Thanks to Tom Collins for sticking to his principle that form must follow function and not the other way around. By not caving in to the creative types who bash his makeovers for not being pretty enough, he's doing a tremendous service to the businesses that are actually spending their hard-earned money on advertising and need to see tangible results.

And thanks also to Tom for his recent book, “How I Would Have Done These Ads” (Wizard Press, 2006). It's long overdue, and I can't say enough about how many times it's helped me work through an advertising problem. When I'm stuck or staring at a blank page, I crack open Tom's book and always find a helpful nugget of wisdom in one of his makeovers [all of which originally appeared in Direct].
Rafe VanDenBerg
President/CEO
Business Development Xcellerator Inc.
Eagle, ID

I just got finished reading Karen Clark's letter in which she criticizes Tom Collins' makeover of the Dell ad (Letters to the Editor, April).

First of all, don't readers get it that Tom is not a graphic designer but rather someone who teaches solid direct marketing principles? If I want to look at art I'll go to a gallery. If I want to learn how to communicate a message and get my intended audience to respond I'll turn to Tom Collins every time.

Second, I had to laugh midway through reading Ms. Clark's comments. She states, “I would never pick [Direct magazine] up if it weren't for my vice president of marketing telling me to subscribe.”

Hmm. To the VP of marketing at Ms. Clark's company: Maybe if you write notes on Post-Its and stick them on Tom's columns in Ms. Clark's copy of the magazine she might finally get the hint.
Dave Dolak
Charlottesville, VA

After reading Tom Collins' response to the “graphic artist,” I have to agree with him (Letters to the Editor, April). I am so-o-o sick of graphics that don't mean anything relevant to the product being sold.

I am reminded of a shoe ad Tom remade that showed a woman dancing in her kitchen…and in tiny, meaningless print, something about a shoe. I don't dance in my kitchen no matter how great my shoes are. And I couldn't figure out at first if they were trying to get me to notice the décor (which was pretty nice) or her dress or what!

I'm also tired of the TV ad that runs shot after shot of these great flybys in vivid color and finally — in about five seconds at the end — you find out it's a paint commercial. I hate those punchline ads because they don't tell me anything about the product. And isn't that supposed to be the focus? You know, the product…and where to get it…and how good it's supposed to be? Not a picture of a glacier with a square hole in it. The first time I saw that ad I thought it was a travel ad. If it had been, I'd have booked a trip because the scenery was fantastic.

But I digress. Back to print ads: If you want me to make a buying decision based on a magazine ad, make it more meaningful, give me some facts (not fluff and spin) and show me a real picture, not some washer-and-dryer illustration that looks like it belongs in an episode of “Pokémon.” Leave out the “Sin City” effect and show me the product.

It's so-o-o ironic that automobile advertisers have been successful doing this for years in their print ads. I'd say — given the number of consumers who will buy a car based on a real picture, an inset of a Car and Driver award and some really good informational copy — everyone should sit up and take notice of their approach.
Tobey Miller
Greensboro, NC

Every time I read one of Tom Collins' makeovers I get frustrated at alleged ad professionals who lack the ability to come up with user-benefit-laden copy about the products and services they're being paid to sell in print.

Lacking the ability to write headlines that push readers' hot buttons of self interest, they cop out on sweating the selling copy and opt in with creative graphics that impress others who also don't know how to write ads that sell. Unfortunately, this includes clients who pay good money for often inexcusably ineffective advertising.

The more I see Tom's remakes the more I really believe that the original ads and so much of the crappy advertising we see every day are created by people who lack the intelligence and the ability to divine, fathom and determine the user benefits in the products and services they're being paid to sell. Unable to sell with words, they camouflage their incompetence with “creativity,” i.e., graphics and hackneyed, overused words, phrases and superlatives.

Every person assigned to write an ad should assume that the budget has just enough money for black ink on white paper — and nothing for graphics. NOTHING! Only after the complete story is told in words and edited and re-edited and re-re-edited should anyone decide what graphics will enhance the story that's already told.

How long should the complete story be? Paul Bringe, a DM consultant from the 1940s to the '70s, said the proper length is what it takes to tell the full story in the fewest number of words. Of course, there is the issue of space limitation. But isn't this a good rule to start with?

Will it happen? Of course not. What ad agency would dare give a client a draft that's only words and doesn't have any pictures? Hell, the clients usually are as guilty as the ad people.

The solution? Gin. Very expensive gin. Kept in the freezer and served with a few tads of sake in a glass that's been rubbed with a split garlic clove (try it). Won't solve the problem, but it drowns the frustration of seeing good money spent on lousy, ineffective advertising.
Lewis R. Elin
DR Consultant
Chicago

We'd like to hear what you have to say about us or about news, trends and issues in direct marketing. To contact the editor:

Mail: Direct, 249 W. 17th St.,Third Floor, New York, NY 10011-5300

Fax: 913-514-7179

E-mail: ray.schultz@penton.com

Phone: 212-204-4228