Just give me the facts? literalism versus symbolism in B2B advertising

For decades the prevailing idea in B2B marketing has been that buyers are motivated by product/service specifications. Sellers are put on approved supplier lists, invited to respond to RFPs, and are selected on the basis of superior products, at the right price, delivered on time. The history of B2B advertising is filled with the advice “provide product specifications” and your advertising will be noticed, lead to sales inquiries, and eventually result in higher sales. Advertising filled with abstractions might work in the B2C market, but the B2B marketplace is about being literal. What we know about advertising — and particularly the message component of advertising — is based on a combination of experience, unproven ideas and a bit of social science. Over the years, advertising guidelines produced by the predecessors of BMA (National Industrial Advertising Association, Association of Industrial Advertising, and the Business/Professional Advertising Association) stressed emphasizing product features and tangible benefits. The major publishers of B2B magazines, e.g., McGraw-Hill, Penton Publishing, et al. had similar recommendations. Also, B2B marketing books recommend advertising that focuses on specific product features (Kotler and Pfoertsch, 2006; Lamons, 2005). In more recent times, abstraction in advertising messages has penetrated the B2B marketplace. Even though such advertising legends as David Ogilvy (1963, 1985) frequently recommended advertising based on hard-core information, we’ve seen the growing use of emotional appeals, including humor, fear, parental affection, etc. Beyond the use of emotion, marketers attempt to build a stronger connection between their brands and buyers through the use of abstraction and symbolism. Below are two examples of B2B advertisements — Figure 1A is high in literalism and Figure 1B is high in symbolism. Which approach — a “left-brain” (literal) or “right brain” (symbolic) is more effective in B2B advertising? Are the advertising message creation guidelines from the history of B2B advertising accurate? Are the foundations of B2B message creation (experience and unproven ideas) sound?

Can we teach advertising students to think? Strategies to engage student thinking

Understanding and effectively managing students’ engagement in education plays a significant role in enhancing learning processes and outcomes. Research has shown that students learn more when they are actively engaged in their learning. However, as many educators know, this is not as easy as one might expect. Using a range of teaching approaches, we attempt to impart knowledge and develop understanding and comprehension (Angelo 1993; Biggs and Telfer 1987; Patti 2003; Ranburuth and McCormick 2001). These vary from “information dump” or teacher-centric approaches, to those that stimulate more active involvement. From the literature, we know that experiential learning, such as those strategies that help students acquire practice skills, apply critical thought and active learning, are likely to have achieve higher levels of intellectual skill and ability (Benson and Blackman 2003; Hampton and Lawrence 1995; Hopkinson and Hogg 2004; Kolb 1984).

Strategic IMC : from abstract concept to marketing management tool

Although integrated marketing communication (IMC) has progressed towards midrange maturity level, its full-scale adoption has been impeded by a lack of consensus on its defining constructs. The purpose of this study is to move from abstraction to define the construct of strategic integration (SI) and develop this into a management tool, thus making an important contribution to both the theory and practice of IMC. Drawing from both IMC and strategic management literature, the construct of SI is operationalised into a number of key factors and a well-cited management model, Fuchs’ ‘integration valuator’ is explored as the starting point of a measurement tool for IMC. To do this, a Delphi study invites the scrutiny of an expert panel of world-leading IMC researchers and practitioners. The panel validated the model construction process,redefined overarching constructs and key factors with a high degree of consensus, supported a process measure, suggested a weighted evaluation measure and recognised the importance of developing such a measure. They delivered clear and consistent imperatives guiding model development. The result is a measure of SI that evaluates organisational proficiency and diagnoses the integration of IMC campaigns. It also advances theory by providing a better understanding of the construct of SI.