Letters to the Editor

DYSON MAKEOVER ‘HORRENDOUS’

I'm amazed Tom Collins' piece on the Dyson Stowaway ad (The Makeover Maven, August) was actually published. I fear he may have damaged his credibility as a “creative and marketing consultant.”

Here are some issues that shocked me about Tom's ad (shown at far right):

1. The column states that Dyson vacuums are No. 1 in dollar sales in both the United Kingdom and the United States. Why on earth would Tom choose the company's proven, successful ad campaign as a poster child for his marketing theory makeover?

2. The column also made a sarcastic comment regarding people not wanting to read anymore. As a marketing expert, I would assume Tom is aware that in the world of publications you only have a brief second to catch the reader's attention before he or she flips to the next spread. Nothing causes a reader to flip a magazine page faster than an ugly page full of text.

3. Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia are quite slow in reacting to everyday changes in culture and media. They don't necessarily reflect society's current name and word associations. For example, it'd be hard to find anyone in this country who didn't associate the name Dyson with a vacuum cleaner. With that kind of name recognition, placing the words “vacuum cleaner” in the headline is nothing more than needless redundancy. Your mind automatically reads “canister” as “canister vacuum cleaner” when associated with Dyson's name and brand identity. These two sources also don't account for visual brand recognition. People who know the Dyson name also are familiar with the look of the packaging, which matches the look of the print ads, which matches the look of the Web site, which matches the look of the TV ads.

4. Tom's column states that the headline doesn't provide any reason for buying a Dyson Stowaway except that it's different. True. I believe that's reason enough. Most people who are looking to buy a different vacuum are doing so because they're unhappy with their current one. If your current vacuum isn't working for you, you're going to look for something different.

5. The piece assumes this ad is a standalone and not part of a comprehensive (and quite successful) campaign. The backbone of this great campaign is the fact that the vacuum doesn't lose suction. Its success is proven by the dollar return in sales. With that in mind, why would Tom state in his column that hammering home a product's unique selling feature over and over again doesn't work for an item like a Dyson? I just can't figure out why he'd say something won't work when it's already working extremely well.

6. Hearing or reading a fascinating story about how an inventor designed a successful vacuum cleaner would not make me want to buy a vacuum. Unless someone's been sitting in a doctor's waiting room for three hours with only one magazine to read, I don't think they'd take the time to read Dyson's fascinating history either.

7. Sorry for the offense, but this suggested makeover ad is horrendous. It looks cheap, generic, boring, completely left-brained and downright ugly. I wouldn't be able to flip the page fast enough. The headline's not a quick read and is just cryptic enough that it could leave a skim reader with the wrong impression of the product. The name Dyson isn't prominently displayed anywhere in the ad; it's buried in mountains of intimidating copy. There is absolutely no brand loyalty to help the reader associate it with the rest of the campaign.

So, in response to the column's closing, I couldn't be more convinced that Dyson's original ad will sell more Dysons, both now and in the future.
Todd Sullivan

Tom Collins replies: I doubt that ads like this are responsible for Dyson vacuum cleaners being the top seller in the United States. Dyson also runs TV commercials which are much more powerful and direct.

You say “nothing causes a reader to flip a magazine page faster than an ugly page full of text.” Yet the record for the most copy per square inch of ad space these days surely would go to The Teaching Company, which runs what obviously are wildly successful ads — crammed with hundreds of words of text in tiny type — for its home-study college courses. Most readers undoubtedly will “flip the page”…but prospects will stop and read every word, and they're the only readers that count.

I agree that in terms of brand building, my makeover should have displayed the Dyson name or logo.