Direct Response Branding

Die-hard direct response marketers do branding a disservice by acting like it's of no importance whatsoever.

Die-hard branding marketers, on the other hand, do direct marketing a disservice by pretending that awards are more important than sales.

Does it have to be "one or the other?" Where's the common ground? Do these two ever overlap?

I believe they do. And the phrase "direct response branding" is a good way to illustrate my point.

Here's a fact. You have a brand. Every company has a brand. It does not matter if you do "branding" or not. Your brand still exists.

So it makes sense to "manage" your brand, at least to a degree.

Now, in my opinion, your brand should never take precedence over sales. Sales come first, then branding. Branding should be a byproduct of your direct response sales efforts.

Direct marketing first, branding second.

Hence, the phrase I've coined: "direct response branding."

Note: Unethical sales never come before branding. Dishonesty will wreck your brand (read "reputation"). For the sake of this article, I'm assuming all your direct response advertising is honest and ethical. That's why I say sales come first, then branding.

P.S. This past summer (2006), Armand Morin talked about his big initiative for the following year. What was it? To incorporate branding into all of his direct response sales letters. Interesting, huh?

P.P.S. Michel Fortin spent some time recently to give his site a fresh look. He adopted a new, more serious looking photo of himself, among other things. I believe this is another real-world case of "direct response branding."

Comments

[Kyle]

Dan Kennedy says similar, your direct response marketing in effect becomes your brand marketing.

I've never gotten any "brand" advertising from Kennedy, everything is direct response. Yet I can spot anything his company puts out a mile away which is kinda the point of brand advertising.

2 birds. 1 stone.

[Ali Manson]

Hi Ryan,

This has been a bone of contention with me for a LONG time.

The hardcore of the two sects seem to think they are both mutually exclusive elements of marketing, when in reality, NOTHING could be further from the truth.

Every single thing your company does relates to your brand. Your tone of voice, your look, your message. How aggressively you market yourself. It's ALL branding in my eyes...

Just because it doesn't ask for a definitive action from the prospect doesn't render a piece pointless. Far from it.

Relationships. Good marketing is about forging relationships with people, and good branding makes perfect sense in the battle to market yourself effectively...

http://www.highcalibrecopy.com

Ali

[Ryan Healy]

Thanks for the ping, Terry. And thanks for the comments Kyle and Ali.

I first heard this view from Dan Kennedy, as Kyle mentioned.

Go check out Terry's post too. He tells an interesting story about a woman who purchased even though she felt the sales letter was insufficient.

[John A. Manley]

Hi Ryan,

All good points.

I heard something Kennedy said that really clicked about branding as a _by-product_ of direct-response.

It was to the effect of, if you don't have a meaningful message but you have branding, then the branding reflects NOTHING. Which is the case with most brands. There's nothing there.

While if the branding serves to remind people of the message they've come to associate with your business or product, then you have something.

John

http://www.RealityCopywriting.com/true_stories

[Scott P. DeMenter]

Finally, someone gets the link between branding and direct response. Old-time direct marketers don't seem to realize that every company has a brand, whether they manage it or not. And while, yes, sales/response is key, they need to be aware of how their marketing affects that brand identity so short term sales aren't made at the expense of long-term success.