NORTHERN PLANNER

Creative sensibilities usually mean the end of an ad should be a pure as fresh snow. Somehow, the convention is that it’s more creative without a call to action.

The end frame in a film, the bit at the end of the way the eye peruses print – after headline/visual idea and copy (if any).

It’s generally accepted that what wins awards is nothing but a tiny logo.

But maybe, creative convention aside, this is the wrong approach.

Here’s why.

Let’s take first of all the argument doing the rounds in some of the creative guide books. It usually goes, “But if you’ve done your job properly and got people excited, they’ll go LOOKING for you”.

When of course, we know by now the arguments that the people that advertising needs to reach tend to be light buyers, the least engaged who are the least likely to bother, even in the days when a Google search is a second away from viewing an ad of any format.

You have to assume people can’t be bothered.

Of course, that can be taken as a brief to just finish with a miniscule logo, because the folks that can’t be bothered won’t be moved by a call to action either.

But that’s not true.

Various experiments by psychologist have shown that even the people LEAST likely to respond to a given message, are ten times more likely to respond if they have a clear understanding of what they’re supposed to do next (the best example is charity letter sent to people who agreed they were not your typical donation giver, yet 3% responded to a letter with no call to action, against 30% who got a letter with a clear instruction of what they should do next).

But a call to action doesn’t just work for ‘activation’ in my view. These days (rightly or wrongly) ads are part of richer story including other channels and experiences.

It’s true that participation doesn't make immediate commercial sense, as those that bother are a tiny fraction of any significant numbers that really matter. The folks most likely to respond to this and go deeper are the ones who are already  heavy buyers – but if they interact, they become the ‘carriers’ to spread your marketing virus, not just in the Gladwell-esque sense of this, they also spread peer reviewed recommendation, social proof – and we all tend to buy stuff people like us like.

Even then, if the engaged few doesn't help you reach more of the indifferent many, having a call to action is still worth considering.

Because it adds depth and, in this cynical day and age, authenticity.

Just as not everyone cares about reading the (vast) back story to Lord of the Rings, knowing it’s there adds depth and meat to the story. The backstory poking through the narrative makes it feel more real. You don’t need to bother with it, you just need to know it exists. 

Just as the mini-webisodes launched before HBO dramas are for the geeks mostly, but they add a real credibility to those who just bother with the broadcast.

Just as I never bothered with all the ‘find your greatness' content when Nike launched the fat kid running ad, but the fact I knew about it’s existence made the add more real and more powerful.

Just as I’d never "Tell Magnet what happens in my kitchen" (you'll know it if you're from the UK), but the fact they’ve asked makes me believe I’ll consider them next time I’m in the market for one.

Back to the 20% of buyers that probably might bother doing something. If you've developed a big showstopper that cuts through, why stop there?

Why on earth give them an erection and then not something to do with it?