A version of this entry was originally posted on December 26, 2006 at the old Brandstory blog (link available for a limited time).

Last week, Martin Conroy, the man famous for writing the “two young men” letter for The Wall Street Journal, passed away (New York Times article). The letter was used by The Journal continuously for twenty-eight years and is revered by writers in direct response advertising for its creativity and success. It is the longest running direct response letter ever used, and has been called the most successful advertisement ever run. I still have a copy of the letter in my swipe file.

Why was this letter so successful? Because it tells a compelling, relevant story. And it sold subscriptions. Millions of them. One source says it was directly responsible for bringing in more than a billion dollars.

The letter reads:

On a beautiful late spring afternoon, twenty-five years ago, two young men graduated from the same college. They were very much alike, these two young men. Both had been better than average students, both were personable and both – as young college graduates are – were filled with ambitious dreams for the future.

Recently, these men returned to their college for their 25th reunion.

They were still very much alike. Both were happily married. Both had three children. And both, it turned out, had gone to work for the same Midwestern manufacturing company after graduation, and were still there.

But there was a difference. One of the men was manager of a small department of that company. The other was its president.

What Made The Difference?

Have you ever wondered, as I have, what makes this kind of difference in people’s lives? It isn’t a native intelligence or talent or dedication. It isn’t that one person wants success and the other doesn’t.

The difference lies in what each person knows and how he or she makes use of that knowledge.

And that is why I am writing to you and to people like you about The Wall Street Journal. For that is the whole purpose of The Journal: to give its readers knowledge—knowledge that they can use in business.

It was so successful, that it has been copied numerous times (never as well-done as the original).

The Times quotes Direct Response Guru, Alan Rosenspan, who uses the letter in his seminars, saying: “I ask people to read out loud the first paragraph of the letter. And what’s astonishing to me is that they never stop at the first paragraph. They keep on reading. And I tell them: ‘You have just proven why this letter’s so powerful. It’s a story.’ ”

Sifting through the stack of junk mail (credit card solicitations, non-profit fund raisers, cable subscription offers) on my desk this morning, I wish there were more writers like Martin Conroy who believed in telling a relevant story. Sadly, they are, very literally, a dying breed.

This entry was originally posted on February 15, 2006 at the old Brandstory blog (link available for a limited time).

Every once in a while I hear criticism of “branding” like this from Bob Bly, suggesting that it doesn’t create loyalty. By branding, I believe Bob is mostly referring to “image” advertising.

He’s right. Image ads don’t make customers loyal. Experience does. But done properly, they can create desire and establish reasons to buy. This ad by DDBLondon for VolksWagon comes close. Notice the product focus.

Much of the image advertising from Madison Avenue deserves criticism and closer scrutiny. But Bob’s anecdote doesn’t prove his point. Bob’s friend Richard was loyal to a particular shoe (we’re not told why, but are led to assume it was because of “branding”). Another friend recommended a new brand. After trying the new shoes, Richard switched brands. Is this a failure of “branding”? No. It’s a success for word-of-mouth and a compelling brand experience (both vital components of brand building).

Richard says, “I have brands that I prefer among just about everything I buy… but virtually every single one of them is negotiable. Show me that your product is cheaper and/or better than my current brand, and I’ll switch in a heartbeat.” The fact that Richard has brand preferences in the first place shows that branding does indeed work. He believes his brands are better than others and he’s loyal to them until he has a reason to switch.

The problem is most advertising doesn’t communicate a good reason to switch or demonstrate a compelling reason not to switch when a competitor comes along. But don’t blame “branding”, blame the marketers and creatives who don’t understand how to sell products effectively.

In a previous, related post, Bob Bly wrote: “As a copywriter, I don’t get paid to ‘build great brands.’ I get paid to generate greater ROI from my clients’ marketing. In other words, to make the cash register ring.”

Frankly, I don’t see the difference.