 13, 2009 10:59:41 am:

You make no point at all. Because the underlying product in some direct response campaigns is of dubious value do we tar them all with that stick?

The Cash4Gold Ad was close to perfectly executed. Relatively destitute stars both ram home the general point about being cash strapped while also reassuring the target segment that if it can happen to MC Hammer then maybe its nothing to be ashamed of.

It's no sleazier to offer to buy someones gold for cash than it is to try and persuade them to pay a premium price for carbonated water mixed with caffeine and color.

Essentially what we have here is product bigotry and snobbery. Wake up and smell the cash you could get for your old costume earrings Bob.

Permalink

By DOUG | PORTLAND, OR February 19, 2009 12:42:14 am:

I couldn't agree with Bob Garfield more, here. As a direct response television professional, I'm disheartened by the fact that this powerful medium is polluted by companies who offer minimal value to consumers --- often with mis-leading advertisement. (A european practitioner once proudly boasted to me that they'd sold millions of units a product because of a certain demonstration. Then laughed and observed that they'd faked the demonstration and the product didn't actually do what they said it did. He was proud. I was revolted.)

DRTV thrives when good companies with good products use it wisely to build their businesses, sell directly and drive business in all their channels. In fact, good DRTV appears to drive response at retail faster than traditional advertising. DRTV may even build new brands faster because it gets product into consumer hands quicker. And long form DRTV can (used well) offer consumers information they're starved for in our pathetically inadequate retail environment these days.

It's not the answer to many advertising needs. But when chosen for the right reasons, it's superb.

Permalink

By BRETT | PORTLAND, ME February 24, 2009 09:51:44 am:

Bob most of what you said is correct, but your post is like blaming people for being thirsty in the desert. These "sleazy" products would not be for sale if there were not a significant amount of demand for them.

Let's cut the hypocrisy - Coke doesn't make you smile any more than cash4gold makes you rich. Name any other brand you'd like to put on a pedestal and a closer look will reveal sleaze. These companies are doing what the system we're in influences them to do - sell what people want. Rarer than rare is the completely altruistic capitalist.

The solution to the problem of the imperfect nature of our capitalist system is not to request enlightened behavior from every one of the marketers.

The solution to creating a better capitalism requires a new perspective and that begins with understanding and addressing the root cause of "ignorance, greed, stupidity and panic", which exist on a scale large enough to make such sleazy activities profitable. This is a sad reality, but it is reality nonetheless. Now, if you have words of useful wisdom on this, I'd love to hear it.

Permalink

By kirt | Westwood, NJ February 24, 2009 01:39:00 pm:

Bob on this occasion, I disagree with what you are saying totally.

The duo of Ed Mc. Mahon and M.C. Hammer are representing a business opportunity and have been paid pretty well to represent a company exercising their capitalistic rights in America.

Are Super Bowl Ads just about cute babies, diapers and orange juice nowadays. There is nothing racy about the ad at all.

I guess that you can tell that I am a strong supporter of direct response. And I believe that if a company advertises over the megaphone of the super bowl, that they more than likely will understand that credibility, relationship and trust will be at the center of what this company does.

If an ad doesn't cater to what we would like it to be, then we shouldn't always knock it. There are persons that might benefit or enjoy what this ad has to say.

Let freedom reign Bob.

You should let Bob Barker and MC Hammer make some money. Let's not kick people when they've taken a spill.

Kirt Cable "The Ace" of Direct Response Copywriting, is one of the leading business advisors to "Top Producers". He can be reached at iaserv@yahoo.com or www.cablecopy.com.

Permalink

By scuno | MIDVALE, UT March 2, 2009 06:38:33 pm:

It's harrowing to look back at the roots of what are, today, legitimate disciplines. For instance, today's evidence-based medicine shares a common ancestor with witch-doctoring and snake oil.

Trouble is, witch doctoring and snake oil haven't gone away. Gullible people still hand over their wallets for proven ineffective treatments* such as acupuncture, chiropractic, psychic healing, Airborne, Kevin Trudeau cures "they" don't want you to know about, the antioxidant drink du jour, magic memory water, homeopathy, and more.**

Sadly, direct response marketing is a powerful tool for conning. An abundance of flimflam cures are sold via DR commercials, websites, magazine ads, direct mail, and e-mail. To avoid prosecution, marketers adeptly exploit two loopholes: 1) As long as a product contains only natural ingredients***, there is no need for FDA approval. 2) You can make big claims in large type as long as you include weasel words, like "may help with...", and add a footnote along the line of, "These claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. Not intended to cure or treat any disease."****

Come on, direct marketers. If the large type needs weasels and the small type contradicts, you are lying in the large type. Period.

Worse, you may be keeping people from seeking legitimate treatment because they believe your magic cream will cure their cancer instead. So you're not just lying to people. You're robbing and then killing them.

My agency has declined these and other kinds of flimflam-but-legal accounts (such as investment schemes). Sure, we could make oodles. But I have to like the guy I look at every morning when I shave.

As long as people remain available to be conned, there will be con artists. But we don't have to help them do it.

Want to do the world a service? Decline such accounts.

Steve Cuno
RESPONSE Agency
Salt Lake City
steve@responseagency.com

Permalink