Tag-Archive for » Strange ads «

19
Apr
After abandoning the past
Jeannie Chan

My post on CPGBranding.com this week was inspired by the latest Healthy Choice and U commercials. These ads chose to go into the future by abandoning their past. This is particularly the case with U by Kotex.

These ads mock every other feminine care ads in the past. The point was to say that “we get it” to their target audience: the young ladies who are newly initiated to the world of feminine care. However, such ad put forth a positioning that U is different, U gets it. Therefore, now we will have to see if U can fulfill this promise. U is now beyond its functions. It’s about the colorful packaging. It’s about the online knowledge and support. It’s about connecting with these young ladies.

Today, I was remind of an axiom: Great ads make bad products fail faster. So, the test for U is to see if it can really connect with these young ladies!

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Category: Advertising  Tags: ,  2 Comments
30
Jan
Great idea + Great message = Bad ad?
Jeannie Chan

The other night, I came across a commercial for a local flower shop. With Valentine’s Day just two weeks away, it was the perfect time for a local flower shop to raise its top of mind awareness.

The commercial went something like this:

Valentine’s Day is on February 14th, and there is no better way to give something special to your sweetheart than to give a beautiful arrangement from our shop. In fact, you could make her whole week special by having the flowers delivered to her work earlier in the week. Remember, Valentine’s Day is on February 14th. Order your arrangement from us today.

Now, that was a horrible commercial for a local flower shop.

Why?

Because this ad did a lot more for the category than it did for the flower shop itself. This would have been a great ad for a shop that has dominant share of the market. In which case, as long as more people order flowers, the dominate player would be bound to get more business.

However, a local flower shop is rarely the dominate player, or even a big player. In which case, the goal of any marketing effort should not be growing the entire category, but to grow your own share within the category.

How could you do that?

By focusing on why consumers should pick you over all the other alternatives. What would make you better than the flower shop at the grocery store? What would make you better than an internet flower shop?

Would it be the personal attention? Would it be a timed delivery guarantee? Would it be the experience of the florist? Would it be the availability of unique flowers?

Reminding people that Valentine’s Day is around the corner was a great message. Giving people the idea to have arrangements delivered early was a great idea. However, even the best idea or the best message would be useless if the objectively of the commercial, or any marketing effort for that matter, was ill-defined.

Photo credit: FotoDawg

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Category: Advertising  Tags: ,  Leave a Comment
03
Sep
Could being pragmatic be wrong?
Jeannie Chan

We are always pushing the envelope. We are always testing the line to see how far we could go before we get into trouble.

Very early in my career, I was introduced to the local paper headline test. Other knows this as the Wall Street Journal headline test, or NY Times headline test. Pick a newspaper of your choosing really. But the point was, if your action became public knowledge, could you live with it? Would you be ashamed of it?

In today’s competitive and confusing world, perhaps this simple test is not enough.

DDB Brasil made a very controversial ad in an attempt to win business with the Brazil chapter of WWF, World Wildlife Fund. This ad was submitted to WWF, and was rejected. If you haven’t seen it, it is an ad that has countless planes heading toward a Manhattan that still had the World Trade Center standing. The tagline was the Tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. This was meant to highlight the power of planet earth and the need to preserve it.

This ad made DDB the worst person in the world by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. In fact, Mr. Olbermann listed individual’s names from the DDB roster on the WWF account responsible for this ad.

Does this mean that the ad went too far?

Hold on just one minute.

DDB also submitted this ad for an advertising competition. In fact, this ad won a best of 2009 award from the One Club.

I would think that they are quite pleased with that headline.

So, the new benchmark in this world full of controversial points of views… You may win big with some audience. You may at the same time lose big with others. Would the win be worth it?

And really, what kind of question is that? What kind of benchmark is that?

If DDB says yes, this generated more buzz for our business than ever. Are they immoral / insensitive / wrong or just pragmatic? Is being pragmatic wrong?

Such is the confusing world we live in…
wwf-reject-ad
The unauthorized ad, that was condemned by the WWF.

Related articles
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Category: Random Thoughts  Tags:  One Comment
« Previous Entries