According to the University College London team (whom we have quoted in some of the theoretical work on this site) the whole traditional approach of advertising (grab attention, then sell the product) falls apart before it even starts.  

Which leads to an interesting situation when an advertiser or an advertiser’s agency is faced with a situation in which it is pointed out that certain adverts don’t work or can’t work.   The usual response is Advertiser Denial, and it is a mechanism that has been used to keep much of the industry in stasis for many years. 

The fact is (and you'll know by now if you have read much of this site) advertising through direct mail is more complex than most advertising agencies, designers and the like would have you believe.  For example:

• Mailmerge often reduces response rates
• A picture is not worth 10,000 words
• Grabbing attention with an interesting image often reduces response rates
• Colour can decimate your response rate just when you think it will raise it
• A named mailing list does not always outperform a list with a generic title on the top line.

But this is not the half of it.   The research team at Bangor University showed that the way we pay attention to adverts is related not only to what we have just seen or heard, it also relates to our emotional response to the situation.  They found that if you are doing something intellectually demanding and then you get interrupted (for example by an advert), the emotional blink can lead to a strong emotional dislike of whatever interrupted you.   In other words when you are trying to resolve a conundrum (“is she the niece of the bloke who got killed in the woods 20 minutes ago?” or “if all this stuff is true it sounds like all advertising is doomed to fail, so what am I supposed to do?”) you don’t want me popping up in the middle shouting, “Buy your mailing lists on line at www.hamilton-house.com”.  

In fact not only is the advert likely to fail, it is also likely to create an adverse reaction to Hamilton House Mailings such that you will reject the notion of using that company in the future, even though you have by then forgotten this advert.

Elsewhere on this site you will have come across the Overload Theory and the fact that only 1% of all adverts and brands are remembered.  Here we notice that the failure of an advert is not just because we didn’t notice the advert in the first place.  It is also because we started to develop an antipathy to the brand itself – the emotional blink has led us to a dislike this advertiser for interrupting us in such a rude way in the past.  

So there are two problems:

a) Some of the things that we expect to work, and have always believed will work, actually have the reverse effect
b) Some of the theories which explain why (grabby image, elaboration likelihood, emotional blink etc) do take a bit of thinking about - and really do challenge further traditional beliefs in marketing.

So when an advertiser is faced with the rejection of tried and tested mechanisms and then has an explanation which really requires a bit of thinking about, it is often easier to just reject the whole explanation.   This is particularly the case where the advertiser has put the advert in the hands of someone else - the big advertising agency, PR company or design shop, and they are suddenly faced with a statement that a lot of what they have done in the past in direct mail has been based on false premises.

Thus we have advertiser denial.  A rejection of everything that is written here, but without any contrary theory or explanation.   If anyone does come up with alternative explanations I will of course put them here - the point of this site is not just to let me pontificate, but to try and evolve a complete theory of direct mail.  But for the moment, the theories and ideas that are here are all that we have.

So when the advert fails, everyone blames each other - the mailing house is blamed  for not sending it out, the list is blamed for being old or inaccurate, the agency blames the product, and so on.   But what should be happening is everyone should be looking at the underlying theory of direct mail to find out if the whole promotion did not, in some way, fail because of that.

Free analysis of your mailshot

This article is written by Tony Attwood, Chairman of Hamilton House Mailings Ltd.  If you would like to discuss the writing or design of your mailing campaign, or indeed a single mailshot, with Tony, without cost or obligation, just call 01536 399 000, or email Creative@hamilton-house.com   You can also send Tony a copy of your latest advert and he will call you back with his thoughts on how your response rate could be raised - again without cost or obligation.