The Technology of Advertising

Coordinated Programs

This next case concerns two different product groups we handle for another manufacturer. We’ll call them Product A and Product B.

The nature of selling Product A is as follows: It must get into the “or equal” specs at large engineering firms such as Bechtel, Morrison-Knudson and Gibbs & Hill. They or the end-user do the specifying but the actual purchase is made by a contractor or sub.

Product B is different. It’s sold mainly through distributors who are largely passive when it comes to new business work.

Our program for Product A this year involved only two components – publicity and direct mail. The Product B program involves journal advertising, publicity and direct mail.

So far, word from the field shows the Product A program is working as intended. It’s getting this product into the specs of some of the largest national engineering firms – firms that, to quote the sales manager, “We could not get in to see”. He later claimed the program was solely responsible for enabling him to convert a “perfectly flat” year into a major gain. He’s gotten sales directly traceable to the direct mail respondents: “I used to think some of these companies specified very little – we were surprised – and we’re finishing this year a full 18% ahead of budget!”

With Product B, our program is designed to bring end -user prospects to the distributor. There is not yet a feedback system for complete matching o f sales leads with sales. Still, we qualified the respondents and know that nearly 90% are actively in the market for this product (the remainder were competitors or other distributors).

Of the client’s eight product groups, “A” and “B” are the only ones that made or exceeded budget in that recession year. Neither we nor the product and sales managers think it a coincidence that these are also the only groups that were handled by Flanagan Advertising.