ONE ARCHITECT’S VIEW OF CONSUMER ADVERTISING
Chicago, September 28, 1919.
The American Architect:
Your timely advertising editorial, “As Others See Us,” in your issue of the 24th, has served to call the attention of the profession to the practice of many manufacturers of building specialties in ignoring the architect entirely and attempting to secure through the owner the use of their materials.
It is my observation that most, if not all, reputable manufacturers prefer to deal directly with the architect and are not in the habit of attempting to interest the architect’s client direct. It is also my observation that the manufacturers of that class of building specialties which are “not quite so good” and those other specialties whose value is doubtful, are in the practice in almost all cases of attempting to sell the owner direct.
Whenever a manufacturer approaches an owner over the head of the architect he discredits not only himself, but his goods, and the only reason for a manufacturer to approach an owner direct is because he cannot stand the searching inquiry and criticism of the architect. This well-known practice of a certain class of manufacturers I think is well expressed in the attitude of the advertising manager quoted in your editorial. I will venture the prediction that the goods manufactured by his firm will be classified as those “not quite so good” or goods for which there might be a limited demand in cheap construction.
I have often wondered how much money was actually wasted in the advertising of building materials and specialties and why invariably many manufacturers who mail literature to architects will send the same mass of stuff to the same architect immediately after the announcement of every new project and after the publication of every report in the trade journals relating to the same project, and not content with sending this mass of stuff to the firm direct, send identically the same material to each member of the firm in the same mail.
In our own office I know of one concern who has sent to our office not less than six hundred copies of the same identical literature in one year. If any advertising manager is laboring under the false allusion that any architect will open and look over six hundred pieces of advertising matter sent to his office under one cent postage and all relating to the same subject in one year, he should be examined for his sanity.
If advertisers would only visualize the architect’s viewpoint and would prepare their advertisements accordingly, in my opinion, they would unquestionably obtain better results at a far less expenditure of time and money than is now the rule. Architects are not interested in and seldom or never read the average advertising material that reaches their desks. What an architect is interested in is short, concise statements of fact relating to quality of material, use, workmanship, prices, etc., but there is no use in telling him the same story six hundred times per year, and I personally doubt if the manufacturer of any reputable goods ever found that it paid to attempt to sell through an advertising campaign to the architect’s client or to the owner direct.
While it is true that an owner not having had experience with building materials and specialties might in some cases be influenced by the advertising matter sent him, particularly regarding claims made regarding the cheapness of the article, it will be found to be very rare indeed when, if the matter is referred by the owner to his architect that the owner will insist on having the material classified irrespective of its merits. It would be just as absurd for an owner to dictate to his architect as it would be for a client to dictate to his attorney how he should try a complicated suit at law.
It might be well to note that practically all of the improvements made in the science and art of building have been devised by architects and that every reputable architect is as much interested in maintenances charges as he is in first costs and that the tendency today is to specify and use those materials and specialties that are believed to be the most enduring and that will result in securing to the owner the lowest maintenance and depreciation costs.
F. E. DAVIDSON, A. I. A.,
Mem. Am. See. C. E.ADVERTISING TALKS—XIII.
By the American Architect.
Chicago, September 28, 1919.
The American Architect:
Your timely advertising editorial, “As Others See Us,” in your issue of the 24th, has served to call the attention of the profession to the practice of many manufacturers of building specialties in ignoring the architect entirely and attempting to secure through the owner the use of their materials.
It is my observation that most, if not all, reputable manufacturers prefer to deal directly with the architect and are not in the habit of attempting to interest the architect’s client direct. It is also my observation that the manufacturers of that class of building specialties which are “not quite so good” and those other specialties whose value is doubtful, are in the practice in almost all cases of attempting to sell the owner direct.
Whenever a manufacturer approaches an owner over the head of the architect he discredits not only himself, but his goods, and the only reason for a manufacturer to approach an owner direct is because he cannot stand the searching inquiry and criticism of the architect. This well-known practice of a certain class of manufacturers I think is well expressed in the attitude of the advertising manager quoted in your editorial. I will venture the prediction that the goods manufactured by his firm will be classified as those “not quite so good” or goods for which there might be a limited demand in cheap construction.
I have often wondered how much money was actually wasted in the advertising of building materials and specialties and why invariably many manufacturers who mail literature to architects will send the same mass of stuff to the same architect immediately after the announcement of every new project and after the publication of every report in the trade journals relating to the same project, and not content with sending this mass of stuff to the firm direct, send identically the same material to each member of the firm in the same mail.
In our own office I know of one concern who has sent to our office not less than six hundred copies of the same identical literature in one year. If any advertising manager is laboring under the false allusion that any architect will open and look over six hundred pieces of advertising matter sent to his office under one cent postage and all relating to the same subject in one year, he should be examined for his sanity.
If advertisers would only visualize the architect’s viewpoint and would prepare their advertisements accordingly, in my opinion, they would unquestionably obtain better results at a far less expenditure of time and money than is now the rule. Architects are not interested in and seldom or never read the average advertising material that reaches their desks. What an architect is interested in is short, concise statements of fact relating to quality of material, use, workmanship, prices, etc., but there is no use in telling him the same story six hundred times per year, and I personally doubt if the manufacturer of any reputable goods ever found that it paid to attempt to sell through an advertising campaign to the architect’s client or to the owner direct.
While it is true that an owner not having had experience with building materials and specialties might in some cases be influenced by the advertising matter sent him, particularly regarding claims made regarding the cheapness of the article, it will be found to be very rare indeed when, if the matter is referred by the owner to his architect that the owner will insist on having the material classified irrespective of its merits. It would be just as absurd for an owner to dictate to his architect as it would be for a client to dictate to his attorney how he should try a complicated suit at law.
It might be well to note that practically all of the improvements made in the science and art of building have been devised by architects and that every reputable architect is as much interested in maintenances charges as he is in first costs and that the tendency today is to specify and use those materials and specialties that are believed to be the most enduring and that will result in securing to the owner the lowest maintenance and depreciation costs.
F. E. DAVIDSON, A. I. A.,
Mem. Am. See. C. E.ADVERTISING TALKS—XIII.
By the American Architect.