Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: "David Eduardo" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:08:13 -0700
"D Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ecWDi.498668$p47.482578@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
David Eduardo wrote:
The main reason advertisers do not target 55+ customers is that the
return on investment is low; it takes so much more advertising to
convince older consumers that the cost of the sale is less than the
profit on the sale.
You think that may have something to do with the way the sale is
presented?
I have to cut you off right here. Radio stations don't present to agency
clients. They present to media buyers at ad agencies, based on the
specifications those agencies have for each buy. The amount per market for
radio, the number of stations, the demos, etc., were determined way before
the call for rates gets out, and generaly stations don't even know a
campaign is being prepared until it reaches the buying stage.
It's real simple. Tell the truth. Stop the hype, and just tell the
truth. You'll find that there are a lot of us out there who will respond
to that...and selling to us is easier than getting a morning erection.
The truth is that agency buys have the ages and budgets set by the client,
and a single radio station... even a group of them... has generally no
contact with the client. The ad agency carries out the client's marketing
plan, which probably was done after spending a lot of money on research and
product development.
Ad woe to the station that tries to contact an agency client directly to
have a buy changed. That will likely be the last time the station ever gets
any business from that agency. In fact, it is generally considered unethical
to call on an agency client, and viewed as tortuous interference with the
client-agency relationship.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: D Peter Maus
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- References:
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: David Eduardo
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: David Eduardo
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: David Eduardo
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: David Eduardo
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: Doodler
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: David Eduardo
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: Steve
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: David Eduardo
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: IBOCcrock
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: David Eduardo
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: IBOCcrock
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: David Eduardo
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: IBOCcrock
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: David Eduardo
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: K Isham
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: David Eduardo
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: David Eduardo
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- From: D Peter Maus
- Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- Prev by Date: Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- Next by Date: Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- Previous by thread: Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- Next by thread: Re: Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|