Letters to the editor: Direct response

In the front page opinion piece in the Aug. 8 issue ('It's the advertising, stupid'), David Harrison defends classic mass media advertising as 'the continuing core of everything that we (ad agencies) hope to achieve.'At the same time, we are told...

In the front page opinion piece in the Aug. 8 issue (‘It’s the advertising, stupid’), David Harrison defends classic mass media advertising as ‘the continuing core of everything that we (ad agencies) hope to achieve.’

At the same time, we are told that direct response and interactive media are little more than useful additions ‘to reach an increasingly complicated marketplace.’

I don’t get it.

Direct response isn’t a reach (or frequency) medium.

It’s a sales (or results) medium which earns its keep one new customer at a time.

As such, it is continuing to win a legitimate position in the core of more and more pragmatic communications plans.

And, from my experience, there’s normally plenty of room in the core for an integrated mix of mass media, direct response and other specialized vehicles, providing each can prove its worth.

Rather than imploring advertisers and agencies to spend their way back to a yesteryear of one-way mass media, why not let the marketplace decide which media belong in the core plan of each product.

Brian Bimm

Partner

CMG Direct

Toronto