Copycat advertising takes a really popular concept..and well copies it.
A while back comparethemarket.com launched an amazingly successful campaign comparethemeerkat.com which is still running quite successfully today perhaps also because the meerkat's in all honesty are quite successful.
So when I came across this ad by LesFurets.com I was slightly disappointed. Sure it's a cute little ad but it lacked originality in it being too similar to comparethemeerkats.com which is in the same product category as well.
But for those who recognize the similarity its a fantastic win for LesFurets. By piggybacking on an already successful campaign their customers would recognize the advantages of the product/service being advertised, with much less investment than their competitors.
The use of cliches is not uncommon in advertising, however I have to question the use of gender stereotyping.
In our current age, gender roles are blurring every day so does gender stereotyping work?
Harley - Davidson uses the concept of a Man's man for their bikes....but really? Are women not allowed to own a Harley? Harley Davidson started the bikers' culture where everyone was welcome but now this seems to be restricted to males? Not sure if that's the right impression you want to give out.
Brian Atwood launched their Spring/Summer collection with a remake of a classic Marilyn Monroe scene. While I love Marilyn and everything is so feminine I'm not sure if I can relate to stripping naked and jumping in a pool with my heels on. The ad is too overtly feminine in a very old concept of what a women is about.
The one interesting point however of gender based advertising is that it exists in extremes. They either embrace the concept of gender roles in today's society or go to extreme end of the spectrum, as above. I don't think many people can relate to either. While males may perhaps aspire to be everything manly, I personally do not relate to a Marilyn Monroe type advertisement and nor would I want to.
Being current is great. Hopping on the latest trend and producing some fantastic content around it is perfect for relevance. But where do you draw the line between relevancy and exploitation?
For example one of the biggest events to happen recently was the conclave and announcement of the new Pope. For many Catholics worldwide this was a highly religious event and yet this was also a hot topic for many advertisers who used the event to promote their own products. For example the ad below by Jason Associates. Sure it's really clever but is it appropriate?
There are two topics most people are highly sensitive about Politics & Religion, and the conclave touches on both. While the Pope is the faith leader of millions of Catholics he is also the political leader of Vatican city, the world's smallest country, so is such advertising a good idea?
Advertising maverick's would love taking a risk and saying why not, but today when an incorrect tweet can have big consequences its better to think before you leap.
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!
Brands are always striving to stay relevant to their audience by capitalizing on the latest trend or theme. They encourage people to connect with them and generate content which is the best way of gaining brand ambassadors or UGC is a good way of understanding how people perceive their brand.
Looking at the Cola wars, both Pepsi and Coca Cola have been socially active and are quite advanced on their engagement techniques. Recently two videos were released, both engaging audiences via different methods.
Pepsi decided to be relevant by incorporating the Harlem Shake with their brand. The latest dance craze is a great way of engaging with youth, and a fantastic way of pushing the brand on top for awhile. Not too different from when a lot of brands decided to use Psy's Gangnam style for their own advertising. Its catchy and captivating but definitely not a long term strategy.
Coca Cola has been working on its Open Happiness campaign for a while now, and always thinking of new and innovative ways of sharing the happiness. Their latest venture was a crowd sourced video competition for 2012 MOFILM Cannes Lions, where the winning video was by Hugh Mitton. A touching video about how Coca Cola can bring happiness to people, and really captures what the brand is all about. The best thing about it is that is shows how fans perceive the brand, and it's great when its exactly what they have been trying to promote.
I love ads where you can see the product being used. What is more effective when you are trying to sell something than when you see it in action?
And that is why I like the Nissan Patrol vs Beethoven ad, it is a beautiful concept and however while the campaign could have been launched with a social arm to it, the video simply depicts the power, beauty and grace of the vehicle. Overall very charming.
How involved does a Government have to be in protecting its citizens...from themselves?
The Australian government takes its job very seriously. First it was the graphic warnings on cigarette packets, and now the anti-soda ads.
The Cancer council, Diabetes Australia & the National Hart Foundation are all participating in the campaign to educate the public about the dangers of drinking soda, with the "rethink soda campaign".
But while PSA (Public Service Announcements) are always a part of any government's plan, most of the public are already aware of the dangers of smoking and drinking soda, and yet this does not deter them.
So now, the health organizations are encouraging to increase the tax on soda items. Is this too far? Can the government intervene to stop people literally from themselves or is it their right only to educate and let them be the judge?
While it is a tough balancing act, certainly by encouraging tax, it does not make it less accessible but although more expensive which encourages people to stop and think if the item is really necessary. Overall a good move, as it protects governments from any blame of in-action they may face in the future.
