As you described these guys are not pitching the problem, they’re pitching the solution and that’s a fresh approach that I appreciate.

Only challenge I have with it is it’s sure enough an attention grabber but the call to action is so weak.
Assuming the action intended is to donate, it’s not clear who we’re being asked to donate to?

Thanks for these posts and double thanks for submitting them to Stumbleupon, I’d not have learned about your blog or agency if not for Stumbleupon.

Lesson: make a great ad but be sure the desired response is in no way obscured.

From their billboard, it looks like they did do something like that (look in the bottom left-hand corner). Obviously, the site is no longer up and working, so I can only guess that the campaign ended and they took the site down (probably should have left it up, IMHO). At any rate, you’re right that having an online place to get more info would be essential for a billboard like this.

- Jeff

I was suprised to find out Cedar Creek Church themselves were behind the billboards.

Story about those billboards here –
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/NEWS10/704050349/-1/NEWS

I rather doubt that one is allowed to use that word via FTC-regulated media. Then again, I doubt that that’s a U.S. billboard as the 24,000 features a dot rather than a comma, which is more of a euro thing, if I’m not mistaken.

But would the message be diminished that much if it said “Screw ‘em”?

And I KNOW I overstated my third point. And definitely agree that the intelligent, RESULTS-driven synthesis of words and visuals is the best of all possible worlds as well as IMO being easier to test and tweak into an integrated campaign once you figure out what works best,

I really enjoy all of your posts though I seldom emerge from “lurkdom” to comment. Keep it up!

Sincerely, thank you so much for the thoughtful comment. Of course, as a copywriter, I kind of felt like you were preaching to the choir, but you’ll still get a hearty “amen” from me, brother

I’ll only say that there are quite a few people involved with Visual Rhetoric who would argue with your third point. And I guess, I’d be somewhere between the two poles. Of course, most visuals are designed to work WITH copy, where each element contributes to a whole that’s greater than the sum of it’s parts. Here’s a perfect example of that:

http://tinyurl.com/lur2l4

- Jeff

* Faster, easier, cheaper to test. Re: Bryan’s recent post on the “follow me on twitter” test. How do you “tweak” (pun intended) the “cheeky” examples for the multitude of potential visual variables? Size? Complexion? Hairiness? I’ll leave it there…

* Personally Inferential. What is more effective– the ad showing a starving child or the example you give where the “mental” picture is equally powerful, definitely more personal, and sets up the intellectual engagement rather than just a visceral response?

* Interruption vs. Engagement. a creative visual can certainly be a more dramatic “interruption,” but much less seldom leads to “engagement,” that in turn leads to action. As a general rule, PICTURES are entertainment, WORDS are EDUCATION/INSTRUCTION.

* Less “self-congratulatory.” Don’t get me wrong, I know plenty of copywriters who believe every one of their headlines is a mystical incantation, but the subjective “artistic” side of visual advertising is what leads to self-indugent Super Bowl ads and Clios that are amusing but not effective.

* Targeted. Demographic (let alone PERSONA) targeting is infinitely more “squishy” visually and by its nature more subjective. Visual cultural and demographic “clues” are much more likely to be misinterpreted or lead to inconclusive results.

As always, I apologize for the lengthy post, but I guess it’s just evidence you’re meeting what I suspect is one of your objectives– creating deeper awareness and conversation about effective marketing techniques.

Now that I’ve stirred the pot…

No research done yet. We are normally called in to optimize campaigns and ads that have already been developed, and that normally involves tweaking the landing page more than changing the ads. Also, research tends to get done on things that are easily researched/quantified and Visual Scandal is hard to quantify, so there hasn’t been any outside research done on this either.

- Jeff