Published on .

Floored by comment

It is both surprising and saddening to see in-store floor advertising assessed by Richard Rebh [CEO of Floor Graphics] as "giving advertisers one-to-one interactive relationships with their target markets" ("Floors in stores start moving," AA, Aug. 20).

Lonely hearts and savvy marketers alike realize profitable relationships are established and nurtured with real, identifiable people, not with "markets." The fact that product messages can randomly spring to life in supermarket aisles has quite little to do with a consumer's deliberate, informed choice to enter into brand dialogue.

In retail channels as in life, one-to-one relationships aren't "given." They're born of arousal, desire, co-action and constancy ... a dynamic advertising process for which techno-wizardry is a poor substitute.

mark a. weninger

Senior Partner

Chief Creative Officer



Hats off to Burger King

My hat is off to Burger King and its insightful management for selecting Howard Draft to head up the integration of Interpublic's units ("Draft crowned king of bur-ger team," AA, Aug. 20). Finally a major marketer has recognized the value of having a behavior-based marketing specialist be a significant influence on the totality of the marketing communications process.

I imagine Interpublic's agency management might be scratching their heads at such a decision. After all, traditional brand advertising has always commanded the lead agency position in the hearts and minds of corporate marketers and CEOs. Why would a client want a sales promotion or direct marketing guy to lead the charge?

It's simple. The business of Burger King is all about getting customers into stores, getting them there more often and getting them to spend more when they're there. It's all about building customer equity, and that takes the skills and understanding of relationship marketing, along with all the wonderful tools of its trade.

Please, Mr. Draft, do a wonderful job. We're pulling for you.

allan s. winneker


New World Consulting

Bluffton, S.C.

Against `junk' fax ads

Re: Rance Crain's column "Ad groups should be vigilant in defending the right to fax" (View-point, AA, July 30). I have been involved in advertising and design for the last 20 years. This is how I make my living. But I must disagree with this advertising-to-make-money-at-all-costs point of view. The consumer has rights-especially the right to choose to be able to not be disturbed with advertising in their home environment. When I hook up a fax machine, I want it to be used for my personal business, not as a venue for others to advertise to me. Why shouldn't I have this choice?

randy gunter

Gunter Advertising

Madison, Wis.

Rance Crain wonders how Con-gress could pass a law that prohibits faxing ads to people without their permission. Perhaps Mr. Crain should try hooking up a fax machine to his home phone number; that way he'd know what it's like to get all those late night calls about Bahama getaways and weight loss plans. (Repeated calls to be removed from such marketers' lists frequently go unheeded.)

carrie mclaren


Stay Free!

New York

Editor's note: Stay Free! describes itself as a magazine "focused on issues surrounding commercialism and American culture."

`Whassup' and Disney

First of all, hurrah for our kids that someone in advertising actually cares about what is reaching our children! ("`Whassup' with that, Disney? Station plays a Bud-like song," Viewpoint, AA, June 25). Radio Disney is the best thing that's come along for our kids via radio since Orphan Annie's show in the '50s. What else will your kids listen to in the car? Kiss FM? I agree that "Whassup" shouldn't be played on Radio Disney, but maybe you can turn the radio off while that song is in play.

janet baker

Marketing Coordinator


St. Petersburg, Fla.

Editor's note: Since the Viewpoint column appeared, "Whassup" has been withdrawn from the Radio Disney playlist.


* In the table accompanying "AOL Time Warner remakes media map" (100 Leading Media Companies Special Report, Aug. 20, P. s-10), circulation for USA Today is 1,769,650, not 1,176,965 as stated. Also, the term "subscribers" attached to the leading newspaper properties identified in the tables on P. S-10 and P. S-12 should have read "circulation."

* Dow Jones & Co. attributed its 6.4% decline in year 2000 e-publishing revenue, cited in the "Other media" table of "Companies ranked in key media sectors by revenue" (100 Leading Media Companies Special Report, Aug. 20, Page S-4), to the mid-1999 shift of its DJ Interac-tive unit into Factiva, a 50/50 joint venture with Reuters. Under generally accepted accounting principles, a company's financials do not include revenues from a venture half or less- than-half owned.

Most Popular
In this article: