The AIDA Model & Elias St. Elmo Lewis

Note: I wrote this post some time ago back in 2011. The original post has since disappeared, so I thought I’d republish it here, along with a string of interesting comments on the original post.

While writing Social Marketology, my new book on social media marketing, I get fixated on a particular fact and spend countless hours researching.  One fact that has consumed more of my time than any other is the idea that a guy named Elias St. Elmo Lewis invented an oft-cited marketing concept of AIDA (acronym for “attention, interest, desire, action”). AIDA is often part and parcel of something called the customer funnel, sales funnel, and marketing funnel. Derrick White, in his 2000 book “Close More Sales,” wrote “AIDA is probably the oldest acronym in marketing. It is the best and will never change.”

Who Really Created AIDA?

Yes, and this is an interesting point: the fact that St. Elmo Lewis created the concept is cited in dozens of marketing books and hundreds upon hundreds of websites. Problem: I can’t find any original source to validate this.

In Advertising, Selling, and Credits by Ralph Starr Butler, 1911, The four steps are the subject of a whole chapter, and says “Mr. A. F. Sheldon was probably the first to point out the presence of these four steps in every sale” Mr. A.F. Sheldon was the founder of the Sheldon School of Scientific Salesmanship.

It turns out I haven’t been the first person to spend too much time on this concept. Author Ian Moore, in Does Your Marketing Sell (2005), added an item in the appendix titled, “The origins of AIDA.” He demonstrates how Strong wasn’t using the acronym, but cited Lewis. And then Strong was then cited by none other than the famous business author Philip Kotler as the author of the AIDA concept.

But Strong had written “The development of the famous slogan – ‘attention, interest, desire, action, and satisfaction’ – illustrates this. In 1898 E. St. Elmo Lewis used the slogan, ‘Attract attention, maintain interest, create deire,’ in a course he was giving on advertising in Philadelphia. He writes he obtained the idea from reading the psychology of William James. Later on he added the formula, ‘get action.’ About 1907, A.F. Sheldon made the further addition of ‘permanent satisfaction’ as essential to the slogan.”

Now, first off, many of the citations of Lewis state that he came up with AIDA in 1898 while working at the National Cash Register Company – an organization that really was probably one of the most advanced companies in sales process. Only Lewis didn’t work there until 1902, and only seemed to have remained there until 1904. Prior to that, he was a publisher of various artsy periodicals back in Philadelphia.

Lewis was a brilliant thinker, and wrote a few books, countless articles, and gave talks at Rotary Clubs, Chambers, and other organizations all over the Northeast. Thanks to Google Books, I’ve been able to dig into many of them, and I’ve yet to come across a mention of the old “attention, interest, desire” triad. He was an appreciator of the Efficiency Movement, and did work to bring the philosophy of scientific management to salesmanship and advertising. I haven’t found anything, though, to suggest that Lewis was the originator of the concept.

So, who did?

The earliest version of marketing AIDA I’ve found is this:

Attention. Interest. Desire. Conviction. A diagram showing that every sale is offset by attention, interest, desire, and conviction. From Frank Hutchinson Dukesmith, editor of 1904 Salesmanship

Over and over in this magazine from 1904, they mention these steps. “A sale of any kind has four essential parts: Attention, Interest, Desire, and Conviction. Take these in their proper order. Do not mistake polite attention for interest and do not assume when a desire for possession is aroused that conviction has been reached. In loss of sales it is as disastrous as to not close the sale when conviction is reached.”

Frank Hutchinson Dukesmith  authored the pieces above. His other claim to fame was that he also edited “The Air Brake Magazine,” dedicated to railroad air brakes. He also authored a book, “The air brake, its use and abuse: a book of instruction on the automatic air brake.” And as you might know, air brakes were how George Westinghouse made his fortune! Dukesmith held many patents for his inventions to the technology of air brakes.

Perhaps Dukesmith took a course being taught by St. Elmo Lewis. Or perhaps St. Elmo Lewis read Dukesmith’s article (he also wrote a book Salesmanship analyzed;: Being an analytical treatise on the science of salesmanship demonstrated by diagramatic charts). At any rate, his patents for air brakes must not have been lucrative, as by 1910, Dukesmith had created the “Dukesmith School of Salesmanship” in Meadville, PA.

Another passage:

It is not to be supposed that every sale will be landed in one, two, three order, for many will be lost, but an understanding of the science of salesmanship, with correct practice in the art of selling, will tend to cut down the number of lost sales. The science of medicine does not eliminate disease. But it diminishes its ravages.

In the specialty field where, as shown, the divisions are more clearly marked, the salesman himself has more opportunity to arrange and prepare himself in advance. Nevertheless, the same principles apply to every sale, and even a newsboy on the street must obtain attention, arouse interest, and create desire before he makes the sale of a paper.

To still further illustrate this same principle of four parts to the sale we may regard the putting together of the four iron vessels (here pictured), as representing the sale or transaction. We assume that it would be impossible for the salesman to carry away the four pots separately and that to make them movable he must place them compactly together.  There is but one way in which the pots can be properly put together, and that is by placing inside the largest the next smaller, and so on, whereby all are compactly arranged and can be easily carried away. The pots must be put one within the other in proper order, by taking at each operation the one next smaller; otherwise, one of the two intermediate sizes is left out, for they cannot be all put together except in regular order. You cannot complete your sale by leaving out the factor of interest5, nor can you produce conviction and close the sale until the customer has arrived at the stage of desire to possess the goods.

Frank Hutchinson Dukesmith and Marketing AIDA

Frank Hutchinson Dukesmith has pretty much been forgotten by history, and yet, it appears he was the author of one of the most enduring concepts, still taught today in business schools around the world. He was certainly the first to publish the concept, while St. Elmo Lewis’ claim is second-hand, and came 20 years after Dukesmith published. You might wonder why anyone should care – yet if simple errors like this can become re-cited thousands of times over, it emphasizes the notion that writers have an obligation to recheck facts, and find original source material whenever possible.

By the way, the first published use of the AIDA acronym is from 1921, in Printers Ink, “How to Write a Sales-Making Letter” by C.P. Russell:

An easy way to remember this formula is to call in the “law of association,” which is the old reliable among memory aids.  It is to be noted that, reading downward, the first letters of these words spell the opera “Aida.” When you start a letter, then, say “Aida” to yourself and you won’t go far wrong, at least as far as the form of your letter is concerned.

The idea of a “customer funnel,” “marketing funnel,” or “sales funnel” in association with the AIDA concept was first proposed in Pharmaceutical Selling, “detailing,” and sales training by Arthur F. Peterson, Heathcote-Woodbridge, 1959.

I think I can lay this to bed now, and get back to the book!


11 Comments

  • 19DecemberShopSugartownSo…it wasn’t Donald Draper?REPLY
    1. 27DecemberRicDragon@ShopSugartown No; Do always stopped at attracting Interest 🙂 Can’t wait for the next season! One great thing about Madmen is the amount of marketing history that they are able to stick into the show – the whole psychographics thing, for instance.REPLY
  • 27DecemberFuglemanAbsolutely fascinating.I too have been on this absurd AIDA journey but failed to find Mr Dukesmith. I got stuck with E K Strong’s assertion that Lewis had used the slogan ‘Attract attention, Maintain Interest, Create desire’ in a course he was giving in advertising’ just as you say. But Strong also states that Lewis ‘WRITES that he obtained the idea from reading the psychology of William James’. Sadly, like you, I have never found anything written by Lewis to support this. [Note: from what I’ve seen, Strong doesn’t say that Lewis worked at NCR at this time, but over the years maybe others have.]The diagrams and other materials that you show from Dukesmith are really interesting. Could you help a little further with either a more detailed reference to the publications in which you found them, or better still, tell us where and how we could track them down.Great work. Thanks for sharing…REPLY
    1. 27DecemberRicDragon@Fugleman Yes! The publication was Salesmanship, from 1904, and is available in full from Google Books. It’s kind of amazing the information I’ve found through Google Books – time after time I’ve found earlier references to words than even mentioned in the OED. Someone added a reference to the Wikipedia article on AIDA that has a 1903 citation by Lewis, “The mission of an advertisement is to attract a reader, so that he will look at the advertisement and start to read it; then to interest him, so that he will continue to read it; then to convince him, so that when he has read it he will believe it. If an advertisement contains these three qualities of success, it is a successful advertisement.”REPLY
  • 09JanuaryFuglemanHello again Ric,Just wanted to ask where you got the reference to Peterson as the originator of an AIDA-based sales funnel? I would have thought that the origins of this model would have gone back further in time. And have you also managed to turn-up the origins of the sales pipeline?Very many thanks once again.REPLY
    1. 10JanuaryRicDragon@Fugleman I think what I did was a lot of intensive searching in Google Books – which has been a treasure trove of research. By using certain phrases and limiting the time period, I could nail down when a concept first appeared on the scene. For instance, if you search on the phrase “sales pipeline” from 1900 to 1950, only one citation appears. Unfortunately, the actual text for this book isn’t shown, so you’d have to use a library perhaps…(Sales management, Volume 55, Publisher:Dartnell Corp, 1945)BTW: Dartnell was founded by J. C. Aspley – who had been a contributor to Printers’ Ink – in 1917, as a sales research organization. Would love to dig into that!REPLY
      1. 10JanuaryRicDragon@Fugleman btw; that should read, “only one citation for ‘sales pipeline’”.REPLY
  • 10JanuaryFuglemanThanks Ric,I’ve bumped into Dartnell and Mr Apsley a few times in my many hours of idle ‘research’ and have a few copies of various books and pamphlets of theirs. Sadly, as you suggest, it looks as if the hard copy of Sales Management from 1945 isn’t available online. From what I’ve seen, it can be found in the University of Michigan. As I’m based in the UK, that might be a trip too far…As for Mr Peterson’s book, I actually have a copy of that one, but it was published in 1949, not 1959 as Google Books says [a typo I suppose]. Nice little drawing of a funnel, though.And one last shot at AIDA. Our friend, Elias St Elmo Lewis wrote a column for The Western Druggist in February 1899 where he said [on Page 66] that: “An advertisement should conform to three general rules in its preparation: 1st to catch the eye of the reader; 2nd, to inform him; 3rd, to make a customer of him”. Lewis goes on to attribute this to Robert Ogden of Wanamaker [the Department Store]. It’s not quite Awareness, Interest, Desire, but pretty close.Anyhow, on further checking, Ogden gave [at least] a couple of talks on advertising in 1898 – one in March at the Merchants’ Association [on ‘Advertising As A Business Force’] and another in April at The Sphinx Club [on ‘Art in Advertising’]. Unfortunately, all I have is a couple of cuttings from the NYT telling me this – as far as I can tell, there are no transcripts.So, did Lewis hear Ogden in 1898, or did he speak at the same meetings? If so, maybe E K Strong was right about 1898. If not, then who the heck knows. But somehow this still gnaws away at me – I would actually like to go in my time machine to hear someone utter these words on a specific date and time to know the exact birthday of AID or AIDA. Stupid.Now, where’s that day job of mine got to…REPLY
    1. 04JanuaryDavid Hutton@FuglemanClearly you guys have researched the AIDA model to a phenomenal level, I am writing a masters paper and wish to reference the origin of the model, from reading through your conversation this is not obvious when this was or who is responsible, my question to you both is, who and when is responsible for the AIDA model? Many thanks.REPLY
      1. 06JanuaryRic Dragon (@RicDragon)Hi David; Well.. as we discussed, it isn’t clear… there are those early mentions that are close; but then there is the formalization of the concept in later writing. It’s vague and unclear 🙂 Good luck with the paper – would love to read it when you’re done.REPLY
  • 10MayGeert Gissing / DenmarkThank you! Fantastic piece of Work you have done. Love reading that kind of old books my self.
    Something could have been lost there, due to fast-thinking mediocre sale-Guys?

Sets in the City

While Network Theory has been all the rage in discussions of social media, it provides an imperfect model to describe the reality of social networks.  The main shortcoming is that the connections between entities are more complex than simple “ties” – and they include a notion of time.  I propose that the mathematical concept of Sets is another model that alongside Network Theory provides a more comprehensive view of networks.

Consider this: each of us belongs to countless sets.  I, for one, belong to the set of middle-aged men, set of bald men, persons that live in the Hudson Valley, bald persons that live in the Hudson Valley, etc.  You can see how this can just keep going, right?

There are some patterns here, however.  We could see that we belong to sets according to these criteria:

  • Attributes
  • Shared experience or history
  • Preferences

It doesn’t mean that we can’t have a relationship with someone outside of a set. If for some reason, someone meets another person that they believe may provide them with a good laugh, they might buy them a beer.  People often meet on terms that are outside these sets, but then often, and quickly play the game of ‘what do we have in common’.  Those conversations almost always yield something.

Attributes

People tend to like other people that are similar to their selves.  Heck, people even choose dogs that look like themselves. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t exceptions – I’m talking about the tendency here. School children experience an incredible pressure to conform to norms, and those that don’t usually congregate into sub groups of likeness.

Shared Experience

Soldiers returning from war are forever brothers. They have a common experience that often cannot even be shared with others.  But even sharing a meal, four years at a college, or a memory, such as that as Pearl Harbor provides a common ground of understanding.  Do you remember what you were doing when 9/11 occurred?  We may have absolutely nothing else in common, but that shared memory can be a springboard for a new friendship.

Preferences

I’m short, you’re tall, I’m red, you’re blue, I’m male, you’re female – but we both like candied walnuts. This can extend to ideologies – we might share the notion that all monarchs should be tarred and feathered on the village green, or that the poems of Rilke are sublime.

Perhaps our propensity to create connections with people who share attributes, experience, or preferences is a narcissistic way of confirming self-worth. Well, I can’t be all that bad if there is someone who also has long ear lobes and likes Charles Mingus!  Perhaps it is the Darwinian or Mendelian mechanism – that we create networks with likeness, only for those likenesses to be thrown into a competitive pool where the strongest or most adaptable will prevail. And perhaps after we have mated and produced our progeny, we continue in this habit that is vestigial, like the tail that is buried at the bottom of our spine.

But what we do know is that our network forming and set creation follows these patterns.  Understanding these patterns may help us be better social media marketers. Would love to hear your own thoughts on this, even if they aren’t like mine.

(This post originally appeared on the Dragon360 blog in December 2010)

Social Panopticon

History seems to be scattered with a certain type of remarkable individual who defies typecasting.  They exemplified eccentricity, and reveled in inventing new objects as well as new ways of looking at the world.  Buckminster Fuller comes to mind, as well as Benjamin Franklin and Jeremy Bentham.  It was Bentham that even in the late 18th was arguing for the decriminalization of homosexuality, for animal rights, and against the death penalty.  He also advocated for a very humane type of prison that he referred to as a “Panopticon”. (A calling card of those remarkable individuals of whom I write is an inclination for coining new words).

The concept of Panopticon came to mind this morning when I received my latest Linked-In update.  Not that it matches any concept of prison that I have (although this is a line of thought worth pursuing), but that it brings a new type of exposure to individuals.  And for the marketer working in social media, its an incredible opportunity.

For instance, in my LinkedIn update, I could see that Philip Liebman is planning a trip to West Palm Beach, Leslie Coons is reading First Things First and that Steve Goldneranswered 1 question about Mobile Marketing.

There are three major players right now vying for a majority of the social-media panopticon: Google, Yahoo, and LinkedIn.  It is too late for anyone to pursue a “Blue Ocean Strategy” – the waters are already reddened with the blood of competition.

I get the feeling that Google hasn’t quite gotten all the pieces put together yet, but oh, what pieces!  The Google Apps suite is quickly replacing the Microsoft business toolset in many small businesses (including DragonSearch).  Connect the dots with Google Reader, Buzz, and the other Google tools, and you can easily imagine an even more comprehensive connectivity than LinkedIn’s.

After failing to acquire Facebook, Yahoo has executed more instances of integration – both with Facebook and Twitter.  But Yahoo was a pioneer with Yahoo Groups and has a large user base.  Yahoo could still have a place at the table, a piece of the pie, and add their blood to the red waters.

Marketers must, of course, pay attention to any significant bid.  Mitch Joel talks about how the first page of Google results is your brand – well, I would add to that, that those social media updates are your brand, as well.  And there are many ways to plug-in to them.

Footnote: In Jeremy Bentham’s last will and testament, he gave his body over to medical students for dissection, with the added instructions that his reassembled, straw-stuff skeleton was to be placed on display in a well-crafted display case (that he called an “Auto-Icon”) where it can be seen to this day at the University College London.  Had he been alive today, I would have most certainly followed him on Twitter, friended him on Facebook, and linked with him on LinkedIn.

 

(this post first appeared on the Dragon360 blog, March 10, 2010)

Opening

24745_1382601528363_1331714882_31119362_5988534_nWhen musicians, actors, dancers, and even writers have their big events – when we fête them for their new piece, cd or book, there is usually some activity going on like  a performance – and then a bit of a party.  But when artists come out of their studios to show their work, we have openings.  And in an opening, the artist is the center of a lot of attention, much the way someone is when they have their 80th birthday party, or when someone retires from a job of 30 years.  I had my own opening last night at the ASK Gallery – a great event for me, as I haven’t been able to produce a show of large-scale paintings for about 10 years.  That, and the gallery is a real sweet place.

It is tiring and somewhat mind-numbing.  If you’re a bit shy (I really am shy!) it can be a challenge to have all that focus on one’s self.  I probably had chats with over 50 individuals last night – old friends, new acquaintances, and a lot in between.  I  take all the well-wishes and kind words in, the way some mammals store fat for the long winter – to hold me over until the next show which  could be years off.

I’m so appreciative of the support, and all the people who spent time looking at my work. 

It was also great getting to meet many artists who submitted work to the group show.  Helen Gutfreund wrote an appreciative blog post about the opening.  Also discovered that fellow painter Jerry Teters is also a fellow jazz drummer.  I’m hoping to still meet some of the other artists – quite a community we live in.

Bifurcations

When I was invited to show my work at ASK, I had been sitting in the gallery where I’ll be showing. After the invitation, I regarded the room. It has several beautiful walls. The window wall won’t be so good for hanging paintings, but the other three are superb, although one is now… bifurcated – by a support pole.
Back in the studio, I considered my stock of stretchers and canvases, and in remembering these walls, felt that my canvases were just a bit small. What if I bolted them together as panels?

I haven’t typically worked in terms of “projects”. In the past, I just painted, and if I had the good fortune to be invited to show, I would just reach into the painting racks, and take out the latest work. The past ten years haven’t been a good time for me as regards to studio time, but after hearing Gregory Amenoff talk about his own propensity towards “projects”, I thought, “why not”. And thus this project was born.
The four paintings in this show were all made from pairs of canvases bolted together. The paintings were made as unified pieces, but the underlying supports are bifurcated.

The theme of this show and the juried show is “abstraction”. I have my share of hang-ups about that term. After all, aren’t these paintings “real”. Aren’t those paintings of people, vases of flowers, and landscapes, all very, very abstract?

Samuel Johnson meant the word as a sort of summarizing , “a smaller quantity containing the virtue or power of a greater”. Fair enough. You have to admit; there really is a difference between an abstraction, and a realist painting… you can see it quite clearly. Where’s the picturing? I would argue that its all there… just that those artists who practice “abstraction” hide their pictures – take more liberties with how the scene changes. Or they are focussed on relationships between things. Its can be like in a dream where one moment you’re driving your car, and the next moment you’re back in your first grade cafeteria without clothes on. Reality shifts. Perhaps there is an element of obsfucation – if we came out and showed you what we were really thinking you’d all be apalled and have us put away. Or perhaps there is a play of associations, like those found in really great poetry – and those associations drift in and out. Or perhaps I really do like the way that blue brushstroke sits next to that purple brushstroke, and my, aren’t they great friends?

At the end of the day, I still feel that too much is made of the distinctions. All of us painters make paintings – and whatever the approach, paintings are objects that often require being lived with – or seen many times – before they reveal themselves fully. Each painting is created from quantities of colored matter, usually tranferred to the painting with a stick with some hair on it – and that usually being held by a human appendage (I’m leaving out all the painters who throw, spray, hold brushes in their mouths, and elephant painters). And that aspect of markmaking generated by a human body is near universal to all paintings. Each painting speaks to that bodily experience.

Winter Salon: Gallery & Invited Artists – At Denise Bibro Gallery

Winter Salon: Gallery & Invited ArtistsThe invites are in (and going out) for the
Winter Salon: Gallery & Invited Artists

One of my monotypes is going to be included!

 Other artists include:

Sarah K.
Bean

Christa Blatchford

Nora Chavooshian

Sara Crisp

Lisa Dinhofer

Sydney DrumRuth EpsteinCamilla Fallon

Iona Fromboluti

Daniel GieseJosephine Haden

Gerry HayesRob HannDiana Hobson

John Hrehov

Carol Jacobsen

Mary KingJoyce KorotkinDamon Lehrer

Myung-Ock Lim

Charles Olson

Linda Lippa

Shane McAdams

Aija MeistersMichael Paul MillerNancy NicholsonChristopher ReigerTim RossAl Sprague

Dennis Tremalio

Martha Walker


 

Art as religion

Instead of First Holy Communion, instead of a Bar Mitzvah, there should be a solo show.  Instead of wafers and wine, its wine and cheese.  I cherish the sensibility of art as religion, but maybe not at all in the religious sense.  Just that in art we have our cosmogeny, our way of understanding the universe, life, and death.

 Found a small bit: September 2005 Todd Gibson wrote about Gregory Amenoff’s response to artist queries in Art on Paper. Gibson’s summary read as follows:

-Artists drive the bus (not critics, curators, art historians, etc.)
-Let your studio be a sanctuary
-Don’t be afraid to do dumb things in the studio
-Keep away from art fairs (“Instead visit a museum and spend time in the wing housing art from centuries past. You will be rejuvenated not demoralized.”)
-Support your fellow artists as they support you
-Read biographies of artists
-A life in art is a long race not a short sprint

 I have an old casette tape I made of Nick Marsicano speaking to some students, once, in 1983…. something to the effect that we needed to look at each other’s work, visit each other’s studios – in short; be involved with one another.  Funny, though, artists are so often NOT that way; but carping, competitive, and just outright ungenerous. 

I’m going to keep thinking on this issue; and maybe find some more to post on the issue.