ANBHF Fairfax Cone Ad Samples
Home
Laureates
Fellows
Situational Role Models
Journal
Research Program
Education Program
Selection Program
Museum
About
Contact
Slide Shows
Board Members
Business Ethics and
Social Responsibility
Wall of Shame
Economic Literacy
Business Biagraphers

American Tobacco Company's Lucky Strike became Lasker's biggest account. Lasker and his associates worked closely with George Hill of American Tobacco Co., to develop an innovative campaign that caused a boom in Lucky Strike sales.

Lucky Lucky

 

Toni
Toni Nelson Harris, a small Minnesota home permanent manufacturer, contacted Cone in 1946 to market a home permanent kit. Harris named the product Toni and called on Cone for assistance conveying Toni's messaging. Cone and his team rose to the challenge, creating the memorable and convincing ad series "Which twin has the Toni?" One twin had a Toni home permanent and one had a professional salon permanent, but the $24.00 professional permanent was indistinguishable from the $2.00 home permanent. "Toni" made a permanent wave available to countless women who could never afford one before.
 

Dial Soap

Dial Dial
FCB developed the Dial soap advertising campaign under the direction of D. J. O'Sullivan, Armour & Company's advertising manager. Armour had incorporated an antifungicide chemical, hexachlorophene, into a bacteria killing soap. The soap market was dominated by Proctor and Gamble, Colgate - Palmolive, and Lever Brothers. The key to a successful entry into the soap market would be an outstanding advertising campaign, plus a good product. Cone and his associates developed an advertising campaign that was so successful it was used unchanged for sixteen years. During this time Dial Soap moved from fifteenth to first, in terms of toilet soap sales volume.

Click here to read more comments about Dial's advertising.

Edsel
Edsel The Edsel was an exception to the unquestionable success of Foote, Cone and Belding. Despite the huge advertising budget and a well developed advertising campaign, the product displayed poor sales. The cause was a design flaw in the product. The public's automobile preferences had changed while Edsel was under development and the manufacturer failed to modify the product to match the new consumer preferences. Thus, the advertising was unable to move the product. Cone offered this explanation, "No amount of advertising can sell a product that does not offer basic values to the customer".