his advertising space. For this reason he will spend money to improve the editorial features of his publication, for a good quality of paper and for illustrations, or other attractive features. For the same reason he will spend money for premiums, or for inducements in the way of prizes to club raisers, commissions, or salaries to canvassers and the expense of operating his circulation department, for the purpose of increasing the value of his product, advertising space. He will spend no more money for any of these necessities than he is compelled to, in order to create the greatest value in his product.

"This does not affect the problem which he must face in the sale of his by-product, circulation. One publisher may go on the theory, that by charging in every case the full published subscription price, he is giving his advertising space the greatest value. Another publisher may take the view that the more papers he can give away, the more value he is putting into his advertising space, and that the cost of making and distributing a paper is nothing less than the additional value given advertising space to make it profitable for him to give away his publication. This is the method of the so-called "mail order" publisher.

"Coming back to the direct answer to the question, upon this theory, the publisher will get as much net revenue out of his by-product as he can, regardless of the cost of white paper, ink and distribution.

"The proportion it does bear varies very greatly, according to the class of the publication and the method of circulation. There are farm publications which are circulated very much on the same plan as mail-order publications. There are other publications which charge the full subscription price, which obtain a large percentage of their subscription cost of production from their subscription income. In the first case,

I should say they obtain not over ten per cent of the total expenses of publication. In the latter case, I should say that in some instances publishers receive as high as thirty to fifty per cent of their total cost of publication. In our own case, the circulation income is about twenty-eight per cent of our total expenses."

"I believe that the subscription income from a farm paper should bear one-half the cost of publishing same; the advertising the other half, and whatever advertising can be secured over and above one-half the expense, to be profit. I don't believe, however, that at present the subscription income does bear over 25 per cent of the cost, although I may be a little low in this estimate."

"Covering a period of several years in our case, the net subscription income is about 624 per cent of the cost of production."

"The subscription income averages not less than 25 per cent and seldom exceeds 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the annual income of the paper."

"The subscription income ought to pay from 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the cost of production, but on an average it does not pay more than 10 per cent."

"Assuming that the initial expense of putting the paper on the press and printing 1,000 copies has been incurred, then the subscription income should equal the cost of printing each additional copy and delivering it to each subscriber. That is, the publisher should receive for the thousand additional papers enough net subscription income to cover the cost of doing the press work, folding, pasting, trimming, mailing and postage on that thousand papers. This is about the proportion in our case, but it varies greatly with different publications."

Several of them have had to prune their appropriations or suspend all advertising temporarily to gain time enough to catch up with the stackedup demand.

The cumulative effect of this particular kind of advertising is still bringing big returns to some advertisers who have done no advertising for months.

Two of the advertisers represented in this group have just had their eyes opened wide by the returns from their first start with this particular kind of advertising.

Simply going direct to the consumer isn't the secret of the thing by any

means.

It isn't what you do but how you do it that makes the orders stack up and the factories work all night.

There are hundreds of advertisers going direct who could quadruple the returns from their advertising without adding a mill to the cost.

And this statement can be substantiated to the ultimate letter.

If you doubt a statement it's due to you and to the one who made it that you ask for the proof.

When doubts can be dispelled free of charge it's foolish to suffer with the doubts.

If an advertiser who is getting all the orders he can fill from $4,000 worth of advertising, can quadruple the effectiveness of his advertising he is simply throwing away $3,000.

Isn't he?

It would be foolish to attempt to enumerate the advantages of "going direct"-in the right way.

For it sometimes takes days-some

times months by word of mouth to convince the most level-headed business man who should go direct that it's the right move.

Some business men shouldn't “go direct"-some certainly should. Where do you belong?

Do you know?

A good many advertisers think they know.

That's one reason why it is such hard, almost disheartening, work to convince some business men that they are serving their own best interests by giving you an opportunity to show them the proof.

And it's also a reason why the results that come when you have won your fight for a fighting chance open their eyes so wide to the benefits that they have been looking at but have never seen before.

"Going direct" means business independence.

It means that you get your price-the long price-not the price the dealers will

pay you.

What does the dealer do for you?

He substitutes anything that your competitor allows him more profit on-that's what he does for you.

Then why should you contribute to the support of Tom, Dick and Harry, the Jobber, Salesman and Retailer?

A $500 advertisement and a $500 catalogue will sell more goods at a better profit and turn the capital quicker in many lines of business than most salesmen at $4,000.

Proof?
Certainly.

Stacks of it.

Did you ever see a manufacturer who was "going direct" turn around and go back to the all-around-Robin-Hood'sbarn Method?

But how many have you seen who years ago said, "never, never," to the

direct idea who today couldn't be driven away from it with the big stick?

There are lots of lines where an attempt at "going direct" would be equivalent to a call for the coroner.

But the direct idea is growing, growing, day by day, and the men who are getting in now are skimming off the

cream.

"Go direct" if you possibly can but go right or not at all.

"Go direct" and you have all your business in your own office under your own eyes.

"Go direct" and you deal with the people who consume what you produce.

"Go direct" and you divide the profits with yourself-not with Thomas, Richard and Harold.

"Go direct" and you get cash in adzance or mighty big interest on your money if you want to wait for it.

"Go direct" and you turn your capital in the quickest time.

"Go direct" and the actual user passes on your wares and your prices.

"Go direct" and you know what your profits are just how you stand every minute-just what pays you and what does not.

"Go direct"But go right.

Be sure you're right before you start. Don't take promises for profit-take proof.

Many an advertiser who is "going direct" in what he thinks is the right way is losing 75 per cent of his opportunities.

For example one of the advertisers whose current advertisement is reproduced in that group is selling as much in a day as his former copy sold in a week and he is doing it for less money.

You can be given any amount of copy that seems right but you want the Selling Plan and the Copy that is right. "Go direct"But go right.

I

FIRST met Truman A. De Weese

in 1904, when I was editor of Mahin's Magazine. I was trying

to get a friend to write an article on advertising, and he said to me: "Why don't you get Mr. De Weese, editorial writer for the Record-Herald, to write an article for you? He is a good writer and knows more about advertising than he does about writing editorials, although he is not slow at that."

Acting on the suggestion of my friend, I called on

Mr. De Weese, and found that he was intensely interested

on the subject of advertising. He wrote an article for the April issue of Mahin's Magazine entitled the "Bull'sEye Method," which attracted wide attention. It

made a great success of it, and soon after became advertising director of the Natural Food Company. In a recent interview with Mr. De Weese he had this to say:

"I have always called myself a 'Shredded Wheat man' rather than an advertising man, although, having published a book On 'Practical Publicity,' a good many of my friends have complimented

was a strong plea for "Reason Why" copy, although it was written before the self-styled Reason Whyer was heard from.

This article demonstrated to me that Mr. De Weese ought to be doing something better than writing editorial articles. I told him that I believed he would make a success in the advertising field. I do not know whether my remark had anything to do with what followed or not, but soon after this he resigned his position with the RecordHerald and took charge of special publicity for the St. Louis World's Fair,

me

by the suggestion that I was entitled both theoretically and through practical experience to be known as an advertising man.

"I became interested in Shredded Wheat while I was

editing the little magazine in Chicago called What to Eat, a work which I took up merely as mental diversion and re

laxation while I was editorial writer on the Chicago Record-Herald. I was a sort of a dietetic crank, and I got lots of fun and amusement out of an editorial scrap with the white flour millers which grew out of an editorial in which I embodied an analysis of white flour and other flours which seemed to make a very poor showing for the modern patent roller process white flour in comparison with whole wheat flour and breakfast foods.

"I had no thought of drawing the fire of the white flour millers in any of their organs, but having drawn it, I was in