• Marketing Mag Website
  • COMMUNITYFORUMS

  • posted Aug 15th 2008...
This discussion is related to the article We can sell anything but ourselves: Australia Post respond to 'Open Up To Mail' critique
I'm with Andy. The campaign makes me cringe. Also, two points to note about Mark Roberts' comments:

"Andy is a passionate direct marketer - not the target market for this campaign." Not being in the target market is irrelevant. Most DM campaigns are created by people who are not in the target market. The notion that you can't understand the market unless you're in the audience is wrong.

"Andy has been caught up in the notion of doing something that's cool, rather than what works." Cool and "what works" are not mutually exclusive, or related in any way. The sign of true talent in any sphere of marketing or advertising is to be able to combine the two and DM is no different.

The Australia Post campaign is a dud from a creative point of view. It will unfortunately reinforce perceptions within the wider marketing industry that direct mail is dull and boring.
  • posted Aug 19th 2008...
It worked for me. I get Andy’s point, but the proof is in the curiosity and new ideas that each new mail piece sparked when it arrived in the office. I have a team of young marketers with very little exposure to direct, and for them this campaign made mail cool for the first time. They may not start spending up on DM right away, but it definitely helped get it on the radar.
  • posted Aug 19th 2008...
Did Pontin miss the point?

First, let me say I have the utmost respect for Andy Pontin. I was in the ADMA crowd cheering loudly when he reminded a room full of clients that agencies were in business to make money as well. Hoorah!

However, I think he's way off base with his analysis of the recent 'Open up to mail' work.

The crux of Andy's argument is 'It's not as cool, but it works" is apologetic. Andy quotes 'AIDA' (Attention, Interest, Desire, Action) – a very old-fashioned way of constructing a selling argument.

I've found Steve Harrison axiom of 'Relevant abruption' far more effective in building response driving work today. Fundamentally, we need to jolt our audience into considering (or in this case, reconsidering) our proposition. But we can only do that in a truly effective way if we're relevant.

So is 'It's not as cool, but it works" abruptive? Does it jump off the page? Of course it does. No-one has spoken to Marketing Managers like this before (at least I've never seen it).

Marketers can easily get carried away with the latest, funkiest, and yes coolest media option. What this campaign does beautifully is deposition not only the other media, but the idea of cool itself.

Is it relevant? Yuppers! It's what most Marketing Director are already thinking. We've got them nodding before reading the first line of copy.

And, in the ultimate test of relevance, it's topical. We are moving into a time when effectiveness and accountability are going to keep most Marketers awake at night.

But then as Andy says "a bit of good, honest debate is healthy." Right back at ya!
  • posted Aug 22nd 2008...
sss
  • posted Aug 22nd 2008...
I think the crux of this debate comes down to whether or not you believe there remains a group of marketers who either fail to think of direct mail when making their channel selections, or indeed actively reject it. I would think Australia Posts research suggests this is the case. As Andy Pontin has been involved in numerous award-winning campaigns that use direct mail, he is clealry not a part of this group.

Encouraging active rejectors to reappraise their views is never an easy task - getting people to listen in the first place is a challeneg in itself. By starting from the prejudice of the more extreme rejectors, Aus Post stand half a chance of getting them to assess their views, and maybe take a fresh look at why and how direct mail works - the underlying message of the campaign.

To have your say, login at the top of the page or register free and start commenting.