A Right and a Wrong Way of Dealing With Architects
No reputable manufacturer of any product specified by Architects would regard bribery of an Architect’s employees as a legitimate means of inducing the use of his goods.
No reputable manufacturer would regard with favor an attempt to blackmail Architects into the use of his products.
No reputable manufacturer would permit his salesmen to use physical force in the effort to secure business through Architects. These things simply are not done.
But some reputable manufacturers are using methods that are almost as objectionable, doing so chiefly, perhaps, because their methods have never been subjected to careful analysis and they have never had occasion to examine into their own tactics.
For a striking example, take the case of the Manufacturer who by advertising to consumers seeks to compel the Architect to use his goods.
No Architect objects to so-called Consumer Advertising, as long as it is planned to help him and does not infringe on his prerogatives.
It is safe to say that every Architect objects to Consumer Advertising designed to interfere with his freedom of action and thus to impair the service he renders his clients.
The Architect occupies a dominating position. He controls. He properly expects others to recognize this fact. But, naturally, he is unable to see recognition of his position in a policy which involves telling consumers things about an architectural product while he is being ignored. Such procedure seems to challenge his importance or authority.
In other words, Consumer Advertising, which is not co-ordinated with suitable Advertising to the Architectural profession, whether conducted through publications or by direct mail, creates for its sponsor a negative impression that eventually may grow into actual disfavor.
And it should be remembered that Architects control the use of 80 per cent of the normal output of building materials and equipment.
Talks on Advertising—VIII
by
THE AMERICAN ARCHITECT
No reputable manufacturer of any product specified by Architects would regard bribery of an Architect’s employees as a legitimate means of inducing the use of his goods.
No reputable manufacturer would regard with favor an attempt to blackmail Architects into the use of his products.
No reputable manufacturer would permit his salesmen to use physical force in the effort to secure business through Architects. These things simply are not done.
But some reputable manufacturers are using methods that are almost as objectionable, doing so chiefly, perhaps, because their methods have never been subjected to careful analysis and they have never had occasion to examine into their own tactics.
For a striking example, take the case of the Manufacturer who by advertising to consumers seeks to compel the Architect to use his goods.
No Architect objects to so-called Consumer Advertising, as long as it is planned to help him and does not infringe on his prerogatives.
It is safe to say that every Architect objects to Consumer Advertising designed to interfere with his freedom of action and thus to impair the service he renders his clients.
The Architect occupies a dominating position. He controls. He properly expects others to recognize this fact. But, naturally, he is unable to see recognition of his position in a policy which involves telling consumers things about an architectural product while he is being ignored. Such procedure seems to challenge his importance or authority.
In other words, Consumer Advertising, which is not co-ordinated with suitable Advertising to the Architectural profession, whether conducted through publications or by direct mail, creates for its sponsor a negative impression that eventually may grow into actual disfavor.
And it should be remembered that Architects control the use of 80 per cent of the normal output of building materials and equipment.
Talks on Advertising—VIII
by
THE AMERICAN ARCHITECT