By Hayes Projects | Reading time: 5 min
Topics: economic logic, IVM, competitive strategy
(and the Sephora case that proves it)
There's a costly confusion in the business world. Many executives believe they'll win the market war simply by having the flashiest advertising campaign.
Advertising captures attention ("Look at me!").
Value Marketing (IVM) retains intention ("Use me!").
For decades, having the best ad was a brutal competitive advantage. Today, the economic logic has changed. Capturing attention is only the first step (necessary condition); but if after that "great video" you offer the same generic, static product as your competition, you've wasted your budget.
Don't misunderstand me: you shouldn't stop producing quality content. A good image is the "entry cost" to play in the market.
The problem is believing that makes you unique.
Five years ago, a cinematic-quality commercial video cost $50,000 and was a barrier to entry. Today, with generative artificial intelligence, that same visual level will be the minimum standard (commodity) accessible to everyone for pennies.
The economic risk: when the "spectacular" becomes cheap and ubiquitous, it stops being a differentiator. Having a "super video" no longer gives you an advantage; it simply keeps you from falling behind. But it won't make you win.
This is where the current miscalculation lies. You spend immense resources capturing attention. But what happens when the customer arrives?
If you use advertising to say "I'm different," but your user experience is identical to the other ten competitors, the customer feels cheated by the hype. You've gained 5 seconds of their attention and lost all their trust.
The true competitive advantage has moved. It's no longer in how you advertise (which everyone can copy), but in what utility you deliver before the sale.
To understand the financial difference between "making noise" and "delivering value," let's analyze Sephora's case and their "Virtual Artist" (an IVM asset).
While their competitors spent millions on banners and videos of made-up models (advertising), Sephora invested in a tool that allowed users to "try on" makeup digitally using augmented reality and AI.
The economic result:
By moving from a passive experience (watching) to an active one (using), Sephora achieved an 11% increase in conversion rate.
They didn't just capture attention; they retained intention.
This case demonstrates Hayes Projects' thesis: the advertising video attracted the user, but it was the utility tool (the asset) that closed the sale.
Differentiating yourself only by "capturing attention" is a strategy with an expiration date. You'll still need good advertising, yes, but you'll understand that's no longer your secret weapon; it's just your uniform.
The future doesn't belong to brands that only make noise. It belongs to brands that, after the noise, deliver a useful tool.
At Hayes Projects, we apply economic logic to build digital assets that take that attention you gained with your advertising and convert it into a profitable relationship.
Don't just seek "views." Seek value.
Is your marketing an aesthetic expense or a functional asset?