On Advertising

[ksl]

Banana I thought you had more foresight to realise (you most certainly haven't) that advertising is also a strategy, planned for the occasion, it doesn't matter that you are having visions, the messages in the adverts are still the same...."Go buy our product" Like wow how did that ball girl jump so high, was it Gatorade.

How one sends these messages, you may find excitingly new, but there has old as the military using telepathy techniques.

To be honest, you need to be more flexible in your thought process, take the blinkers off. Considering this appears to be your field of expertise, you are being rather childish and naive to believe its going to rule advertising.

If its not subliminal advertising, you must have another creative word for it? And if they work or not has been debated for the last 40 years or more.
The idea of a ball girl jumping so high, would trigger the thought process, it is noticable when she jumped so high, and people would speculate over it, and talk and wonder how she did it, I wonder if "Gatorade" would pop into the discussion.

[banana]

Banana I thought you had more foresight to realise (you most certainly haven't) that advertising is also a strategy, planned for the occasion, it doesn't matter that you are having visions, the messages in the adverts are still the same...."Go buy our product" Like wow how did that ball girl jump so high, was it Gatorade.

How one sends these messages, you may find excitingly new, but there has old as the military using telepathy techniques.

To be honest, you need to be more flexible in your thought process, take the blinkers off. Considering this appears to be your field of expertise, you are being rather childish and naive to believe its going to rule advertising.

If its not subliminal advertising, you must have another creative word for it? And if they work or not has been debated for the last 40 years or more.
The idea of a ball girl jumping so high, would trigger the thought process, it is noticable when she jumped so high, and people would speculate over it, and talk and wonder how she did it, I wonder if "Gatorade" would pop into the discussion.

And you are very condescending with your advice dispensation. I merely pointed out observations and provided my own opinions. Whether you find them insightful or not is beyond my control.

I am going to politely ask you one last time - play the ball, not the player. If you disagree or think there is more to a particular topic, feel free to point it out. Just because I don't say something doesn't mean I don't know it. Like you said, this is my profession, I am not going to provide free consultation on a public board. Anyone interested can always ask politely, continue the discussion or even do their own research.

I understand you are simply trying to learn more about these new fangled communication strategies, but seriously, there are better ways to do so.

[Addadude]

Boys, boys... I happily pointed out this discussion on another completely different forum to demonstrate to a particularly hostile forumer that it was indeed possible to engage in active debate without resorting to name-calling or insults...

Anyway, i came across this article in the online version of The Independent archives...

Advertising: Spot the link between a gorilla and chocolate

The answer is that there isn't one - at least on the surface. Cadbury's latest advert for Dairy Milk will take quite a big risk by ignoring the product. Alex Benady goes behind the scenes

Advertising has a surprising number of unwritten rules and conventions for an industry that prides itself on its left-field, out-of-the-box, blue-sky thinking. Cars must be shown speeding round hairpin bends. Haircare commercials are apparently obliged to feature a dodgy science sequence and there seems to be some law which says that banks have to be youthful, honest and in touch.

But chocolate advertising has long been blessed with a choice of clichés. It can either make us drool in anticipation of its ineffable deliciousness or inspire us with the sight of happy people using the product to enhance their happy lives.

Soon on ITV1, Cadbury, the world's largest confectioner, will unveil a new advertising campaign for its milk chocolate that the company says is critical to both the Cadbury Dairy Milk brand and even the future of the company itself. "Everything we do with CDM is vital to the business because it's such an important part of our brand portfolio," says head of communications Tony Bilsborough. A mark of just how important is that the campaign is worth £9m, making it the biggest spend on chocolate for many years.

Yet the new commercial does not show chocolate; it doesn't show people eating chocolate; throughout its full 90 seconds, it doesn't mention the C word once. The film opens with a title, "A Glass And A Half Full Productions presents". Then we hear the opening bars of the Phil Collins hit "In the Air Tonight". The camera pulls back slowly to reveal that the new face of Cadbury Dairy Milk is in fact a gorilla. The effect is spooky and primal. As the big drum break starts, the camera pulls further back to reveal that the gorilla is hammering an enormous drum kit in a karaoke-style bangalong.

The film comes with impeccable creative credentials. Fallon is currently Campaign magazine's agency of the year. The client is Cadbury marketing supremo Phil Rumbol who was previously responsible for the hugely successful Stella Artois campaign at his last job as marketing director of InBev. And it was written and directed by Juan Cabral, whose Sony Balls and Paint ads made him the most awarded creative in the world last year.

It's such a pompous piece of music and the thrashing of the gorilla is so self-absorbed that the effect is hilarious. It's short-form comedy just like one of those funny clips you see on YouTube. But it seems to have precious little to do with chocolate.

And that is the whole point says Laurence Green, planning director of Fallon, the advertising agency behind the ad. People don't want advertisers droning on and on about their products any more; they want to be entertained. "Cadbury traditionally did well-built ads for the interruption age when consumers had an implicit media deal with advertisers. In exchange for free TV they would allow us to interrupt their programmes with commercials," says Green. "The nation has a massive soft spot for CDM and it is deeply embedded in the national psyche. For a brand that is so well known, it's arguable whether the old style interruption advertising model is the best model for the future. So we are trying to engage more genuinely with our audience."

But there is a product message in there too. In fact, the entire commercial is a product metaphor. "Chocolate is about joy and pleasure. For years Cadbury has told us that it was generous, through the glass and a half strap line. We thought, don't tell us how generous you are; show us. Don't tell us about joy; show us joy."

That's just what the campaign tries to do. "We've created a branded space in which Cadbury's can be generous in bringing joy," says Green. That may sound like adman's blather, but it a sign of an important philosophical shift in the way that advertising agencies are beginning to approach their work.

The traditional commercial was a scientifically modulated piece of communication in which consumer behaviour was scrutinised, product use closely studied and desired responses deliberated upon at length. In the new approach, almost anything can be inserted into the branded space as long as it is entertaining and brings joy. It's as if the agency has said "Sod it, forget the science. Let's just have a laugh."

It's a bit more thought out than that, says Green. "Advertising can be effective without a traditional 'message', 'proposition' or 'benefits'. Indeed, some of the latest advertising thinking suggests that attempts to impose them can actually reduce effectiveness. We are trading our traditional focus on proposition and persuasion in favour of deepening a relationship."

But it's still a gamble of heroic proportions, and given the importance of CDM and Cadbury's gaffe-strewn recent history, the stakes couldn't be higher.

We spend £1m a day on CDM in the UK, where it alone accounts for a seventh of the entire UK chocolate market. The new campaign aims to build long-term brand values, but it is also key to short-term sales. Due to the peculiarities of the chocolate market you get only one go at that a year, says Green. "You can't advertise chocolate in the summer. Easter and Christmas are separate markets, so the only chance to build the brand comes in late spring. This campaign will drive sales for the year."

Cadbury is ending its sponsorship of Coronation Street later this year, which will place an even greater burden on the campaign. So it simply must work. But CDM is Cadbury's flagship product. The company is part of the £7bn a year Cadbury Schweppes conglomerate which is being split into drinks and confectionery components.

What it cannot afford is any more of the blunders that have dogged it of late. Birmingham city council announced that it intends to prosecute Cadbury over last year's salmonella outbreak. Last month humiliatingly it had to withdraw a £5m launch campaign for Trident chewing gum because so many people found it offensive. In February the company had to recall thousands of Easter eggs which were distributed without nut allergy warnings. And in the same month Cadbury Schweppes' US operation was pilloried for a promotional treasure hunt which led consumers to a graveyard in Boston containing the remains of historic American figures.

An obvious question in regard to this latest campaign is whether any real gorillas were used. "No, it was a man in a gorilla suit," explains Green patiently. Despite its recent troubles the company says it has not been on banana skin alert. "We simply followed our normal due diligence," said Tony Bilsborough.

He doesn't explain how he will apologise to the nation if the new commercial sparks a Phil Collins revival. But the bigger risk is that the campaign is too far removed from conventional chocolate advertising to be effective. As one veteran Cadbury hand put it, "They get it right when the ads make you drool. Without chocolate, Cadbury ads lose their sensual appeal and along with that go sales."

It would be a shame if he is right, because our future ad breaks will be all the duller as a result.

[ksl]

Banna :These clips are made to communicate with a generation very much different from most key decision makers, both at agencies and clientside. They think different, have different values and don't like being spoken down to. The sooner old fogeys realise that and stop trying to sell shit to them, the sooner they'll get it

And this is not condescending!

Like you said, this is my profession, I am not going to provide free consultation on a public board.

Be free to fly your true colours!

Play the ball or the player, is still cricket is it not. A simple request to ask you if it is subliminal advertising or not, seems to be leg before wicket! I'm simply attempting to fathom out, how you see such a great difference in advertising terms, of today and 40 years ago.

You say the clips are different from key decision makers of both agencies and client side, yet I am saying that marketing and advertising strategy plans well ahead, with their advertising campaigns, be it subliminal or not.

If you think different that's fine, but at least explain yourself, in a way, that others can also understand what you are getting at, because I don't mind admitting I'm lost, and to me these ads are still sales related.

Addadude

This article you posted sums it all up, in my opinion, the only significant change over the years, is the entertainment value of the adverts, and from an advertisers point of view, I can see the freedom of entertainment value, it gives, without the daunting old fashioned fixated business aspect, however these changes are hardly new, but are practiced more often today, than 20 years ago so yes maybe a direct correlation to the education of advertisers is prevailing, for the entertainment value and many brands could carry this off and still maintain or increase sales.

However I can see, the potential for branding an image more effective, in the entertainment field of advertising, and have done for a very long time, this is also quite noticeable, for example when people forward jokes on, through emails or youtube...viral advertising, is most effective for getting hits and entertaining, but are they effective for increased sales?

I have my doubts at the moment....

Banana I did read my post again, I didn't mean it to be condescending at all, I was just looking for the missing link, and now I see the link to be entertainment value of an advert.

Which is also old hat, but yes it works well for old fogeys, and young pups to keep an open mind

[banana]

Banna :These clips are made to communicate with a generation very much different from most key decision makers, both at agencies and clientside. They think different, have different values and don't like being spoken down to. The sooner old fogeys realise that and stop trying to sell shit to them, the sooner they'll get it

And this is not condescending!

Not at all. It's my opinion on what is holding the industry back, in response to Addadude's previous post about viral clips in general. I even quoted his post. It is not directed at your person and hence, it cannot be condescending to you.

Like you said, this is my profession, I am not going to provide free consultation on a public board.

Be free to fly your true colours!

You are taking my words out of context to paint a skewed picture. This is character assassination. Not cool.

Play the ball or the player, is still cricket is it not. A simple request to ask you if it is subliminal advertising or not, seems to be leg before wicket! I'm simply attempting to fathom out, how you see such a great difference in advertising terms, of today and 40 years ago.

You say the clips are different from key decision makers of both agencies and client side, yet I am saying that marketing and advertising strategy plans well ahead, with their advertising campaigns, be it subliminal or not.

If you think different that's fine, but at least explain yourself, in a way, that others can also understand what you are getting at, because I don't mind admitting I'm lost, and to me these ads are still sales related.

I'm not too familiar with cricket but I'm pretty certain swinging the bat at another's leg is not considered fair play. But what do I know about cricket...

If you didn't understand what I said, you could've just said so, no?

What my statement meant was that the the audience or target market think differently from top level executives of the advertiser and agency. Or in other terms, your Creative Directors, Brand/Product Managers, etc are so entrenched in their own careers (bottomline, boost sales, blah) that they forget their consumers really don't care about those things. The consumers only care if they like the product. And these 'new age' advertisements bridge that gap in objectives. I'd assume this is what Addadude was implying when he said there's nothing new in that statement, because it's true - it's an issue that is as old as the industry.

Another gap is generational gap. This explains my 'old fogey' remark. Often, your C-level executives (CEO/CMO/CIO/etc) are much older than their consumers. Trouble arises when they let power get to their heads and think the world is just like them. They forget that things they like are not things that's considered cool today. I suspect that may be why they chose Phil Collins for the Gorilla soundtrack!

And to answer your question directly, I don't think these ads are subliminal in the traditional sense. Back in the 50s, subliminal advertising meant inserting "Drink Coke" in between movie frames. These 'subliminal ads' are below the consciousness threshold so they are quite literally subliminal. The newer viral ads, on the other hand, either make no mention of the product whatsoever (Gatorade/Powerade) or use colour associations (Cadbury) so you can't really call them subliminal. Subversive maybe.

[Addadude]

Er no, Banana, I didn't mean that. What I meant was that the 'yoof' (even when I was a 'yoof') have always been sensitive to being 'talked down to'. This has never changed. There is a significant generational difference when it comes to communication and this has ALWAYS been the case. And every 'yoof' generation has always claimed the same thing - that the old farts don't understand them or their needs. I promise you: in 20 years time you wil be hearing the same nonsense from the next 'yoof' generation - and you'll be resonding the way I'm doing now. (Please remember that I told you so...)

NOBODY likes being sold to. I said this in my very first post on this thread. But selling doesn't have to be obvious or tasteless. It can be fun and engaging. And it should be. In fact, the many people who champion the Cadbury's Gorilla TVC are only to happy to cite Cadbury's 5% increase in profits for that year as 'proof' that the TVC worked. (IE. increased sales are proof of creative excellence.)

Sorry, I can't finish my thoughts now. I have to go and get drunk with a colleague who is leaving my agency. Hold this thought until Monday! have a great weekend!

[fishtank]

Okay. (Taking a deep breath...)

Here's an interesting question. Is whatever constitutes a good ad subjective?

This is a comment I have heard so very often - from account servicing people (the 'sales people' within an ad agency) and clients. Occasionally I have heard it from creative people too. I have my own opinion (there's a surprise...) but I am very curious to hear what others think first. Especially those who don't work day-to-day in the ad business.

I'd say, please define 'good'. I think if good = effective, i'd say no. Effective in reaching target audience, occupying the mind space, reinforce the intended brand image, increase sales - I think all these can be measured.

But most of the time, if you ask me whether it's a good ad (and to use the term loosely), i would immediately think a good ad = an ad that sticks in your mind, entertaining at the same time informative. this does not necessarily equates whether the ad is effective. This is the part that i think is subjective. What attracts you may not attract me.

Especially those who don't work day-to-day in the ad business.

I agree. I think the word 'good' is interpreted differently depending on who you're talking to. Brand manager? Sales manager? Research or the Ad guys?

[fishtank]

Now, i have a question

if an Ad is judged by the sales it brings, then how long should it run for, to justify the its a worthy investment? I often see that sales increases when Ad is on air. but then back to 'normal' when it's off air.

I agree that to advertise is to sell: the idea, the concept, the real product. BUT i don't think ALL advertisements are meant to increase sales. (is this what banana has been trying to convey?) Sometimes it's just to reinforce its position in the market, in the face of competition.

If the sales is up. great. if not, that's fine too. Otherwise, I would have done a BTL (below the line) campaign instead.

[banana]

Now, i have a question

if an Ad is judged by the sales it brings, then how long should it run for, to justify the its a worthy investment? I often see that sales increases when Ad is on air. but then back to 'normal' when it's off air.

I agree that to advertise is to sell: the idea, the concept, the real product. BUT i don't think ALL advertisements are meant to increase sales. (is this what banana has been trying to convey?) Sometimes it's just to reinforce its position in the market, in the face of competition.

If the sales is up. great. if not, that's fine too. Otherwise, I would have done a BTL (below the line) campaign instead.

That's a very good question fishtank. The short answer is, as long as the budget allows. Of course this is oversimplifying the process and the metrics of which belong more in the realm of media buying than ad creation. A good agency should be able to make recommendations, perhaps even derive a media plan if they are full service.

Think of it this way. The advertiser is a person looking to make friends, pick up, and generally become popular. Designers are your clothes makers, some are tailors, others mass producers. Copywriters are your scriptwriters, speech therapists, people who provide you anything from pick up lines to conversation topics. Media buyers tell you which bars to go, get you membership privileges, sign you up for activities, etc. What a full service agency does is to coordinate all these various elements to help you present your best side to the public.

As you can imagine, the more you go out, the more friends you will meet. Even if you have Giorgio Armani personally make you a full wardrobe and M Night Shyamalan telling you what to say, you're not going to make any friends staying home. Likewise, dressing up in a spiffy suit and speaking in Queen's English is unlikely to get you too far with the kopitiam uncles!

On the other hand, going out every day is quite likely to drain your resources and dull the impact you have - people get too used to you. It also takes time away from self improvement and building in depth relationships. In my opinion, an ad that only increases sales when it is airing is not a good ad. That shows it is not memorable.

[fishtank]

In my opinion, an ad that only increases sales when it is airing is not a good ad. That shows it is not memorable.

Then sad to say.. most ads aren't even good ads then? And to think that i'm spending loads of money, LOL. It's like gambling with higher probability of losing than winning. Maybe i should just do a promo, trial packs, don't you think? With that, at least my consumers would have tried my product and if they like it, they can continue buying. if they don't, well, simply put - my product doesn't deliver & hence, fails.

[ksl]

personally what I see, is one advertiser that understands, his clients and two, that are not interested in clients, but possible memorable advertising, Although I am sure Fishtank is looking from different roles.

To an outsider, businessman looking in, I get shivers down my spine, just thinking about the confusion here, with two, and only one, that has never changed is theory. So who would i choose to do my campaign?

I have no wish to attack anyones character, or creative ideology, because i believe there is a use for all creative talent, and many there are too many factors involved, in the planning and execution for all advertisers to be concerned with. But should be concerned!

With regards to how long should an advertisement run, in my opinion would have been decided, before approaching any advertising agency, so one surely must be talking about good businessmen and bad ones.

The aptitude of a good businessman should have covered all aspects, of a total package, which banana is trying to split, into different roles, and although Fishtank is on the ball, he is discussing from his point of view in advertising..but can also see the clients side.

For a businessman looking in from the outside, he can only perceive confusion and a lack of business aptitude, and some philosophy from Banana, that doesn't hit the mark.

If i walk into a kopitiam looking for potential clients and chat to uncle in my spiffy suit, speaking queens English, I would also have to take a translator too, But I can assure Banana that all Uncles want to improve their business, and if their is good profit margin to be had, then uncle is interested, uncle doesn't give two hoots about the spivvy suit, he cares about the money in the bank.

The fact, that you may not be able to convince uncle on the first visit, maybe true, because what we are talking about is changing traditions, and believe you me, that's why my wife and i came to Singapore in the first place, to save a 60 year old company, that was on the verge of bankruptcy, only selling to uncles.

Of course a company that is worthless on the outside has 60 years of networking experience, all uncles in the kopitiam, listen to the guys in spiffy suits, in the year 2008 sunshine, all it takes is time to convert them.

So forgive me Banana that I do not agree with your terms, even though they sound convincing, they lack practical experience.

What I believe you should convince yourself of, is that the maslow pyramid doesn't really discriminate, a good salesman will return day after day to the same place, month in and month out, and although he leaves empty handed every day, he never gives up wanting to make that sale, why is this Banana? and Why didn't Uncle buy on the first day?

Personally it is my opinion, that all good advertisers should only discuss one thing on a public forum, and that is effective sales, because clients will certainly pick up the wrong signals, it's all about business aptitude and cannot be separated unfortunately.

The businessman plans his campaign be it reinforcement or promotional and sets his budget, with goals, he expects the effectiveness to be neutral or positive...and i would believe if it was a negative campaign, that someone would have to be accountable, once the evidence was gathered heads would role, or even agency may even find themselves defending their negative campaign in a litigation case, public opinion would matter, but wouldn't be so difficult to prove negligence, although that is an extreme case and a probability, one should not forget.

My philosophy is still, that no matter what occupation one deals with, negligence can be found and if it was to cost my business money, for nothing, then I would be looking for someone to be accountable.

If i outsource an advertsing campaign, and it was a disaster, that effects my sales severly in a negative way, when for years I was showing positive sales, I would have no alternative but to sue...

Although I would never put my name to a failure in the first place, but many clients do put their trust in agencies.

[banana]

In my opinion, an ad that only increases sales when it is airing is not a good ad. That shows it is not memorable.

Then sad to say.. most ads aren't even good ads then? And to think that i'm spending loads of money, LOL. It's like gambling with higher probability of losing than winning. Maybe i should just do a promo, trial packs, don't you think? With that, at least my consumers would have tried my product and if they like it, they can continue buying. if they don't, well, simply put - my product doesn't deliver & hence, fails.

Correct. Most ads are just fillers, there for the sake of being there and making a lot of noise and nonsense. Kinda like a certain poster

Promo packs aren't a bad idea. They serve a purpose in your marketing strategy - they show your confidence in your product, that you believe in it so much you're willing to give it away free. But beware. Just like over run ads, the novelty of it gets lost over time. The last thing you want is for your consumers to think "why should I buy it when I can keep picking up trial packs?".

Fact is, good ads take effort and understanding. Whoever creates your ads should thoroughly know your product (hopefully with your help) and the desires of your target market. To make truly excellent ads, they have to understand popular culture as well. Take for example this ad for Xbox 360. Unfortunately it was pulled even before airing because someone in Microsoft did not understand his consumers.

If you're selling beer, the cliche is sexy women. If you are selling beer to women though, that's probably not such a good idea. A memorable ad is one that doesn't speak at your consumer but engages them. Be it by being entertaining, clever or provocative, a lasting positive impression will have impact beyond air time.

[ksl]

Correct. Most ads are just fillers, there for the sake of being there and making a lot of noise and nonsense. Kinda like a certain poster

Touche! The truth is difficult to swallow, but easy for everyone to see! People will make their own mind up, after all, its all about opinions. and your statements are obviously a shot in the dark, when you think conservative consumers way of thinking cannot be changed, by the spiffy salesman.

Noise is it! Your life will never progress unless you are ready to swallow your own pride, which is a typical Singapore trait of inherited wealth. Keep flying the flag

[banana]

your statements are obviously a shot in the dark

I concede to your superior expertise in this particular field

[ksl]

your statements are obviously a shot in the dark

I concede to your superior expertise in this particular field

Time Out! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQDjynOzgCk&NR=1