Does Ugly Design Sell Best?
January 25th, 2007 by Bob Bly
In his latest column in Target Marketing (1/07, p. 58), Denny Hatch repeats the old advice that in direct marketing, ugly sells.
He quotes Bob Hacker, who states “ugly works,” and Lew Smith, who says, “Neatness rejects involvement.”
But is the idea that “ugly sells” still on target?
Or is today’s more sophisticated consumer … in an age where branding is much revered … likely to reject a poorly designed mailing as amateurish and unprofessional?
What about you?
When you create a direct mail package, do you hire a top-flight graphic designer to make it look as clean, neat, colorful, and glossy as an annual report?
Or do you too believe that “ugly sells”?
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 25th, 2007 at 1:20 pm and is filed under Direct Marketing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 25th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
If ugly equals simple, then yes, I agree ugly sells. Too much flash can be counterproductive. As always, though, it depends on the audience. A mass-market appeal to sell Easter Seals had better look neat, clean, and simple or it will look like the charitable donations are being wasted. (Several recent mailings from my church have been very high-quality, four-color affairs that I’m a little uneasy with.) A small-list mailing to yacht owners to sell pimped-out golf carts complete with air conditioning and GPS needs to have the luxury look and feel, definitely not simple or ugly.
Ugly has a place and it will surprise many outside the industry how well it works. Appearance sends a message.
January 25th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Bob, I read that article. (I believe he was quoting Robert C. Hacker.) And if you read the context (under the subhead “ad agencies can’t do direct marketing, and vice versa”), you can gather that he’s referring to what I believe is fancy vs. simple. Or in other words, glamorous, flashy, razzle-dazzle ad-agency creatives vs. “just-the-facts-m’am,” no-frills, easy-to-read direct response copy.
Reason I point this out is that there’s difference between “ugly” in terms of what ad agencies consider “ugly,” versus ugly that looks poor, unprofessional, cheap and clunky (i.e., garish looking copy with multifarious colors and fonts, without any graphics, etc, etc).
In my own split-tests, “ugly” (as in “simple”) outpulls fancy. But by the same token, clean, professional looking copy generally outpulls either the clunky or flashy stuff. As Makepeace pointed out, good design has boosted response in many cases. Quoting Clayton:
“If you’re a business owner, marketing pro or copywriter, good graphic design is absolutely essential to producing peak response to your sales promotions. I’ve seen poor design cut sales by half or even more. Conversely, I’ve seen stronger graphic design bump response by 20% or even more.”
Stated differently, there’s a difference of what’s ugly to an ad agency, and what’s ugly to a consumer.
January 25th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I’ve been in the “ugly works better” camp for most of my career. But recently, I’ve been doing a lot of work with a designer at Rodale (Associate Creative Director Christopher Farrell) who’s been proving the theory wrong with gorgeous-looking art that’s been kicking butt in split tests. Perhaps the real question is not ugly vs. pretty … but is it interruptive and does it strongly display the copy.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Economists say markets are often inefficient in the short run but highly efficient in the long run. If first-rate graphic design didn’t pay, successful businesses wouldn’t spend billions on it.
The key is to not throw out the baby with the bath water. Test a hybrid that includes textbook direct marketing techniques and kick-ass graphic design. Then you may see results similar to what Richard Armstrong described.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Hey Bob;
Please take no offense…
But your blog is kinda ugly, AND it works.
So there you go.
Mike
January 26th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Bob–I agree with Richard. I don’t think it’s an issue of ugly vs. pretty. It’s smart vs. dumb. If the design helps the process of getting the reader involved, it’s great. As Paul Goldberg used to say, “Pretty is as pretty does.” The point is to make the sale.
January 28th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Yes simple neat designs really sell.
design which is really selling and then convert it into a stunning looking design and then measured the metrics once again. So suppose if after changing the design to an excellent one if sales drop or if visitors count drops then we could for sure say UGLY rules !
ALso no one had tried changing a simple ( ugly
May 18th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
work’s done the way it must be..! ^^
May 19th, 2007 at 12:38 am
L’information interessante que vous avez! I’am allant revenir bientot.
May 19th, 2007 at 3:15 am
Grand emplacement! La conception est merveilleuse!
May 19th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Was kann ich sagen? Wirklich gute Arbeit erledigt mit dem Aufstellungsort?
May 19th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Interessieren. SEHR interessant!
May 19th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
pagine piuttosto informative, piacevoli =)
May 19th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
I’ll tell my colleagues about your page..!
May 20th, 2007 at 5:07 am
i’am really impressed!!
May 20th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Lo trovo piuttosto impressionante. Lavoro grande fatto..)
May 20th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
work’s done the way it must be..! ^^
May 20th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Interessare, molto interessante. Come avete fatto questo?
May 21st, 2007 at 1:40 am
I’ll be BACK!
May 21st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Nice site you have!
May 21st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Dein Aufstellungsort verdient nur gute Woerter. Danke.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:12 am
I’ll tell my colleagues about your page..!
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Interessieren. SEHR interessant!
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Very valuable information you have here. Thanks..
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:53 am
mmm.. nice design, I must say..
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:23 am
L’information interessante que vous avez! I’am allant revenir bientot.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
The information I found here was rather helpful. Thank you for this.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Was kann ich sagen? Wirklich gute Arbeit erledigt mit dem Aufstellungsort?
May 24th, 2007 at 5:25 am
La buona visione del senso!
May 24th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I’ll be BACK!
May 24th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Ich fand gute und wichtige Informationen – dir zu danken.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Interessare, molto interessante. Come avete fatto questo?
May 25th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
The information I found here was rather helpful. Thank you for this.
May 27th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Interfaccia comoda, colori piacevoli, buoni!
May 27th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Guter Aufstellungsort, ja!
May 27th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Interfaccia comoda, colori piacevoli, buoni!
May 27th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Interesting comments..
May 28th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Was kann ich sagen? Wirklich gute Arbeit erledigt mit dem Aufstellungsort?
May 28th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Guter Aufstellungsort, ja!
May 28th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Was kann ich sagen? Wirklich gute Arbeit erledigt mit dem Aufstellungsort?
May 29th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Du musst ein Fachmann sein – wirklich guter Aufstellungsort, den du hast!
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:36 am
work’s done the way it must be..! ^^
June 3rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Nice site you have!
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
i’am really impressed!!
June 4th, 2007 at 5:15 am
Great site! Good luck to it’s owner!
June 14th, 2007 at 9:44 am
If a company doesn’t care enough to make something look professional for themselves I am certainly not going to trust them enough to give them my money and expeect them to do something quality for me.
Ugly ads make me laugh at businesses and wonder how they manage to be so unprofessional without noticing.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:48 am
excellent info….. off the mess about with my blogs.
May 20th, 2013 at 1:03 am
an individual hundred% SECURED Internet website(NO SURVEY) (VIRUS Free)- > >Watch the Huge Bang Idea Time 4 Episode twenty The Herb Backyard Germination Megavideo On-line