Infomercials Turn 25 ... and Still Can't Get No Respect
I'm hardly the first to call infomercials the Rodney Dangerfield of advertising, but 25 years after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) eliminated restrictions on how much advertising TV stations could air in an hour, I feel oddly compelled to tug on my necktie and give my head a quick shake.
It's a love-hate relationship America shares with my favorite format. Given sales figures for products from Proactiv Solution to P90X, the love is indisputable. Even in our blemished economy, advertisers spend around $1 billion on half-hour time slots alone — and viewers make plenty of purchases to justify it. What's more, millions who haven't (yet!) bought infomercial products have likely made time to watch parodies on YouTube, or perhaps even made one themselves.
But parodies are not always kind. In jest, they make fun of Billy Mays' yelling and Vince Offer's headset. More cutting, they attack the utility of mattresses, stain cleaners and wealth-building strategies. By extension, they ridicule the people who purchase them. They get no respect either — no matter how efficient their kitchens or stain-free their carpets.
An online "Infomercial Trek" reveals a growing handful of Web sites that drip with venom far worse than the snake oil they purport to illuminate. Unambiguously-named sites like http://Infomercial-Hell.com/ and http://InfomercialScams.com/ are hardly fair and balanced (the latter doesn't post "reviews," it posts "complaints").
Only when you go boldly to more general forums does the commentary start to mirror behavior. A Minnesota-themed blog featuring an "Infomercial Sucker Poll," for instance, returned more positive comments about As-Seen-On-TV products than it did negative ones — including the delighted (and delightful) admission: "It actually really worked."
Infomercials thrive by making good first impressions and by delivering products that solve common consumer problems. So it's ironic that their reputation still is bogged down by a past generation's mindset. In movies, infomercials often serve as shorthand to illustrate the sleaziness or emptiness that define hapless characters' lives. It's what downtrodden schlubs watch at the motel, or what captivates the drunken numbskulls in Old School.
From that intellectual giant we call "movies," this is harder to swallow than sawdust. What's truly empty-headed is singling out infomercials as deceptive and silly. Sleazy? DRTV is the most transparent selling format out there. Want to know what that steam mop costs? We'll tell you 10 times. That 12-pack of Coors shown in Sunday's baseball game commercial? Sorry. You have to hop in your car to find out.
No product that can support a half-hour of scrutiny can be that bad of a product. Just imagine what an infomercial for a soft drink might look like. After "it tastes good," you're pretty much grasping at "it's bubbly," and "it's not as bad for you as beer." So who's fooling whom?
Happily, after 25 years, we industry veterans can enjoy the last laugh. The chronic displays of disrespect remain tiresome, and the haters are tedious nags. But suck as they do, they don't do it nearly so well as a Fantom, a Shark or an Oreck. As millions of consumers can tell you ... they actually really work!
Previously Published in Response Magazine, July 2009
Author of over 175 published articles, Tim Hawthorne is Founder, Chairman and Executive Creative Director of Hawthorne Direct, a full service DRTV and New Media ad agency founded in 1986. Since then Hawthorne has produced or managed over 800 Direct Response TV campaigns for clients such as Apple, Braun, Discover Card, Time-Life, Nissan, Lawn Boy, Nikon, Oreck, Bose, the Heifer International. Tim is a co-founder of the Electronic Retailing Association, has delivered over 100 speeches worldwide and is the author of the definitive DRTV book The Complete Guide to Infomercial Marketing. A cum laude graduate of Harvard, Tim was honored with the prestigious "Lifetime Achievement Award" by the Electronic Retailing Association (ERA) in 2006.
- Tim Hawthorne's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 668 reads
Hi Tim! Great Piece on the past 25 years.
Hi Tim, great piece of the past 25yrs. Yep, a lot has changed over the years. As you and only a handful of others in our space remember, in '84, most all of the ad agencies on Madison Ave. and other places, didn't have a Direct Response division. Wunderman was one. Back then we didn't have a magazines dedicated to DRTV. All we had was Ad Age, DMNews, Brand Week and a couple others. We tried our best to get the message out that DRTV was a good business to be in. I'll never forget when Gary West, (WATS Marketing), ran a full page ad in Ad Age in which the headline read: "If your ad agency isn't using 800 toll free numbers (in your ads), perhaps they don't want to be measured for their performance". The response to that ad was spectacular...good from prospects, bad from agencies! In no time it seemed, there wasn't an agency worth it's salt that didn't have a DR business unit. But, as our good friend Andy Cohen recently wrote, the industry still has some struggles with convincing Brand Agencies to incorporate Direct Response into their beautiful commercials. Hawthorne has certainly created their fair share of great branding shows with DR throughout.
In ’84 it was just the beginning of the explosive growth in the use of 800#'s in advertising.
I have to admit Tim, that I/we represented Tom Vu, Santo Gold and many of the other products mentioned in your blog and the URL's you pasted. I have a very funny Tom Vu story that I might share some day....far cry from his infomercials...LOL!
Slowly but surely some big names started getting in the business of short and long form. Your US Navy and Roto Zip shows are two that stand out...but also Apple, Nissan and many others did too. Tony Robins’ show did a lot for our business too didn't it? I have an interesting, somewhat indirect story regarding the Tony Robbins show. As you know, the first modern day informercial began in late ’84 early ’85 and it was the, ‘Get Rich with Real Estate” infomercial produced by Nancy Marcum and Ray Lindstrom. I was on the deal team for the phone calls. It was a huge success. During that time, you produced the Ed Beckly Real Estate show. I had a brilliant idea out of that. Zig Ziglar was a friend of mine. Thought if Real Estate can sell this way,so too could Winning through Positive Mental Attitude, which is what Zig always pitched. I got together with Zig and he too became convinced this could work. I got him connected with Nancy (Langston back then), and Ray and before you know it they had an infomercial and Zig was on the air pitching his “Born to ‘Win” package. It was a good show we thought. Long story short, it bombed! All the air was let out of our sails. We walked away from that event believing that get rich quick schemes will work on DRTV, but forget about Positive Attitude type shows! It seemed like it was a perfect avenue for success. Well, and as I’m sure your all ahead of me here, along comes Tony Robbins, a guy with a great smile and a convincing way, and he proved us wrong. Just goes to show us, don’t always believe that if a category fails, doesn’t mean it’s the category. A new approach or creative can make all the difference. We all have said that about Prevention Products…I’m not sure about that one. Proactive worked!
It’s been one heck of a ride Tim, thanks for taking me along on a few....the good news is that we haven't aged a bit have we? :-)
Cheers ol friend!
Ray
Guilty Pleasures
Lets face it, how many of us can say that we haven't secretly tuned into an infomercial for an "extended" period of time...mesmerized by the compelling mix of sensory delights coming out of the TV? Not many I bet. There just something about a well made infomercial that grabs you and won't let you go. It's like a classical masterpiece such as Beethoven's 5th...no matter how much time goes by, it's still a masterpiece because the structure and content speaks on a universal human level.
It's the same thing with infomercials. One that is well made touches humans on a universal level. But unlike a classical symphony, which we can relate to through our auditory senses, we relate to infomercials through our sense of consumerism. We like to buy stuff and infomercials sell it so so good.
And therein lies the source of ire this medium is subjected to to. We, as consumers, know it works and in its' undeniable effectiveness...it reflects our consumerism boldy, lowdly, and in no uncertain terms...it's not subtle. But it is seduction at it's best and like any true seduction, it's invited. And that's why there's guilt...that's why there's sarcasm.