Emotional Advertising: Some great examples

Emotional advertising seems the way to go. It's not about the product but how it makes you feel.

This is not restricted to any particular product but is applicable for services, causes, and basically anything that has an emotional value and which can affect decision making...therefore...anything.

Seen below I've put together a few examples of good emotional advertising from across all industries.

Product/Service- McDonalds 

I had to start with McDonalds as they one of the biggest advertisers out there. Recently they have been coming under a lot of flack for their un-healthy products, but yet people still love em. McDonalds have been trying to shift perceptions more from a product oriented company to a service and cause related one. They want to be seen as part of the community and community welfare in general. And why not? nearly every single neighbourhood as one, they are the Starbucks of fast food. The ad below capture this sentiment quite nicely. In fact you would want to have a McDonalds in your neighbourhood if you don't already have one.

Product - Samsonite 

This just goes to show that emotional advertising can apply to anything! After watching this ad I just wanted to get up and go explore the world all with my little Samsonite suitcase at my side. I like how this ad is not about the actual product but more about people's desires and as a side note while you're at it don't forget to have a samsonite suitcase with you.

Service - Google

Google is the most indispensable tool for anyone these days, so much so it is part of our common vocabulary. This cute little ad by Google shows how two people (soon to be parents) use Google for their different needs, and all for the same purpose. Sure we don't need to be reminded of how important Google is to us yet it does no harm for every giant now and then to show a small display of their power to keep people in thrall. Google tried to do something similar for their Nexus tablet but however not to same effect. Both ads below:

Cause - Mercy for Animals

Most of these ads have been the feel good type, however this ad by Mercy for Animals is the exact opposite. It starts off quite innocently but then you're in for a rude awakening. I can understand its purpose. It's hard to change people's behaviour and sometimes reasoning does not work. Shock advertising has an impact and doesn't leave you soon. However I cannot say how effective it will be in the long run, everything moves quickly in this age. But I know I certainly cannot eat meat for awhile.

WARNING: The video is quite graphic and not for the faint hearted

And lastly I just had to include this one for the feel good value. The ad is quite nice but what was perfect was that it was launched on Valentine's day, an emotional ad at an especially emotional time, combined effectiveness! 

  

McDonalds photo shoot: Honesty in Advertising?

Is honesty the best policy when it comes to advertising?

McDonalds' tested that question when it decided to answer one of their fans questions (and I'm sure this is not the first time they have been asked that) of 'Why does my food look different in real life than in advertisements?'
Rather than simply stating it is due to the wonders of photography and photoshop, McDonalds went quite creative with a video which demonstrated the entire process.

What were people's reactions?
Well on a personal level I found it to be quite a bold and striking move. A fascinating watch, the video depicts the whole process not forgetting to mention that all the ingredients used were the same as in the actual burger.
Most companies are secretive and hush - hush but McDonalds through this video embraces what social is about through its complete transparency, plus why hide something clearly everyone knows, that an advert is only an ad after all. See the complete McDonalds ad below:

Although this brings to mind the question, if its not ethical for models to be photoshopped, is it ethical for advertisements to enhance products for their sale? Or should they come with a disclaimer as well?

When to Re-Brand

In order to maintain a good image, and appease their consumers, food chains have decided to go healthy.

Burger King is adding more healthier options to its menu including fruit smoothies (yum). It's advertising this change by modifying its primary colors to red and black. It is refreshing to note that BK is one of the few companies which as part of its re-branding has actually trying to make some concrete changes rather than just changing its logo or colors.

In reverse McDonald's decided to change its Happy Meal in order to demonstrate their commitment to children's nutrition, without getting rid of their beloved mascot. This is excellent because the lovable Ronald has been a symbol for the company since way back when and to remove him would have been a sad goodbye. But by changing the Happy Meal to a more happier option Ronald will no longer stand as a symbol for growing child obesity, but instead for something better, which will go in line with him being the mascot for McDonald's children charities. 

Old vs New

But when Budweiser decided to change its colors in order to impress and (re)attract its consumers you have to wonder why. While it's great to refresh the brand style and image, this is mostly done when it plays an important part in overall strategy as well as to reflect changes in the actual product. So while Bud's new look might initally attract people to the beer again leading to an increase in Sales, this surge might only be short-lived as there is nothing to sustain it over a longer period. 

All about appearances

McDonald's New Look

McDonald's has been changing the physical appearance of its restaurants in order to project a more wholesome and family friendly appearance. This is part of its planned upscale in order to generate a shift from just a fast food  brand to a lifestyle one. I find this change to be long overdue as it would be welcome with its friendly cafe style menu, and a place to sit and enjoy, instead of grab your food and run. Well true its following in the footsteps of Starbucks, and its not highly original, but its a move in the right direction, especially with all the negative connotations associated with fast food and obesity, this change is followed by the news that they will not let go of Ronald their mascot, and if this upgrade goes as planned then they will not have to.

As I'm on the topic of appearances, what about Gillette and the prowess of  their athletes?? First Federer and now Longoria, does Gillette have the same effect on them as Axe on dudes?? makes you wonder... all this is an elaborate scheme by them to prove their tagline of "being all that a man can be". Original? Yes, Believable? No, Entertaining? Definitely!, Effective? To be seen...If Gillette does not admit that it is a fake, then it has strong faith in the ability of its athletes combined with using its products to make them extremely good at what they do. You can see the video below and decide for yourself.

What is a Brand? Farewell Ronald!

What is a Brand?: Is it based on its content? or the people who use it?

A prime example is Apple and the iPad in particular. While Apple has its own identity, when it comes to the iPad they have advertised it based on the apps it has, which indirectly defines its capabilities. While this is great, its different from most of Apple's positioning as its based on functionality rather than Apple's lifestyle branding. It also means that the iPad in itself does not have its own identity but its made up of what others think of it which in a way is very "social" of them as it depends on people (or app makers in this case) together to create what a brand stands for. As Apple describes it 'iconic', 'fresh', 'news', 'stories', 'teachers', etc...

Another brand who are defined by what they serve are McDonalds, once supposed to be restaurant for the entire family are now defined as 'fast food' and all the negative connotations that dredges up. Therefore it comes as no surprise that Ronald McDonald is being let go. While he has served as the mascot for a long time, fears of him appealing to younger children are behind this move. Overall it looks like a good idea, especially since they have been undergoing a brand change for awhile now, by cutting ties to the old image, McDonalds is on its way to re-positioning itself as an adult(?) healthy fast food option, and Ronald could be re-positioned as a mascot for the Ronald McDonald's house charities.


If I am to say that a Brand is defined by its content, what about Dunkin Donuts' latest move to position themselves as healthy? They are to introduce a new menu with healthy, protein based, wholemeal food, but this is somewhat at loggerhead with the image of a "Donut" which is definitely not healthy...so what are the chances of success for this brand extension? It would certainly require a massive image overhaul  and definitely it would be a good idea to start making healthy doughnuts. If a company wishes to change its image, it has to be done holistically and not just in those sections which are desirable.



Speaking of an image overhaul, Wikipedia is determined to change its status of not being allowed to be referenced academically, by inviting students and academics to submit their research papers to their ever-growing database. And having big names such as Harvard, California-Berkeley and George Washington University participate is a definite plus. And its about time as well, maybe with this effort Wikipedia might be finally accepted as a scholarly source, as the term 'Wiki it' is almost synonymous as to 'Google it'.


Branding usually meant that a company could choose how it would want itself to be represented, and they would take great pains to ensure that their products would be picked up and used by the right people to maintain that consistent image, and this is mostly true in the case of Luxury brands. In the case for cars, is the brand defined by how it positions itself or by the people who drive it? The Porsche has always been a sports car but their recent campaign, for the 911,  suggest otherwise. In it the car is put to a variety of uses generally reserved for a family car. In their statement if the car is used for everyday purposes then why not accept it? I'm a little unsure about this theory because then Porsche will not be a sports car but a family car, as it is to be defined by the people who use it. So will this help or harm the brand is yet to be seen.