Advertising Moratorium Suggested

Making political hay from the difficulties caused by Vioxx and other drugs, Congresswomen Rosa L. DeLauro of Connecticut, chairwoman of the Drug Administration Appropriations Subcommittee, and Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri introduced the Responsibility in Drug and Device Advertising Act of 2008 (H.R. 6151), to the House of Representatives in May, 2008.

Their own press release, dated May 22, 2008, explains what they want the act to do:

1.Establish a three year moratorium on direct-to-consumer ads for new medicines with a possible waiver if the product is proven to to be of affirmative value to public health;
2.Provide authority to require corrective materials to be distributed if drug companies violate the advertising moratorium;
3.Include strong civil penalties that apply to all violations of the ad provisions or other requirements of the Act;
4.Require the advertising to prominently display information about the potential drug and device side effects;
5.Call for a public education campaign on the risks of certain drugs.

This ill-conceived plan deprives pharmaceutical companies of the chance for a reasonable return on their research and development investments.

Such moratoria, while cynically claimed to protect the public, shorten the period of time that innovative medical products can be marketed before manufacturers lose patent protection.

They allow competitors three years to create products to compete with the innovators.

They keep the innovator from establishing market dominance with a product even if the innovation itself creates the category.

How will American manufacturers be able to continue to lead the world in innovation and development if politicians are allowed to interfere in the marketplace?

Let’s suggest a moratorium on all advertising by incumbent politicians until they prove themselves not to be dangerous to the body politic.

J.David Knepper Audio Version

The Principles of Advertising Have Never Changed

The principles of advertising have never changed.

New media explode onto the scene with amazing regularity. New schemes promise new ways of manipulating the behavior of groups. New ideas demand their places in media budgets.

But there are certain constants that must be considered. Groups are made up of individuals. Individuals are not defined by the groups they populate. Individuals act as individuals for individual reasons. They need to be convinced, not manipulated.

Proper advertising convinces individuals reached through a mass medium. The message should outlast the medium.

Why? Because…

…the principles of advertising have never changed.

J.David Knepper

Audio version

Message Trumps Choice of Medium

Media offerings currently available to advertisers include:

movie and television show placements,

mobile signs, text messages,

calls to your cell phone at all hours,

outdoor with changing electronic displays,

changing electronic displays on taxis that change messages for different parts of town by GPS,

local magazines of all sorts,

email solicitations,

bathroom advertising,

bar room hustling to create buzz,

gas pump advertising,

buses, blimps, balloons!

Are these media legitimate?

Yes. If advertising is simply putting product names in front of eyeballs, all of these work to one degree or another.

Effective? Maybe. Tell me your message and I’ll tell you whether your advertising will be effective at selling your product or service.

If your message is bland, you can tell it to everyone in the world and no-one will pay any attention.

If your message is compelling, you won’t have trouble finding customers with it.

Don’t believe me?

Buy an ad in the smallest publication you know. Put your ad under a headline legitimately promising “Free Beer” and see what happens. You’ll need a cop to control the traffic. People respond to ads that interest them. And they call to tell their friends about such ads.

You need to develop the proper message to share. Then and only then should you talk about what medium to use to convey it to the public.

It’s not that the medium isn’t important.

It’s just that the message is vastly more important.

J.David Knepper

Audio version

Aspirations in Media Sales

Is there anything in media sales for which to aspire anymore?

In olden times, a person joined the sales staff of a company and looked forward to a long and fruitful association. Older sales professionals, also known as those who had made the cut time after time, were generally paid more than folks entering the workforce. Young people working with seasoned veterans would learn about the business and see the rewards of working hard and remaining loyal to the company.

That was then. This is now.

Today it’s fashionable for management to design compensation schemes that ‘level the playing field’ or ‘are performance driven’. The problem is that the level playing field is on the lowest level and the performance measured is usually short term.

Hence, a youngster entering the workplace often earns more money than seasoned professionals. Worse than that, the compensation plans actually punish experience and productivity.

For example, goal trending is currently a popular compensation feature. However, it punishes success with higher goals both in the near future and again at the anniversary of the success.

Longevity, client building and strategic planning are clearly not rewarded under many modern sales compensation plans.

Instead, short-sighted management (SSM) will look for schemes that will boost revenue, usually with no consideration of the strategic ramifications.

Many of the ‘new concepts’ in newspaper and television advertising are nothing more than elaborate rate concessions. SSM is seduced by consultants who promise great increases in revenue if only SSM will,

1.Give the consultants control of their sales force for a period of time;
2.Follow the consultants’ instructions to the letter;
3.Give the consultants extensive client contact information;
4.Agree to take responsibility if the plan fails to produce as promised, and, finally,
5.Give the consultants dramatically lower rates than are otherwise available.

The plans often seem to work. Contracts are signed. Revenue projections are made.

Project completed, the consultants high five the SSM and leave for home with pockets stuffed with money. SSM report to their superiors that they have managed yet another successful revenue generating program.

What is overlooked is that for the time that the sales people were working the consultants’ plan, they were not serving their clients and some of those clients became clients of competitors.

Sales people, told to follow the consultants’ instructions to the letter, were often forced to work counter intuitively and against their clients’ interests.

The extraordinarily low rates sold under such plans become the basis for all future negotiations with clients who hear about them.

And it is very hard indeed to show clients such plans without their buying them with money they would have spent anyway.

These unmeasured costs can be huge.

In short, when management chooses to implement a special program offered by outside consultants, the program should be analyzed very carefully to prevent its being misused.

Look at your last project. Can you honestly measure how much revenue was switched from other products and plans? Can you say that you got more business from a consultants’ plan than you would have generated by simply lowering your rates? Can you prove that your clients were truly well-served by the plan? Or that salespeople didn’t learn bad practices from their time on the project?

There are costs to making decisions in business.

The costs that aren’t readily apparent can be the highest costs of all.

For a view of this matter from an executive’s perspective see the article Consultants Hidden Costs.

J.David Knepper
Audio version

Your Advertising Strategy: Lotto Ticket or Business Investment?

Small business owners need to determine how they want their their advertising handled; like a casual Lotto ticket purchase or a crucial business investment.

Consider this. So many times, small businessmen and women decide to ‘try’ advertising in the newspaper. They want to see if it works. They want to put a little bit into the effort to see if they get enough bang for the buck. They don’t have money to waste like big companies.

Here is the truth backed up by hundreds of years of experience by a mature industry.

If done properly, advertising in the newspaper will bring a business the customers it needs. If done properly, advertising in the newspaper will show a large return on investment. If done properly, advertising in the newspaper will make all other advertising efforts more successful.

Much advertising by small business follows a pattern of buying an ad in the paper and trying to determine whether there are enough customers coming through the door to pay for it. If there is an immediate response to the ad, everything is fine. The effort continues until the first downturn in sales.

At that point, the advertiser becomes vulnerable to the first media person to step through the door with an offer of something else.

That medium is tried. Again, if it is perceived as immediately successful, it replaces the former effort. And again, the effort is continued until the next downturn in sales when it is replaced by yet another, according to its sales rep, sure fire advertising medium.

This cycle is repeated endlessly in many small businesses. But when the business finally closes, the owner returns to the newspaper to advertise his going out of business sale.

His approach is much like buying a Lotto ticket. He gets immediate feedback as to whether the investment produced a return. As long as he’s winning, everything is fine with buying Lotto tickets.

But if he loses money at Lotto for a while, what do he do? He switches. He tries scratch-offs or on-line betting or visits the casinos. He tries different things to find out what works.

Here’s a secret. The big companies didn’t get that way by wasting advertising dollars on every exciting new concept that is presented to them. They stick with mainline media for one reason only. They sell product. They know that the message is more important than the medium that delivers it.

Pick an established medium. Craft an excellent message or pay someone to craft an excellent message. Run it as much as you can afford to run it.

That way, you’re treating your advertising like an investment and can expect a return on your investment that will last for years.

J.David Knepper
Audio version

In Remembrance of Earl Welde

I met Earl Welde when I was hired into a sales position at WFLA-TV in 1975. My first office was in St. Petersburg where Earl was the Manager. Earl was a good man who could tell jokes better than almost anyone I’ve ever known.

In the late 1960’s, Earl was 4th District Governor of the American Advertising Federation. So, when 4th District had a meeting in St. Petersburg in early May of this year, I called Earl to wish him well.

Colleen told me that he had passed away last December.

Anyone who knew Father Welde knows that the world is a little less funny without him.

He was without a doubt…

J.David Knepper Audio version

Local Marketing Advice for Local Projects

1. When a local governmental agency has an opportunity to contract for a significant Branding and Marketing Campaign for a local project, and

2. Highly talented and resourceful advertising agents and marketing experts live and work in the area being promoted or within a few miles of it, and

3. The cost of bringing people into the area is more expensive every day…

…why would the leaders of the local governmental agency hire people from halfway across the continent for the project?

Hmm.

Amendment Five FAQ

Editor’s Note: Although Amendment Five was, thankfully, removed from Florida’s November ballot, we leave this article. Some demagogue will certainly re-introduce it in the near future. Stay vigilant, Florida. It’s your money they want to spend for you!

FAQ’s on the Amendment Five “Tax Swap”
By Jack Hebert, AAF Fourth District Lobbyist – May, 2008

As a Florida voter you will be called on to make many important decisions on November 4, 2008, but none as far-reaching – and perhaps as controversial – as the proposal by Florida’s Taxation and Budget Reform Committee to make radical changes in Florida’s tax system. Though some would have you believe it is actually only long-overdue property tax relief, it is at best a tax swap that has the potential to morph into the largest tax increase in Florida’s history.

To help you make an informed decision, here are some answers to the most popular questions about Amendment Five.

So what exactly is this TBRC thing? The Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission is a constitutionally chartered entity created and approved by Florida’s voters in 1988, which met for the first time in 1990. It is comprised of 25 members appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the House and Senate President and charged with reviewing the funding of Florida state government and recommending changes to improve our taxation and budgeting processes. Changes adopted by voters in 1998 called for the TBRC to begin deliberations in 2007 and established meetings every 20 years thereafter. The TBRC has the power to send proposed constitutional amendments directly to the ballot for voter consideration. One of the members, former state senate president John McKay, was the driving force behind the Amendment Five proposal.

But we just passed Amendment One. Why this now? Property taxes continue to be high on the mind of Florida’s voters – second only to property insurance rates. The Legislature, with the support of Gov. Crist, created and pushed for passage of Amendment One in the spring of 2008. Among other things, its biggest selling point was that it effectively doubles the homestead exemption. Nothing in this new amendment changes any of that. Many Floridians consider Amendment One a positive start – but just the beginning. Through a series of public hearings held across the state over the last year to discuss taxation issues the TBRC heard an overwhelming common complaint from the pubic: skyrocketing property tax rates.

What exactly will the proposed Amendment Five do if passed? Amendment Five proposes to eliminate the current required local effort (RLE) portion of school property taxes which comprises anywhere from 25 to 35% of your total property tax bill. The percentage varies by county. The Legislature is then required to replace the lost tax revenue, projected to be somewhere around $9.3 billion in 2010, by exercising one or more of four options:

1) Raise the sales tax by up to one cent;
2) Consider reductions in state spending or revenues resulting from economic growth;
3) Repeal current state sales tax exemptions, or;
4) Generate other revenues identified or created by the legislature.

The one-cent sales tax increase will raise about $4.5-billion, leaving another $4+ billion to be “found.”

Some of this sounds familiar. Wasn’t this tried before? Yes and no. The property tax reduction aspect is a new twist, but the review and elimination of sales tax exemptions is not. During his tenure as a state senator and later as senate president, John McKay was the leading proponent of an idea to begin a systematic review and/or elimination of sales tax exclusions and exemptions with the goal of providing a more stable, broad-based tax. McKay managed to have the Legislature advance a proposal in 2002 only to see it later thrown off the ballot by the Supreme Court. After leaving office McKay then led a statewide signature gathering campaign ultimately winning support for another similar idea, only to run into Supreme Court problems again. Unfazed, he retooled again in 2005 but was unable to gather enough signatures to make it to the ballot.

If the idea is to cut my property taxes, what’s so wrong with that? Nothing at all. Reducing property taxes in and of itself is certainly a noble – and likely well-received – gesture. Many Floridians are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with the demands of rising property taxes coupled with skyrocketing insurance premiums, particularly in a sagging economy. But the hidden danger of this particular proposal is the “swap” component. It’s not true tax relief. Government will simply leave some money in one of your pockets, only to take it back out of another. It’s very questionable if there will be any net-net savings.

But still I’ll be saving a boatload of taxes, right? No, not in the long run. The Legislature will need to find a way to “replace” the property tax savings you’ll first enjoy. There is nothing in the proposal that requires government to spend less, it merely creates the need for a shift in funding. The need doesn’t change. In addition to loosing a portion of a federal income tax deduction, you’ll surely face paying more sales tax on everything else you buy. There’s also a very strong chance you’ll begin paying sales tax on many items and services that are currently exempt. And, if you either work in, or consume the goods or services of, one of those newly taxed industries, there could be a brand-new 7% expense you will have to figure out how to deal with.

Why are some calling it nothing more than a “tax swap?” Simple, it lowers your taxes in one place, only to hike them in another. The proponents will surely continue to try to sell it as “property tax relief” – but in reality, you will save little, if anything. In fact some experts believe it will cost Floridians more in the long run – especially those in lower income brackets. Sales taxes are generally viewed as regressive, meaning that the poor are forced to pay a disproportionally larger share of their income in these kinds of taxes.

I thought tourists paid a lot of our sales taxes. Why not put the burden on them? True, in a given year as much as 20 to 25% of our sales tax is actually paid for by tourists, that could help reduce your total tax burden. But keep in mind, Florida already has one of the highest sales tax rates in the country. Increasing it even more will not go completely unnoticed. With skyrocketing fuel costs already threatening, expecting tourists to pick up the additional burden is gambling with the state’s number one industry: Tourism.

Well, those exemptions could be more fair. I pay sales tax on my ticket to a Dolphin’s games, but not that guy up in the fancy sky box. What’s with that? Good point. Certainly some of the current 246 exemptions from sales tax appear less than fair on the surface. Nevertheless, even if you carefully review and then remove some of the more “frivolous” exemptions you’re only scratching the surface. We’re talking about filling a very, very big hole, something on the scale of over $4-billion. By comparison, the current exemption on skyboxes is worth only about $900,000, ostrich feed is only good for about $100,000, but charter fishing boat rentals would be good for about $64 million. Now, that gives you only about 1.5% of the $4-billion you need to raise. So you turn to the really “big” chunks you need to fill the gap, looking at some of the “extravagances” – like the four largest current exemptions:

1) Car trade-ins;
2) Government purchases;
3) Metered water, and/or;
4) Fuel purchased by public and private utilities.

However, these four together would only raise another $1.6 billion. Now you’re only about $2.35 billion short. What comes next? Funerals? Maybe school books and lunches? Or there are always guide dogs for the blind.

What’s so wrong about paying a little more sales tax – and maybe paying it on a few more things? Nothing. In fact many people will surely strike a smile from the substantial lump-sum tax savings on that first bill – even if it means they will have to make incrementally smaller, yet larger and more frequent payments, via increased sales and services taxes. It’s just like the appeal of a “simple-monthly-pay-as-you-go-payment-plan.” But that instant gratification becomes far less appealing when you consider the long-range implications of the swap. There is no free lunch. For example, all that dough you may save in property taxes is also part of a federal tax exemption you now enjoy – so plan on at least 18% of you newfound savings going to the IRS.

So what exactly is so bad about taxing services? Well, in the first place it has already been tried back in 1987– with disastrous results. Florida’s Legislature, with the support of then-Governor Bob Martinez, enacted a service tax that lasted exactly six months before it was later repealed. It was universally hated by the business community, was problematic and expensive to enforce, and had a stifling effect on our economy. Second, since the time Florida tried it, a majority of other states have likewise passed a services tax – only to later repeal it.

What will be the impact to advertising? In one word: disaster. An AAF-commissioned study by world-recognized economic consulting firm Global Insight predicted a virtual Sunshine State Tsunami: A 6% sales tax on advertising would trigger a reduction in total sales in Florida of $18.4-billion, ultimately resulting in 89,751 lost jobs.

So can’t we make a strong case for continued exemption? Maybe, maybe not. We certainly didn’t escape the services tax fiasco in 1987. Ask anybody who was around back then to tell you about it and it’s not pretty. Many national advertisers just stopped advertising in Florida, and the budget of those who stayed didn’t automatically just increase by 5%. Some agencies moved out of state just to stay competitive. Magazines had blank pages, and some television ads were actually blacked-out in Florida.

What do the experts say about all this? Unfortunately, the water’s pretty murky here. The TBRC hired economist Dr. Tony Villamil, someone already well versed in projecting revenue collections for the state, to study the issue. His models predicted troubling trends – raising costs and reducing demands, with the loss of as many as 55,000 jobs in the first year alone. Commissioner McKay quickly enlisted the counsel of another leading authority, Hank Fishkind, Ph.D., who argued a completely different position. His projections suggested that the property tax reduction would increase wealth, spurn economic growth and stimulate investment while saving the average household a net of $53 annually. Florida TaxWatch offered a more somber analysis, saying “the economic impact of replacing property taxes with sales taxes is at best debatable, at worst detrimental.”

When will all this go down? Amendment 5 will appear on the November 4, 2008 general election (Presidential) ballot for consideration by Florida voters. If more than 60% of those voting approve the amendment, it will take effect in 2010-11.

Who’s on board with this idea? At this point no one is quite sure – at least in terms of any organized groups. Obviously a lot of ill-informed voters might find it attractive believing it will reduce their property taxes – until they learn the back story. Presumably the real estate industry will be supportive, since real property is specifically carved out from the sales tax and some believe that the reduction might help restart the sagging home sales market. The Florida Realtors® were major funders of the campaign to sell Amendment One to the voters in the spring of 2008 and it is entirely possible they could step up again.

And what groups are going to fight it? The list is growing. In addition to the AAF and the AAAA, our other advertising cousins will be front and center including the Florida Outdoor Advertising Association, the Florida Association of Broadcasters, and the Printing Industry of Florida. Professional groups will likely include the CPA’s, architects, engineers, attorneys, and the like. It also seems fairly certain the business community will be opposing it; groups like the Florida Chamber, Associated Industries of Florida, NFIB and others. Plus, unlike in the past, it appears we may have a new partner for this fight: the education community. During the final TBRC deliberations the Florida School Boards Association came out in opposition, and we’re guessing others may follow including perhaps the community colleges and teachers’ unions.

Is there any way to stop it? Yes, but it won’t be easy. We’ve got to convince at least 40% of Florida voters that it’s a bad idea before they vote on November 4th. It will take a strong message – and a good amount of money.

What can I do? First and foremost, stay alert and watch for updates. Obviously the first step will to be to educate as many voters as possible as to real impact Amendment 5 would ultimately have on their lives. The Fourth District AAF will be working closely with the other interested parties in the coming weeks and months to conduct research and develop a common message for a campaign to counter the amendment. Now is the perfect time to reach out to your colleagues, friends and neighbors to begin an educational campaign.

Where can I find more info? The Fourth District AAF will be developing a special section of our website, posting news, updates and collateral materials as they become available. Be sure to check in at http://www.4aaf.com/ frequently for the very latest information.

Editor’s note: AAF – American Advertising Federation

Inventory Control and Serving Clients

Many years ago, when computerized traffic was just being introduced to the broadcast industry, wise broadcast executives realized that strict inventory control was an essential element of client service.

Any advertiser should be able to buy spot in a particular program up until the week of the log.

Furthermore, if a client were willing to commit to a time slot when inventory was wide open, he would enjoy a more favorable rate.

Rates for a program or time period were a function of inventory and time left until log closing.

If availabilities dried up before that time, inventory was considered mismanaged. If positions went unsold, inventory was considered mismanaged.

Today, stations will claim to be sold out months in advance. Is this evidence of a strong demand for that particular station?

Or is it inventory mismanagement?

Advertising Sales Consultants

The financial woes of the advertising industry are largely self-inflicted. Industry executives are looking for magical solutions to their problems.

They hire outside consultants to introduce programs to remedy revenue shortfalls. The solutions implemented all have several common elements:

1. Salespeople provide the consultant with lists of their best clients and prospects.
2. Salespeople are made available to set up appointments with these clients and prospects.
3. Consultants’ methods are followed to the letter without question.
4. Consultants are paid on all revenue run through the program.

If sales increases occur, the consultants crow about having engineered yet another successful project, stuff their pockets with the media company’s money and leave town to find another struggling operation to save.

If sales do not increase, the consultants blame uncommitted sales management, untrained sales people, lack of follow up by salespeople or sales management, sabotage by salespeople or sales management, lack of time, phase of the moon or the Bush Administration.

In short, the consultants blame anyone but themselves. They still stuff their pockets with the media company’s money and leave town to find another struggling operation to save.

Has your company hired these guys?