In reference to Paul Biklen’s article (November, 1989), “Ski Area Advertising: Is the Message Missing?”, and in particular, his comments regarding CAUTION: THIRD DEGREE TURNS, Mr. Biklen swallowed the hook just like tens of thousands of other skiers who wanted to know “more, more, more.”
Through the use of the CAUTION: THIRD DEGREE TURNS ad, Sunday River established White Heat as a premier, expert ski trail in just one season (see Powder, October, 1989 and Ski, November, 1989).
Our intent was to create interest and excitement, and build demand for Sunday River’s new expert trail, White Heat. Based on the first year’s response, we met and exceeded our goal.
Bill Jensen
Director of Marketing
Sunday River Ski Resort
Sir:
I am writing to comment about your article on “What’s Right and What’s Wrong” with ski area advertising, and will address my remarks to the author, Paul Biklen.
I’m sorry it has taken me so long to respond to this article but you see, I don’t normally read Ski Area Management magazine. It was not until someone else brought your comments to my attention that I realized that a mistake had been made.
I have enclosed with this letter a copy of the six-page gate-fold insert that Killington placed in the September issue of Ski, Snow Country, Powder, and Ski Canada magazine last fall. This gate-fold was the introduction of our “little guy” advertising campaign for the 1988-89 season. The ad which you critiqued in your article was only one of many variations on this ad theme used in our co-op advertising. It was never intended to act as a free-standing advertisement, but was a portion of an overall campaign with multiple ads that focused on specific elements of the Killington product. Therefore, I might agree with your comment that our ad was missing some of Killington’s strengths; however, I am afraid you were missing most of the campaign.
More importantly, I would like to comment on one of your basic premises in the article. You have referred to the Kelly Award as being a bench mark for quality advertising. You’ve also pointed out that the Kelly Award is awarded by the publishers of various magazines for advertising compatibility with the look of the publications they run in. I find it a little difficult to believe that a person with your advertising background feels that fulfilling the “compatibility” wishes of the publishers is the criterion for good advertising.
As you point out, publishers are rewarding advertisers for creating advertising which complements the content and graphic look of their publications. This only aggravates the problem with most advertising in that those ads which blend into the content of a publication are not distinguished from the remainder of the magazine; thus they fail to make any impression on the reader. With today’s overwhelming variety of publications and the ever diminishing amount of time that a reader spends with a magazine, it is incumbent on the advertisers to find ways to attract attention to their advertising and to distinguish themselves from the remainder of the publication. If every advertiser produced an ad that meets the wishes of the publishers, we might as well call our advertising a donation to a charitable organization. In essence, by definition, the Kelly Award is really nothing more than an indication of failure on the part of the advertisers to distinguish themselves from the editorial content of the publications.
The only true measurement of success in advertising is an ad’s ability to move the product and that measurement isn’t even mentioned in your article. I would like to suggest that the next time you are writing an article regarding ski area advertising, that you contact the areas that you are critiquing to be sure that you have a full and accurate representation of their advertising. I would also suggest that you follow-up with the areas to find out how successful their advertisements have been. The Killington advertising campaign run during the fall of 1988 was one of the most successful campaigns Killington has run over its thirty-one-year history. With even a little research you would have known that.
Which brings me to the reason I don’t generally read Ski Area Management: I find that most of the articles contained in Ski Area Magazine are (like yours) not well researched and are usually based on opinion rather than documented facts. Your article (while well written) has reinforced my opinion that the ski industry is still lacking a professional management publication.
John Clifford
Marketing Manager
Killington Ski Area
Paul Biklen replies: I can appreciate why Mr. Clifford was so upset by the critical comments about his Killington advertisement. However, to keep the record straight, his letter deserves a clarifying response.
Mr. Clifford states my article pointed out that “the Kelly Award is awarded by the publishers of various magazines for advertising compatibility with the look of the publication they run in.” Wow! It takes a lot of straining for one to draw this inference. The fact is that the Kelly Award is judged on three criteria — (a) headline and copy; (b) design and graphics and (c) “Does the campaign fulfill the stated objectives?” It would be indeed foolish and counterproductive for the MPA to endorse advertising that does not do its utmost to produce effectively for the advertiser.
Mr. Clifford states further that “it is incumbent on the advertiser to find ways to distinguish themselves from the remainder of the publication.” There’s no debate about the aim to stand out. But if an advertisement is limited to that narrow objective it invites the risk of being different for difference’s sake. This in turn can lead to vapid, innocuous advertising and downright waste. It’s the combination of what an advertisement says and how it is expressed that separates good advertising from poor.
Finally, no one can disagree with Mr. Clifford’s point that “the true measurement of success is an ad’s ability to move the product …” But isn’t it overwhelmingly obvious that you’d get nowhere on that score, with ill-conceived, ill-expressed advertising? — P.B.
SAM replies: Well, if John Clifford won’t read our magazine, we just won’t ski at his mountain. So there! — The Editors.
