Showing posts with label Ad Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ad Commentary. Show all posts

Monday, April 25, 2011

Pragmatics and Advertising: Content, Relationship and TV Ads


On a whim and technically by the direction of another book I’ve been reading I’ve started reading a book called “The Pragmatics of Human Communication”. Its stuffy scholarly book written in the 1970’s that apparently hasn’t been updated since. Despite its obvious lack of information related to the way the internet has affected communication, and its frequent use of the term “cybernetics,” Pragmatics is unbelievably helpful. Though I haven’t finished it yet it has inspired me to talk about one of its recurring themes content and relationship.

The Recap
Messages can be divided into 2 parts: Content and Relationship. The Content is everything you’re actually saying. The Relationship is all the intangible stuff about a message, like your body language and tone of voice. For instance, if you were talking to your significant other, you could be annoyed because you’ve stayed up all night and you’re tired and say “Honey, let’s go to bed” or you could be interested in some intimacy and say “Honey, let’s go to bed”. The Content is the same, but the Relationship is different—upset or affectionate.
Healthy relationships focus more on Relationship than content and dysfunctional relationships focus more on Content. A healthy relationship example is when two people know each other so well that even with little to no Content they can communicate—like knowing the other person’s mood or their possible reaction to a given situation. An unhealthy relationship example would be the tumultuous partnerships full of arguing that never seems to solve anything. The partners aren’t hearing each other and are so focused on their own Content that nothing else gets across, not the other person’s Content or feelings.

Why does all this matter? Because we as consumers have healthy and unhealthy, relationships with brands and that effects their advertising.

Healthy Relationships
There are certain brands that always come to mind when making a purchase. Detergent = Tide. Soda = Coke. Chips = Lay’s. These brands have a big market share, and the biggest slice of brand awareness in our brains. Because we have been exposed to them so much, we have a healthy relationship with them. That healthy relationship means we no longer place a lot of focus on what their commercials say but how they say it—the feeling we get when we watch them. For example, the Coca-Cola Christmas commercials with the polar bears.

If we were focusing solely on Content we would be wondering why in the world bears were drinking sodas. But because our relationship with Coke has moved past that, we unconsciously focus on the feeling cute polar bears give us, namely, happiness. 

Brands with a healthy consumer relationship can take risks in their advertising. They know that the consumers they are aiming for already “get it” and so the information about their product or service can be substituted for entertainment. Some of the funniest and most well received commercials are from the brands we know and love, and while there are a lot of contributing factors that make the previous statement true, none of it would be possible without a healthy relationship.

Unhealthy Relationships
We’ve all seen those commercials that just leave us wondering—what the point is, what their selling, who thought it was a good idea in the first place—and they just leave a bad taste in our mouths. Most of these commercials were made by “runner up” brands, names that occupy a smaller amount of space in our brains. These brands don’t have the same connection with us so we are often looking for more when we see a commercial. We want to be convinced of why we should pick their product over the brand we always buy, what gain we’ll get. Runner up brands normally miss the mark on this because they are not “hearing” us, they are too busy trying to compete with the big brands. An unhealthy relationship is marked by a focus on Content to the point where no actual communication is happening. They are not telling us anything with their commercials and they are not hearing what we need.

A great recent example of this is the new Dairy Queen commercials that heavily draw on another big brand from another industry


Look familiar? DQ (Dairy Queen) is trying to draw on the spontaneity of the Old Spice commercials to engender a similar kind of healthy relationship. It won’t work and here’s why:
  1. Its been done. Old Spice has cornered the “random” market when it comes to commercials. Everyone else will look like a copy cat and it’s the originality of the idea that sells it.
  2. DQ is a runner up. While Dairy Queen has been a staple in the South for a long time, it’s still no Mc Donald’s and doesn’t have the same “share of mind” with consumers. Trying to skip the important part of relationship building and go straight for entertainment fails almost every time.
  3. Bad positioning. DQ isn’t hip or new, or anything really. It’s another fast food chain with one selling point—the Blizzard. Trying to be funny with “shaving bunnies” doesn’t remind people why they should come back to Dairy Queen—the Blizzard.
Most brands don’t understand why their commercials never “come though” and equal to increased sales. Again, there are a lot of contributing factors, but more often than not it’s because they don’t fully understand the kind of relationship they have with their audience.

To sum it all up, healthy relationships connect the brand and the consumer. Unhealthy relationships usually miss the mark.  Now you may be thinking that with a little effort, every unhealthy relationship can be made healthy. Wrong. Just like people, brands—at their core—don’t usually change. A resistance to real transformative change will always equate to an unhealthy relationship. They can ply you with flowers, candy and special offers but without a bigger shift, they’ll never get the share or your mind and heart they need to get the share of your wallet they want.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Audi's New Strategy

After a long blog post hiatus I have returned to the world of the living...well to the living world of the blogosphere. A few other writing projects pulled me away and leeched what little free time I had from my little journal here. Those projects are not yet completed but I would be remiss if I did not have at least one ad commentary post related to the better Super Bowl Ads for this year--even though it is kinda late.

Standing in a bar for the entire duration of a football came can be kinda tiring for some, but not for true fans of a "Super Bowl Experience" lots of drinks and food everywhere, Packers and Steelers fans alike griping and cheering in unison. Football season's grand finally was punctuated with a few really impressive commercials this year. As I'm sure you can tell from the title, it was Audi for the win, at least in my book.

In case you haven't seen it, here's the commercial:



Pretty funny right? Humor is one of the best ways to deliver a message and get people to remember it. But just what was Audi's message?
"This isn't your Father's luxury"

This message is communicated in 3 ways 
(1) the cast 
(2) the action 
(3) the dialog

The Cast
Kept in these amazing prison cells are the vestiges of Old Luxury, opulent rugs, decadent crystal, gaudy chairs and old people. I mean the true to life stereotype of what most of us consider the "Rich Old Bugger"--heavily wrinkled with white hair, just like Ebenezer Scrooge. The people we characterize as heartless, out of touch, and impractical stand behind gilded bars as 2 of the prisoners try escaping--one of whom is "The New 50" (handsome, grey haired and on the move). He's the one Audi wants us to identify with, mature--not old, smart, stylish and full of passion for life. Much like the way they want you to see their cars.

The Action
Escaping from this prison doesn't seem to be all that difficult (hint, hint). But the duo do have to break through a window. The dapper escapee is pretty agile going through the window while the typical bugger has to bumble though the opening. Its not just for comedic relief, the cat like reflexes and smooth style of the dapper escapee hearken right back to the main message "Your father couldn't/wouldn't but you can/will". It makes our subconscious believe that we are better than our parents somehow and so, we would want a better car, one just as action oriented as we are.

The Dialog
When the pair finally get outside, the typical bugger chooses the Mercedes because "his father had one." The dapper escapee chooses the Audi. How does he know it's a trap? Again he's smart. He knows that the typical bugger would be fooled into thinking that luxury only existed only in the backseat of a Benz. Oh but not Mr. Dapper, he knows what Audi wants us all to know after watching this commercial--luxury is a choice. The Audi driver chooses to drive himself, he has no driver, he doesn't need to depend on anyone. He makes his own decision based on style and preference, not on legacy.

For such a simple 1minute spot, Audi managed to embed an image in its viewers that will start to chip away at the crag of established luxury. Instead of attacking quality, styling, efficiency or some other typical aspect of determining car supremacy, they picked a stance that aligned them with one of the most famous high class car companies in the world and said simply "Luxury is your choice, choose wisely"

Monday, May 3, 2010

Why Can't SoBe Get it Right?

Originally I had another blog post planned for today, then I read an article on Advertising Age about Chick Fil A and Popeye's and what they did right. That started the wheels turning and I was suddenly reminded of a company that has gotten it very, very wrong--in my opinion--a lot in recent memory SoBe, the Life Water people.

I remember SoBe from my time in high school. The drink company hit the shelves in the late 90's so it was still fairly new when I started drinking it. With its big glass bottles and natural ingredients it felt really 90's and always made me think of Sheryl Crow for some reason...maybe it was that whole free spirited "soak up the sun" attitude SoBe associated itself with. The iconic lizard was plastered all over jeeps and surf boards and to be "healthy hip" meant a steady supply of the stuff in your fridge at all times.

Then something happened. SoBe fell out of favor. Whether that has anything to do with the emergence of Glaceau and it's Vitamin Water brand around the same time remains a matter of opinion, but something caused the lizard and it's Life Water to loose its way.

The Super Bowl Ad
Since this is commentary, I can say what ever I want and I want to say "What were they thinking!?" I've posted the ad below. What do dancing "Thriller Lizards" and Naomi Campbell have to do with a health beverage?



Let's break this down as a lesson in a bad commercial. 1) Note the perils of using a celebrity spokes person. Any person in the ad game, who knows their stuff, will tell you that attaching your company's image to that of a star or starlet is one of the worst mistakes you can make. Its the equivalent to putting all your eggs in one basket. If their ship sinks, consider yourself caught in the undertow. 2) Pop culture does not stand alone. It would be safe to say that since music videos were invented, "Thriller" has been in the top 5 of the best videos of all time. Its a total cultural phenomenon that has managed to retain its popularity and relevance (at least to some extent) for decades. Grafting yourself into the famous dance sequence will NOT make YOU famous and will do less for your brand.  Things like Thriller became popular in the first place because they were unique, original and sometimes ground breaking but always the first of their kind done right. Never expect revolutionary results from re-hashed ideas. 3) Mascots are an identity, identities are unique. Both SoBe and Geico have lizard mascots. You don't need me to tell you which one is the more successful. The Geico Geko is a friendly employee in an insurance company--that's his identity. The SoBe lizards are well, props. They can be used and misused in any way that an advertising agency feels fit. A muddled mascot identity can lead to a muddled corporate identity.


The Super Bowl Ad Pt 2
Just another example of how a muddled identity can spawn some weird commercials. But while you watch this look closely for something that is missing.


Did you catch it? It was proper product placement. I think the product appeared around 7 times. A couple of "Mmmm, I'm drinking this beverage" shots but nothing about Life Water's benefits, flavors, why you should pick this over Vitamin Water or anything useful really. What should you take from this? TV commercials are expensive. Don't waste your time or your viewer's time. Get to the point and showcase your product's features and benifits. Animated lizards, ballerinas and monsters with aliens will not improve your bottom line. Don't believe me? Check out the comment thread on YouTube for this commercial.

Ashley Greene + 0 =???
Ok so obviously SoBe did not learn their lesson with Naomi Campbell and rounded up another starlet. This time the "angelic" Ashley Greene from Twilight. They painted her with body scale paint and put her naked on a beach to sell Life Water. The connection? She is "Wearing Zero" and the Life Water has zero calories. Clever right? It would be except for some obvious problems:
  • Zero calorie beverages are generally targeted toward women. 
  • Women don't normally buy a beverage from another woman who is trying to sell to them naked on a beach.
  • Men think Ashley Greene is hot. They will look at the SI spread and watch the commercials but will probably won't buy Life Water
  • Twilight, despite what everyone says, has a limited appeal and a hardcore fan base of young buyers. They are too young to watch the Mature rated commercials on YouTube.
  • SoBe has still not created a brand or identity for its product. They handed a bottle to a beauty with no clear plan.
The photography is glamorous and so high fashion--to bad they are selling a health drink and not swimsuits. Its just a clip. See more at SoBe.com

Monday, February 22, 2010

American Splendor: Departure from "Core Values" in the Car Industry

I like to follow other designers on Twitter to get lots of inspiration, insight and well, just plain old information. A few weeks ago there was a post on the Brochures Printing Online Blog about old car brochure designs. I'm not old enough to have any sense of real history when it comes to "retro" styling before the 1970's so looking at all these old magazine ads--some of them possibly for newspapers or billboards--was a real treat. The warmth of color and the hand-painted styling gives the possible customer a feeling of the care that went into creating the ad, and maybe leads to the line of thinking "if they put so much work into this simple one pager, how much more care will they put into the automobile they are trying to sell me"

In looking at the ads a lot of things sort of passed through my mind. Some of them would look great as framed art work--like the piece for the Rover 3-liter. A few of them reminded me of the "...of tomorrow" cartoons that were popular for a while, you know "the house of tomorrow" the "farm of tomorrow"; they would be "cars of tomorrow" with their mega streamline styling and unusual features. However, none of those things have anything to do with this particular blog post. What I really want to talk about are the values expressed in the ads.

The ad for the Chevrolet "Coach" originally appeared in the Saturday Evening Post, I'm guessing sometime in the early 1900's based on the styling, with the tagline "Maintaining Economical Transportation Everywhere...Quality at Low Cost." Between 1900 and 1915 the average cost of a car was just over $600. The coach isn't too far off from that price point but that doesn't seem to be the point of the message. Selling the car, the maintainability and the image all at an affordable price is the key. These days car commercials focus on MPG economy (and rightly so) but people are looking to save money in more ways than just in their gas tank. Showing that a company understands the pocketbook of its customer is what can, and will, drive home a sale. Kia is headed in that direction full force. I like Kias, I don't drive one, but I do understand their push to equate their product with a positive, affordable and yes down right sensible image. I'm happy for the little Korean Car Company That Could, but it makes me wonder how Chevrolet forgot an important part of its history? Maybe "Maintaining Economical Transportation Everywhere...Quality at Low Cost" was not the founding principle of the company but it is an ideal that the American public still holds dear and if anyone should capitalize off of it, it should be other Americans.

Pontiac is just as guilty of getting caught up in trends and not sticking to its guns. The ad campaign for the Big Six responded to the needs of a changing America and filled in the price gap between Chevrolet and Oldsmobile. Americans needed more car for the same amount of money, or less, and Pontiac filled that need. Admittedly the company has had a turbulent past, and was recently dissolved as a GM holding, but there remains the lingering question of Pontiac's commitment to "more for less" and whether adhering to what initially helped make the little company great would have helped pull it out of trouble this time around.

Looking at all these wonderful examples of early 20th century ad art was thought provoking--the quality of work, the thought, the time, the care that went into creating the image for a company around the ideals of Americans--where did it all go?