Two very different approaches to the same ad

Today I want to talk about – you guessed it – how differently same things can be advertised from the whole concept to visuals. Advertising space in mass media is expensive so it is very important to first plan thoroughly what to advertise where, why and how.

Actually also targets for each ad or campaign should be set, but I’ll admit honestly, I haven’t found a great way yet to measure the usefulness of our ads as sales are influenced by many other factors as well and customers might come to us after engaging with us in various ways repeatedly.

Not always knowing how much we might gain, we can still do our best to assure that our ads look good, the messages are clear and the probability of the right people seeing them is high at the time when they might need the product/service advertised.

Enough of theory. I always feel that concrete examples make understanding things easier which is why I am sharing with you an ad made and published before my time and another that I made which is in media this week.

I don’t dare to say that my version is the best possible – most likely as I get more experienced, my views also change and next year even I myself might come up with something better (or afford professional agency help), but here is what I think of both:

As you can see, the first example has a lot of different elements – colours, shapes, text and images. It is very detailed, including even article numbers of specific products. It is as if someone just used a page out of a really tacky catalogue and now all those elements are fighting for the magazine or newspaper reader’s attention. Notice me! I am big and yellow and pointy, they scream. Yet, the whole ad lacks focus.

The yellow stars are like something out of a 90s shop window discount ad while the visibility of white text on yellow background is one of the worst possible. There are also red and blue circles of different sizes and there is no way to tell if one of those is supposed to be more important than the others or if the sizes were chosen only based on the amount of text someone wanted to fit on the element.

The photos, on the other hand, are small and seem somewhat randomly chosen to show off some products. None of them give a good overview of the system nor seem they to strongly support products in the campaign. They might has well have been skipped all together if it was important to give a lot of product information. Without the “illustrative” images, there would have been more space and “air” between product units, allowing them to stand out more.

If we now look at the introduction then at least it is clear from the start what this ad is talking about – electric fencing. But then for some reason we seem to have three different slogan versions in a row.

“Keep your… secure” in itself seems like a pretty strong call to action. It highlights something about the reader and makes it personal. It also involves a strong verb and adverb. “Livestock” however seems to me not as the best choice of words. It is definitely a commonly used term, covering various animals, but I would have gone with something more… lively. Like “herd” or “animals”.

Next we have a cliche about grass being greener on the other side which doesn’t seem to be connected anyhow to what’s offered nor is it explained elsewhere. Where is this better place with greener grass then?

And then we have a third approach – a question. Questions in general are good, in my opinion. They make people think and attract interest. But this concrete question could have been phrased better. Why ask if it is time to check something? Here is a place to come from an authoritative position and just let the reader know that it is time to check their fencing supplies. A better question would have been something like: does your fencing need an upgrade? If we as the experts seem to already question whether it is worth to check something while we do want people to check, decide they need new stuff and choose to contact us, then why should they come to us? Especially after such a long line of steps in between. Does it make sense what I am trying to say?

Picking more on the same question, I would have chosen some other phrase than electric fence. Fencing involves a very wide assortment of products. There are all kinds of wires and posts and energizers and isolators and gate pieces and so on. Each of those might or might not need replacement. Currently to me it seems that the only likely broken or worn thing is the wire. Or on the contrary, the whole thing is in bad condition. Truth is often somewhere in between and the ad copy should factor it in, leaving room for flexibility and making the reader think through their equipment.

I could pick here on many other smaller details like the animal icons placed under some products but not all or warranty icon in three places (twice so small no-one can tell what it means).

I would argue that adding article numbers on an ad is a waste of space and it’s not a customer’s job to make a sales guy’s life that simple. A product name should be enough to inquire about something in most cases and sales stuff has an overview of campaign products anyway.

If I would have had a chance, I would have fought against using randomly capital letters in the beginning of some words.

And I would have screamed at the all over the place formatting of text paragraphs of which very few are aligned with each other.

As you might have guessed, the ad above was not at all my taste and I would have done many things differently. Some of those are very subjective. Some not. But if you are reading this and someone has given you an assignment to prepare an ad, you might want to pay attention to my criticism above. It might save you some money and reputation damage.

I have critiscised now quite harshly someone else’s work so I think it is only fair if you have a chance to critiscise mine as well (below). But first let me explain why I did what there.

I am not a designer myself, but life has forced me to learn how to do the basics at least in Adobe InDesign. That is a very common layouting program that I work with. It lets me work with text boxes easily and add nice images. It also allows me to resize photos, pick which sections I show, flip them, add shadows and much more. Trust me, it is a great tool and life has forced me in the last months to use it daily again for all kinds of marketing materials from quarter page ads to catalogues to wall size banners. But back to this specific ad.

Mostly fencing is communicated with images of cows (or other animals) on a field surrounded by fencing. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is nothing new with that either and in an ad you want to stand out. So I was looking for a different visual.

My first idea was to play with some lightning symbols and safety signs, but before I could start looking for those or plan for purchasing something from picture banks, I decided to take a look at our own image bank and after scrolling up and down fencing related images I finally noticed something different. An angle not so common, yet an image that impressed me. Hopefully it will impress you and others as well.

I liked that the image itself remains a bit mysterious and without reading the text, it is far from obvious what is advertised. Perhaps you don’t think this is a good tactic. I am counting on curiosity.

So I found a low angle image of a guy’s rubber booted leg pressing a fencing pole into the ground. Did you guess it?

I wanted the ad to look nice and clean, have focus and get quickly to the point. I also love word plays if they are used well. In this case, “Step up your game” came to me within minutes, I think. As the other ad, this one too is turning directly to the reader with the “your game”. And “step up”, because it’s not a very common phrase and the picture is a boot. “Up” because our company offers premium products.

The following call to action is very much straight to the point. Buy X from Y for Z. There is another more specific call to action which actually introduces a way to call someone. The previous ad had also contact info which I cropped. Adding contact info is no new invention, but research says that actually asking people to call or write etc makes more people do that.

About the web address, I hear there are different opinions about whether it should be a specific web address taking a customer to a product/campaign page or just the main address. Usually, when possible, I believe in adding simple but specific addresses. This time I didn’t as the web is about to be completely rebuilt and I thought that a generic link is better than a soon broken one.

There is actually also a third call to action that asks for attention in a special blue bubble which mentions quickly that there are special offers available for fencing. At first I even wrote “special”, but highlighting fencing area there as well seemed more important and I didn’t want to overdo it.

Every word in that ad is thought through. Every element is carefully aligned to work together with the image well and assist people in deciding what is important even if they just spend a second or two screening the ad. There is lots of empty space to create harmony between the important info and the background (noise). And though the ad stays on a very high level, everyone should get the point. And no rocket science was needed to make it.

Which one do you like best and why?

Planning for a photoshoot

In our area of business – dairy related products and systems – photoshoots are quite common, but the main models are things and cows. That has its own perks as well as challenges like finding a photographer who doesn’t mind their equipment later smelling like shit – literally – but perhaps this is a topic for a future post. Today I want to talk about human models and planning for a whole day photoshoot with tons of different clothing combos.

Our company recently launched a new clothing collection. This is far from our everyday business and perhaps clothes themselves are technically less complicated than some of our other products. That, however, didn’t make the launch any simpler.

A big part of the marketing package I was responsible for were photos and don’t get me wrong – a fashion project is always fun. It just takes a lot of work. As a tradition, we use our own people as models. They often look more real and relatable than professionals. We usually go with Caucasian looking models but not blondes so that images would work for as many markets as possible. This time we wanted to be more specific so I had to find colleagues who looked presentable and agreed to model for us. And they had to look Asian, Middle Eastern, European and Latin, young and older, thin and rounder. We ended up with 11 fantastic volunteer models and even a few extra candidates.

We only had one day for shooting split between those 11, alone and together, to shoot a bunch of different outfits, keeping in mind that all clothing items will be represented for each look by men and women. Yet we didn’t want them to look like awkward twins, wearing the same thing (at the same time). And considering, this was my first attempt and our agency just left the running order for me to organise, we did surprisingly well.

After we had found the models we liked and somehow even agreed on a date that worked for us all, holding our breath that no-one falls ill or has to cancel for another reason, I had to plan for each person’s clothing items according to their size, order everything from another country, have them try things on and adjust plans, and set up a very strict time plan for the big day. Of course, it took a few attempts to get to the final running order as some people could only be available in the morning, others in the evening and each of them had a partner or two whose times had to be aligned according to changes in their schedule.  We also changed our minds about some clothing combos last minute. If the above written doesn’t already explain it, believe me, it was a lot of logistical work and and brain exercise.

As you can see, a new model was to arrive every 45 minutes or so – in reality I asked them to be there at least 15 minutes early and some came even earlier as it was exciting for them as well. There were moments when we were done a bit quicker than planned and others where we were a little behind schedule. All in all, we finished just in time.

During the day, I ran around, ironing some folding wrinkles out, showing models to their locations, finding new locations, holding lights from falling in the wind, organising food and snacks, instructing all parties and keeping track that every planned photo is taken and everyone finds their right clothes – especially the ones who were sharing some items.

Of course, someone had transport trouble and was late, half of the clothing arrived just the previous afternoon and one scene just didn’t work out. But we came out of this with a lot of great images thanks to a professional photographer, art director, super models, support staff and great weather. Everyone was happy to show the images off to their friends and team mates and after some touch ups also to customers around the world. It is still one of the assignments that I am most proud of and having now shot more of clothing in studio as well as outdoors, I feel much more confident in organising such shoots in the future.

Does anyone reading this want to share their experience or have advice for me?

Can’t be a genius at everything, right?

Perhaps a bit bold move to start already with showing off my weaknesses, but I’m thinking that we all have some just like we all have our strengths. No matter how idealistic many job ads seem. One person cannot be great at everything. Repeating once again for the text scanners: one person cannot be good at everything.

I’m a pretty visual person and I get easily bothered by badly designed marketing material as well as anything else where functionality is hidden under a lot of user unfriendliness or unpleasing looks which is why I don’t like Excel so much, but that’s another story.

Today I wanted to talk about me and design programs. Especially Photoshop. I’ve become quite good friends with InDesign, because life forced me, but Photoshop and I still mostly keep a safe distance from each other. Sometimes, however, that’s not possible in the various work of a marketeer. No budget nor designers available or an idea that seems so simple that I am embarrassed to outsource it are the main reasons, why sometimes I still try to chew myself through the ways of working with that ever-so-common and loved design program. Trust me, I’d rather do anything text related elsewhere.

If there are more of you like me out there, then I’ll gladly show you, what kind of a “simple task” must have taken up at least a half hour of my workday today.

I was making web banners. Very. Basic. Banners.

Our webpage banners even come with an old Photoshop template of sorts. All I needed to do was change the text and images and prepare two separate banners with different opacity to create a nice effect when a website visitor  hovers over them. That’s how our system works. Two separate .png files alternating. I won’t go here into a discussion about the the sensibility of our system, but bigger experts are welcome to share their ideas and experiences in the comments section. Would be interesting for me as well.

Back to the Photoshop work. It took me a while to discover where I can find layers in my recently upgraded version. They weren’t just openly on the right meny. They were there though. A lot of clicking on the “eyes” later as the template file had many alternative layers, I managed to find my old clear text and vague text, the same with photo versions. It has been a few years since I worked on those banners last, so I only had a faint memory that one layer or maximum two (for text and image) should be enough.  After all, I was able to use the same layers and just change the opacity to create both – the vague and clear files I needed. All it took was a few needed clicks and all the prior extra clicks to find the right layers. As I said, not my strong suit. Perhaps writing it down here will help me remember it for the future.

Then I found myself with another issue – one, that seemed even sillier than opacity. I could not figure out, how I can move the text a bit. Choosing left, right and central lining just pushed the text out of my little banner all together. So I Googled. Yes, it came down to that. I guess I will always wonder why sister programs InDesign and Photoshop behave so differently, but the latter seems to have a Move button. No, not the mouse icon. Another one with a cross and arrows at each end. After discovering that, it seemed like a child’s play. The program even helped me center align automatically.

As it comes so hard to me, I really respect all the actual designers who have chewed themselves through the secrets of Photoshop and really do create such things within seconds. I did too with the latest versions, but those were just very multi-clicked copy improvements.

Anybody else here who feels like sharing their weaknesses publicly?