Published on .

Bob Jorgensen's letter about the "Olympics belong to the people" (AA, June 19) is less than accurate in many ways. I couldn't agree more that many companies who choose to do marketing themes correlating to the greatness of athletics during an Olympic year can receive quite a rush in response ratios. Additionally, I agree that the Olympics do belong to the people of the world.

Let's not forget, however, that it specifically belongs to the honored athletes who strive to get there and the sponsors and licensees who contribute significantly both in money and effort to make it all happen. What it does do for the people of the world is provide inspiration, entertainment, united cohesiveness and global perceptions, not to mention many jobs and revenues.

Who pays for the entire event from start to finish? Simply put, an Olympic fairy doesn't just bless the millions of dollars to the chosen city and the games. It costs an extreme amount of money to put this event together and as any businessman would know, the success of an event usually lies in the planning and moneys put into it to make it all happen. .....

Secondly, if everyone rode on the coattails of the event without contributing something, the entire licensee and sponsorship program would be invalid and the Olympics just couldn't possibly happen. For example, why would Coca-Cola, one of 30 sponsors contributing in the realm of $10 million to $40 million, even consider being a sponsor if Pepsi could just ride the coattails for free?

Kimberly Munsell

Marketing specialist, H.M. Gousha Co.

Comfort, Texas

We were pleased about the article "1-800- Mindshare: The numbers game" (For-um, AA, July 24). The article is surprisingly accurate and Loren Stocker is obviously well versed on this subject.

I just wanted to correct the sales figure quoted in the first paragraph. Mr. Stocker wouldn't have known that our sales are well over $200 million a year, not $100 million, since he pulled that information from an incorrect Wall Street Journal article published earlier this year.

Rachel R. Witkon

Marketing/editor, 1-800-Flowers

Westbury, N.Y.

How does a potential customer tell a company that its advertising campaign is a horror that will cost it customers?

I am referring to the current campaign by Dunkin' Donuts wherein a ditzy young woman gets one word out of every sentence wrong while a condescending man keeps correcting her, speaking to her with the kind of affection reserved for a backward child.

I know many executive women who have their morning coffee and donuts courtesy of Dunkin' Donuts because it is convenient. I am sure that the convenience will pass when they get slapped in the face by the commercial and there is a coffee shop nearby with the same product. A Styrofoam cup is a Styrofoam cup, after all.

I don't know who in the ad agency got the bright idea or who at Dunkin' Donuts thought it was a bright idea. It's not.... and until they yank it, I'd rather not enter a DD outlet.

Karen Silver

New York

Re "It's Big Bill vs. Big Blue" and other articles ("IBM campaign brilliant" and "No PC battle of the sexes") in the June 19 Advertising Age: History suggests that four factors-branding, message simplicity, message relevance and message uniqueness-will predict the future winner.

In the 1980s, IBM's "Little Tramp" campaign focused on "brand" IBM and on a single, simple overriding message-IBM PCs are the most user-friendly. .*.*. Similarly, in the 1990s, Microsoft had consistently focused on "brand" Microsoft with a single, simple, overriding message-Microsoft software gives you unlimited capabilities.

In fact, while Lotus advertising tries to explain how Notes works, a complicated message, Microsoft simply says "whatever you buy from us will be good for you." Now IBM is trying to cover Microsoft's ground, except from a hardware point of view.

Brand building-yes. Simple-yes. Unique-no. Relevant? As your "No PC battle of the sexes" suggests, not everyone is capabilities driven. "User friendly" might yet be a more powerful message.

Samuel M. Frank

President, Brand Builders

Alameda, Calif.

I'm a little miffed that you barely mentioned the winners of this year's Effies. Couldn't you have at least pretended as if advertising that actually works was at least somewhat newsworthy? I mean, we all know that the whole point of what we do is trips to the Sunset Marquis and those free hats from Propaganda Films, but there still might be a few boobs out in Client Land who think we're in it to sell their product.

T.W. Grand

Writer/Sheriff, Crispin &

Porter Advertising


Does Jim Brady really believe he would have given Swatch a full inch of valuable Brady Bunch space (AA, June 12) if they had just sent "the damn release" about their new watch without enclosing it-and one of the new watches-"in a steel box larger than a New York phone book and about as heavy"? I don't think so.

James Millard


Lexington, Ky.

Advertising Age welcomes letters to the editor. Address letters to Advertising Age, Viewpoint Editor, 740 Rush St., Chicago 60611. Fax: (312) 649-5331. Letters can also be posted through the Ad Age Bulletin Board on Prodigy, or by Prodigy E-Mail at [email protected]

Most Popular
In this article: