Music Trade Review

Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
REVIEW
THE
V O L . LIV. N o . 2
Published * very Saturday by Edward Lyman Bill at 1 Madison Ave., New York, Jan. 13,1912
SINGLE COPIES. 10 CENTS.
$2.00 PER YEAR.
Piano Publicity Which Teaches a False Doctrine
O
N E would think to scan the a d v e r t i s e m e n t s a p p e a r i n g in the daily papers t h a t we have gone b a r g a i n
i mad as a people, for the advertisements of all of the g r e a t business houses seem to be d o m i n a t e d
'
by one purpose, and that to convince the public t h a t it can buy p r o d u c t s at reduced rates.
P e r h a p s the people have been fed so long on this kind of pabulum t h a t they are seeking only
business a n n o u n c e m e n t s wherein special price inducements are offered.
Be t h a t as it may, one fact remains, and that is that the a v e r a g e advertisers are e n d e a v o r i n g to win
p a t r o n s to their stores in their public a n n o u n c e m e n t s by reason of a reduction bait r a t h e r t h a n b y an
a r g u m e n t a t i v e c a m p a i g n which should interest people up to the point of the necessity of p u r c h a s i n g the
articles advertised.
It is generally a d m i t t e d t h a t ninety per cent, of the b a r g a i n a d v e r t i s e m e n t s are simply forms used to
a t t r a c t the public, and t h a t a dollar necktie reduced to fifty cents is w o r t h fifty cents only, and h a t s reduced
from $5 to $2.50 only represent in actual value the lesser price.
It is the same with piano advertising, save in rare instances.
T h e basic advertising principle seems to be to compel the people to think t h a t they are g e t t i n g tre-
m e n d o u s reductions in purchases, which as a m a t t e r of t r u t h they are not.
N o w , to m y mind, that is not the kind of progressive advertising.
It is far better to w o r k upon the public mind to such an e x t e n t that readers e v e r y w h e r e realize the
necessity of a piano in their h o m e s — t h a t it aids to make life pleasant a n d b r i n g s much happiness into t h e
home life of our people—than to make a r g u m e n t s along price-slaughter lines.
T h e r e are, of course, refreshing examples of advertising conducted a l o n g dignified, progressive lines;
but the adoption of an educational policy is limited to a very few, whereas the m a n y rush into public print
w i t h lurid price-cutting a n n o u n c e m e n t s .
T h e majority of the advertising w r i t e r s obviously desire to impress readers with the fact t h a t they
can get pianos for n o t h i n g down and a trivial sum each m o n t h .
In other w o r d s , t h e y seem to treat the public as h a v i n g no resources whatsoever, which is to my mind
a false policy; and again, still worse, they give the impression t h a t selling pianos is a business which
requires no capital.
In other words, there are two points which are plain in the average piano a d v e r t i s e m e n t — o n e is t h a t
the readers believe t h a t the public is pauperized and the other t h a t it costs n o t h i n g to m a k e pianos or to
sell them—capital is not desired.
•
W h y , only the other day a prominent b a n k e r remarked to m e : " T h e piano business is very peculiar.
I have been looking over a n u m b e r of piano a d v e r t i s e m e n t s , and it would seem to me t h a t m o n e y is not de-
sired by the advertisers. . A t least, t h a t is the impression it created in my, mind."
But bad as the cut-rate teachings are there are others equally as destructive. Can a n y o n e explain
w h y is it necessary to advertise t h a t n o t h i n g should be paid down upon a piano?
W h y should a p a r t y w h o can pay n o t h i n g d o w n on a piano be given the o p p o r t u n i t y of h a v i n g an
i n s t r u m e n t w o r t h h u n d r e d s of dollars placed in his h o m e ?
A most flagrant illustration: A little while a g o one of the big d e p a r t m e n t stores in this city adver-
tised t h a t pianos would be delivered before C h r i s t m a s into the homes of people w h o desired i n s t r u m e n t s
and it would not be necessary to pay a n y t h i n g on the i n s t r u m e n t s until F e b r u a r y .
T h a t is indeed t r y i n g to get rid of pianos with a vengeance. In other words, it is conveying the
impression to the public that it costs n o t h i n g to run the piano b u s i n e s s — m o n e y is not an essential—and
t h a t i n s t r u m e n t s cannot cost very much when a merchant will place t h e m in homes and expect no p a y m e n t
w h a t s o e v e r on the i n s t r u m e n t s for several m o n t h s .
W h y should a great d e p a r t m e n t store select pianos as the one commodity which it sells which should
be offered on such t e r m s ?
.
,
• •
•
All such advertising, to my mind, is indefensible, and I see no reason w h y the piece de resistance
of an advertisement should be t h a t the public can get possession of i n s t r u m e n t s for n o t h i n g and be
required to pay no cash for a long period to come.
Surely a peculiar doctrine to teach the b u y i n g masses.