Hello. The idea of this project came long after I started reading this book and I am glad to announce that I have finally finished Scientific Advertising by Claude Hopkins and logged it into my StoryGraph (sorry, Goodreads). This article doesn’t have as many notes as the previous because life has this particular way of “lifing”.

For those who may not be aware, this is a series on quotes from the text that stood out to me, along with my thoughts on them. They aren’t summaries of the book so much as reflections on the ideas that made me stop and think.

And usual, I would appreciate any contrary views or advice from “Elder Statesmen”

Thank you for reading.

Which of You, Wishing To Build A Tower, Does Not First Sit Down And Count The Cost?

Creatives should have a cost-conscious mindset. This would dramatically scale the effectiveness of our work.

“A man was selling a five-dollar article. The replies
from his ad cost him 85 cents. Another man submitted
an ad which he thought better. The replies cost $14.20
each. Another man submitted an ad which for two
years brought replies at an average of 41 cents each.
Consider that difference, on 250,000 replies per
year. Think how valuable was the man who cut the
cost in two. Think what it would have meant to have
continued that $14.20 ad without any key on returns.
Yet there are thousands of advertisers who do just
that. They spend large sums on a guess. And they are
doing what that man did -- paying for sales from 2 to
35 times what they need cost.”

One of the biggest insights from the text is that mail-order advertising had many of the same characteristics as modern performance marketing on platforms like Meta, TikTok, and Google Ads. In both cases, the relationship between advertising cost and business outcome is direct and measurable.

The core principle is simple: if your cost to acquire a customer is significantly lower than the value of the product you’re selling, you’re in a healthy position. Hopkins illustrates this with an example of selling a $5 product while spending only $0.85 to acquire each customer. That leaves a healthy margin. On the other hand, if someone spends $14 to acquire a customer for the same $5 product, the campaign is clearly unprofitable.

This is an important mindset for creatives, especially those who focus primarily on ideas, copy, or design. It’s easy to become disconnected from the economics of advertising, but every creative decision ultimately affects how efficiently money is spent. The effectiveness of an ad isn’t just measured by how clever or memorable it is; it’s measured by whether it generates profitable action.

A useful analogy is that if a fishing net isn’t catching enough fish, the problem is probably with the net. Likewise, if your customer acquisition cost is too high, you should first examine the ad itself. Cost per acquisition is a direct reflection of advertising effectiveness.

This also reminds me of a point Rory Sutherland made on a podcast. He mentioned that David Ogilvy believed aspiring copywriters should start in direct marketing because it provides immediate feedback. You quickly learn what works because success is measured by revenue, not by subjective opinions or awards.

Ultimately, that’s the mindset worth adopting when conceptualizing advertising. Every idea should be evaluated by one standard: will it persuade someone to take action in a way that produces profitable results?

Land with Emotion

"An automobile ad might refer in the headline to a good universal joint. It might fall flat, because so few buyers think of universal joints. The same ad with a headline, "The Sportiest of Sport Bodies," might outpull the other fifty to one."

Android users are probably the only weirdos who consult GSMArena and watch countless phone reviews on YouTube before making a purchase. Apple users generally don't do that because they don't need to. They already understand the value of the product and the social signal that comes with owning an iPhone. They're also confident in its utility. For a lot of Apple buyers, the question isn't whether the product is good enough - it's simply which model they can afford.

I'm not just talking about smartphones. If your product doesn't occupy that kind of position in the consumer's mind, marketing has to do a lot more work. You have to be specific and appeal to the emotional side of your audience instead of relying purely on functional claims.

For example, I use a leave-in conditioner. If the brand releases a new formula and leads its advertising with technical details about the chemistry behind it, I'd probably need a PhD to understand what they're talking about. But if they simply tell me, "Comb your nappy fro in five minutes or less," they've already got my attention. They've translated a technical improvement into a benefit I immediately care about.

That's why headlines shouldn't just be specific- they should also connect with emotion. People rarely buy because of technical specifications. They buy because they can imagine themselves enjoying a better outcome or finally solving a problem. Features explain what a product is; emotions sell what it can do for you.

Share

I am about to finish reading Scientific Advertising by Claude Hopkins, a book heavily endorsed by my Creative Director at the start of the year. The author is deemed to be one of the pioneers of modern advertising and has received praise from the likes of Ogilvy. He made his name at Lord & Thomas. a direct marketing agency in Chicago during the early twentieth century. His approach treated advertising less as an art driven by inspiration and more as a discipline built on testing, evidence, and continuous improvement.

While reading the book, I made little yellow highlights on lines that inspired me or provoked thought. I would be making notes on what on the text means to me and what I may have learned.

I hope you enjoy reading. If you disagree with any of my interpretations - or have a different perspective entirely - I would genuinely love to hear it. On y va.

Advertising as a Science (?)

“The time has come when advertising has in some hands reached the status of a science. It is based on fixed principles and is reasonably exact.”

Gbam! My good man came out swinging with this audacious take. Building a pitch deck does not involve much equation, so where does the scientific claim from.

Perhaps advertising is a science because it allows marketers to understand human psychology so well that they can reliably push the right mental buttons and convince people to buy their products at will.

No sir, this line of thinking is quite fanciful. Attention can be guaranteed; trade, not so much.

Industries exist because of competition, and every contest has winners and losers. Every brand possesses different advantages: larger budgets, stronger brand equity, wider distribution, and varying levels of risk tolerance.

Most importantly, people themselves are inconsistent. Your audience might be happy, angry, hungry, distracted, or simply not in the mood to pay attention. No amount of creative confidence can eliminate those variables.

So why call advertising a science?

To answer that, consider the scientific method.

Science follows an empirical process: ask a question, conduct research, form a hypothesis, test it, observe the results, and repeat. Hopkins argues that advertising should follow the same framework.

An agency or marketing department essentially becomes a laboratory. Creatives and executives become scientists. Every campaign is a hypothesis. You launch it, measure the results, learn from the data, and either improve it or discard it. The goal isn’t to prove your idea is brilliant; it’s to discover what actually works.

Scientific Advertising was published nearly a century ago. Today we possess dramatically better tools to test creative ideas, measure consumer behaviour, and optimise campaigns.

Ironically, Hopkins’ philosophy is even more relevant now than when he first wrote it.

Creative Ego and Shared Knowledge

“The lack of those fundamentals has been the main trouble with advertising of the past. Each worker was a law unto himself.”

I understand this quote in two ways.

First, the author is pointing to the lack of a shared body of knowledge—at least during his time. The field wasn’t built on documented principles or accumulated experience. Every advertiser approached the work differently, with little effort to record what worked and what didn’t.

Today, we have the advantage of decades of case studies, marketing research, and performance data. We can study successful work across industries and audiences instead of relying purely on instinct. Reading great campaigns and analysing why they worked is the modern equivalent of building the archives Hopkins believed the industry needed.

Second, the phrase “each worker was a law unto himself” serves as a warning against creative ego.

If you become a law unto yourself, every decision feels correct simply because you made it. When a campaign succeeds, you credit your brilliance. When it fails, it’s tempting to blame the audience: They didn’t get it. They don’t appreciate creativity. The market wasn’t ready.

Hopkins repeatedly argues against that mindset.

No individual knows everything. Advertising is too broad and too complex for one person to master every discipline. Great work comes from combining different perspectives.

Relying solely on personal intuition can become an Achilles’ heel. Learn from evidence. Study previous campaigns. Build on what others have already discovered.

The goal isn’t to become a creative genius working in isolation. It’s to become a disciplined practitioner who continually learns from both the past and the present.

Unpredictable People

“Now the only uncertainties pertain to people and to products, not to methods. It is hard to measure human idiosyncrasies, the preferences and prejudices, the likes and dislikes that exist.”

This quote highlights the central uncertainty in advertising: people.

No matter how much data we collect, human beings remain difficult to predict. Preferences, prejudices, motivations, and tastes are shaped by countless factors—culture, age, religion, economic conditions, politics, trends, mood, and even what kind of day someone is having.

A good example comes from my own experience.

I recently attended a dance event. Before going, I couldn’t understand why so many people would leave the comfort of their homes simply to watch others dance. I understood why people create dance videos online, but I never expected nearly a thousand people to gather in person to watch dancers perform.

Then I got there.

Crowds cheered. Dancers formed spontaneous circles. The audience enthusiastically participated. It wasn’t something that appealed to me, but it clearly appealed to many others.

My preferences are not universal.

Just because I don’t understand the appeal of something doesn’t mean there isn’t a large audience that loves it.

I’m also reminded of George Orwell’s 1984. The novel depicts a world where almost everything can be monitored and controlled. Yet one thing remains beyond the reach of the State: people’s thoughts.

You can observe behaviour, but you can never fully know what’s happening inside someone’s mind.

That’s why Hopkins insists on experimentation. The uncertainty isn’t in the method—it’s in the audience.

Don’t assume you know what people want.

Find out.

Test ideas, measure the results, and let evidence—not intuition—guide your decisions.

Clarity Beats Cleverness

“Successful salesmen are rarely good speech makers. They have few oratorical graces. They are plain and sincere men who know their customers and know their lines. So it is in ad-writing.”

The author argues that great salespeople are rarely great orators.

They don’t rely on flowery language, grand speeches, or intellectual showmanship. Instead, they know their customers. They understand how their audience speaks, what problems they have, what excites them, what frustrates them, and what is most likely to capture their attention.

I find this passage personally challenging because I naturally enjoy clever writing and tend to conceptualise elaborate ideas.

But advertising isn’t a writing competition. It’s a communication discipline.

Think about a good salesperson in Nigeria. They don’t greet customers with “plenty grammar.” They speak naturally. They ask about your day, your business, or your family. They switch between English, Pidgin, or a local language depending on who they’re’re speaking to.

They meet the customer where the customer already is.

Advertising should do the same.

I could write an advertisement influenced by Shakespeare and produce visuals worthy of the Sistine Chapel. It might even win awards for creativity.

But if the intended audience doesn’t understand the message - or isn’t persuaded to act- the advertisement has failed.

The Customer’s Interests Are Not Your Own

“The maker of an advertised article knows the manufacturing side and probably the dealer side. But this very knowledge often leads him astray in respect to customers. His interests are not their interests.”

One campaign that illustrates this well for is the Always Ultra “Stay Happy Always” campaign in Nigeria.

The brand could have focused on technical product features- absorbency, materials, or manufacturing innovations. Instead, it focused on the lived experience of its audience

I also looked at advertisements for menstrual pads from previous decades. Even those older ads weren’t really talking about manufacturing features. They focused on the problems women experienced: comfort, security, confidence, and the freedom to wear certain clothes without worrying.

What’s fascinating is that I’m not even the target audience for Always Ultra. I’m a man and have never used the product. Yet I still remember the campaign years later because it communicated a deeply human insight.

After learning something, the next step toward mastery is explaining it.

I am currently reading Scientific Advertising by Claude Hopkins, a book heavily endorsed by my Creative Director which he refers to as a sort of guiding light at the beginning of his career. Hopkins was one of the pioneers of modern advertising, he was earning the big bucks at Lord & Thomas, a direct marketing agency in Chicago during the early twentieth century. His approach treated advertising less as an art driven by inspiration and flashes of a thank you speech at Cannes and more as a discipline built on testing, evidence, and continuous improvement.

These are some of the quotes that stood out to me, along with my thoughts on them. They aren’t summaries of the book so much as reflections on the ideas that made me stop and think.

I hope you enjoy reading them. If you disagree with any of my interpretations - or have a different perspective entirely - I would genuinely love to hear it.

Advertising as a Science (?)

“The time has come when advertising has in some hands reached the status of a science. It is based on fixed principles and is reasonably exact.”

Big bro came right out the gate with this audacious take. The quote might make one think the author suggests advertising is a science because it allows marketers to understand human psychology so well that they can reliably push the right mental buttons and convince people to buy their products at will. However, this line of thinking turns out to be fanciful. Attention can be guaranteed; trade, not so much.

Industries exist because of competition, and every contest has winners and losers. Every brand possesses different advantages: larger budgets, stronger brand equity, wider distribution, and varying levels of risk tolerance.

Most importantly, people themselves are inconsistent. Your audience might be happy, angry, hungry, distracted, or simply not in the mood to pay attention. No amount of creative confidence can eliminate those variables.

So why call advertising a science?

To answer this question, consider the scientific method.

Science follows an empirical process: ask a question, conduct research, form a hypothesis, test it, observe the results, and repeat. The author argues that advertising should follow the same framework.

If you follow this line of thought, your agency or marketing department essentially becomes a laboratory. Creatives and executives become scientists. Industry reports are as valuable as research papers. Every campaign is a hypothesis. You launch it, measure the results, learn from the data, and either improve it or discard it. The goal isn’t to prove your idea is brilliant; it’s to discover what actually works.

Scientific Advertising was published nearly a century ago. Today we possess dramatically better tools to test creative ideas, measure consumer behaviour, and optimise campaigns.

Ironically, this philosophy is even more relevant now than when he first wrote it.

Creative Ego vs. Shared Knowledge

“The lack of those fundamentals has been the main trouble with advertising of the past. Each worker was a law unto himself.”

I understand this quote in two ways.

First, the author is pointing to the lack of a shared body of knowledge - at least at the time. The field wasn’t built on documented principles or accumulated experience. Every advertiser approached the work differently, with little effort to record what worked and what didn’t.

Today, we have the advantage of decades of case studies, marketing research, and performance data. We can study successful work across industries and audiences instead of relying purely on instinct. Reading great campaigns and analysing why they worked is the modern equivalent of building the archives the author believed the industry needed.

Second, the phrase “each worker was a law unto himself” serves as a warning against creative ego.

If you become a law unto yourself, every decision feels correct simply because you made it. When a campaign succeeds, you credit your brilliance. When it fails, it’s tempting to blame the audience: They didn’t get it. They don’t appreciate creativity. The market wasn’t ready.

The author repeatedly argues against that mindset.

No individual knows everything. Advertising is too broad and too complex for one person to master every discipline. Great work comes from combining different perspectives.

Relying solely on personal intuition can become an Achilles’ heel. Learn from evidence. Study previous campaigns. Build on what others have already discovered.

The goal isn’t to become a creative genius working in isolation. It’s to become a disciplined practitioner who continually learns from both the past and the present.

“If they wanted to, they would”

“Now the only uncertainties pertain to people and to products, not to methods. It is hard to measure human idiosyncrasies, the preferences and prejudices, the likes and dislikes that exist.”

This quote highlights the central uncertainty in advertising: people.

No matter how much data we collect, human beings remain difficult to predict. Preferences, prejudices, motivations, and tastes are shaped by countless factors - culture, age, religion, economic conditions, politics, trends, mood, and even what kind of day someone is having.

A good example comes from my own experience.

I recently attended a dance event. Before going, I couldn’t understand why so many people would leave the comfort of their homes simply to watch others dance. I understood why people create dance videos online, but I never expected nearly a thousand people to gather in person to watch dancers perform.

But when I arrived, I saw it was a different story. People were actually enjoying themselves and cheering the dancers on. It doesn’t take a genius to decipher that my preferences aren’t universal.

I’m also reminded of George Orwell’s 1984. The novel depicts a world where almost everything can be monitored and controlled. Yet one thing remains beyond the reach of the Party: people’s thoughts. You can observe behaviour, but you can never fully know what’s happening inside someone’s mind.

So to solve this problem, the author heavily stresses on experimentation and evidence based practice.

Clarity Beats Cleverness

“Successful salesmen are rarely good speech makers. They have few oratorical graces. They are plain and sincere men who know their customers and know their lines. So it is in ad-writing.”

The author argues that great salespeople are rarely great orators.

They don’t rely on flowery language, grand speeches, or intellectual showmanship. Instead, they know their customers. They understand how their audience speaks, what problems they have, what excites them, what frustrates them, and what is most likely to capture their attention.

I find this passage personally challenging because I naturally enjoy clever writing and tend to conceptualise elaborate ideas. But advertising isn’t a writing competition. It’s a communication discipline. So, I need to tear up my Cannes speech and come back to the real world.

Think about a good salesperson in Nigeria. They don’t greet customers with “plenty grammar.” They speak naturally. They ask about your day, your business, or your family. They switch between English, Pidgin, or a local language depending on who they’re speaking to.

They meet the customer where the customer already is.

Advertising should do the same.

I could write an ad with flowery Shakespearean lines and produce visuals worthy of the Sistine Chapel. It might even win awards for creativity.But if the intended audience doesn’t understand the message - or isn’t persuaded to act - the advertisement has failed.

Customers Don’t Care About What You Care About

“The maker of an advertised article knows the manufacturing side and probably the dealer side. But this very knowledge often leads him astray in respect to customers. His interests are not their interests.”

The author makes a simple but profound point: the things a company cares about are often different from the things customers care about.

One campaign that illustrates this well is the Always Ultra campaign in Nigeria.

The brand could have focused on technical product features- absorbency, materials, or manufacturing innovations. Instead, it focused on the lived experience of its audience

I also looked at advertisements for menstrual pads from previous decades. Even those older ads weren’t really talking about manufacturing features. They focused on the problems women experienced: comfort, security, confidence, and the freedom to wear certain clothes without worrying.

What’s fascinating is that I’m not even the target audience for Always Ultra. I’m a man and have never used the product. Yet I still remember the campaign years later because it communicated a deeply human insight.

Subscribe now