People advertise to influence how other people behave.

For example, a government might advertise to persuade more people to use public transport.

A charity such as Animal Aid might advertise to persuade more people to become vegan.

Commercial brands are the world’s biggest advertisers. They advertise to encourage people to buy their brands.

Some ads contain no sales message. Even so, they influence people’s behaviour.

Interestingly, more than a few ads contain no sales message whatsoever. Even so, such ads can still influence people’s behaviour.

In this post, I’ll explain how ads with no sales message influence people’s behaviour – and why they sometimes don’t.

Let’s begin with a quick story…

A few years back, before I’d even considered advertising as a career, I spent some time occasionally studying economics at the University of Southampton.

One of my lectures, one day, was on advertising.

The topic of discussion was this:

Why do people advertise?

The question was marginally more interesting than the usual stuff, so I paid attention.

The ultimate conclusion went something like this:

People advertise to sell more stuff

(At least, that’s why commercial brands advertise.)

The above might seem obvious, of course. 

But look at this ad for Tovaritch! vodka:

This Tovaritch! advert has no sales message. So why do people advertise?

This ad offers almost no sales message at all

Setting aside four words, the ad above offers nothing in terms of a sales argument.

So can it be true that people are running this advert (and others like it) to try to sell more stuff?

Apparently so. Because, as I learned in my lecture that fateful day, advertising is a signal.

Advertising is a signal

Here’s how the ‘signalling’ theory of advertising goes:

Advertising is expensive.

So brands that pay to advertise probably believe in the quality of their product.

People (or, in marketing talk, ‘consumers’) realise the above. So when they stand in a shop wondering whether to buy Tovaritch! vodka or a non-branded equivalent, they understand Tovaritch! is probably not completely terrible. The brand runs expensive ads, after all.

They deliberate. Then they pick up a premium-priced bottle of Tovaritch!, just to be on the safe side.

If you remain unconvinced, ask yourself (UK-folk) if you’d prefer to buy Tovaritch! vodka or Absolut.

Tovaritch! – the world’s most awarded vodka – isn’t advertised here in the UK… and that’s why we prefer Absolut.

Plus, brands that advertise can charge a premium

As an added benefit, brands that run expensive ads can usually charge a premium and still make sales, just because they’re advertising.

Their ads require no sales argument whatsoever.

There are no shackles.

You can go ahead and run an advert depicting a cartoon astronaut drinking vodka on the moon. 

You’re still advertising. So you’re still OK.

So long as advertising is expensive.

Cheap, online advertising is not a signal

Of course, in the digital realm, advertising isn’t particularly expensive.

In fact, you can get started for just a few pence.

So online advertising is not a signal.

And that means the mere act of running online ads is not enough to change people’s behaviour.

It’s not enough to convince people to buy.

Online advertising must try to sell

So to be of any real use, online ads (that are unsupported by offline advertising) must try to sell.

That probably explains why people like Eric Visser believe online ads are typically less ‘creative’ than TV or print ads.

Online ads can’t just be branded entertainment.

Instead, online ads usually attempt to get people to buy.

No astronauts drinking vodka on the moon. Just sales messages attempting to get people to do something.

Online advertising unsupported by offline advertising cannot simply be branded entertainment. It must get people to do something.

Can ads build brands and sell at the same time?

Now – here’s where things get really interesting.

Is it possible to create ads that build a brand (so you can charge a premium) and that sell stuff at the same time?

Again, apparently so.

Here’s an ad from a (D&AD award-winning) campaign that did neither:

Pepsi ad

This Pepsi ad (yep, it is for Pepsi and, tragically, it is an ad) did nothing for sales

And here’s an ad from a campaign that did both:

M&G ad

This campaign for M&G investments increased enquiries by 32.5% and market share by 14.8%… with a 31.7% reduction in media costs

Not many creatives shoot for the latter. Why?

Why so few ads attempt to strengthen brand messaging and sell

My guess is ad people, determined to be seen as ‘thought-leaders’, prefer coming up with their own theories to actually doing their homework.

The upshot is few ad people really know how advertising works. Which is handy for people like me and you.

Advertising is hard enough as it is. The last thing we need is tougher competition.


Footnote: for simplicity, this post sets aside Ehrenberg-Bass research. But don’t both the research and signalling just fit together beautifully?