is that it? are results the only way to value direct marketing.

we had a lengthy client meeting recently where a huge amount of time was spent discussing their brand and how we could articulate this, directly, to their audience. these discussions were intense and called upon the considerable experience of both client and agency to resolve.

turning a brand bible into a communication that actually moves a person to do something is no mean feat. it requires the skills of planners, creatives and client services to take carefully honed brand values to someone using the bridge of customer insight. then of course there's the data bods, finding, segmenting and targetting the audience.

i pondered later the strategic importance of those decisions, not just for our impending campaign, but for the way in which that brand will develop.

it brought to mind a conversation I’d had some months ago with Tony Spong of AAR and a few other industry luminaries.

direct marketing has defined itself as advertising with a ‘call to action’. I’m sure other branches of the advertising industry would believe that they could lay claim to that in their own way. But 'results' have become our USP – measurable results, as if that qualifies it further.

well, if that claim wasn’t under scrutiny before, it is now with the rise of the digital channel and the almost limitless amount of data (results) this can spawn.

the skills in direct agencies are so much broader, but do we promote them and are they recognised?

results appear to be the only way direct marketers can place a value on what they do. or perhaps results is the only value that clients will accept from us. surely, we offer so much more.

or is that it?