Dex Knows How To Make A Good Commercial

This Dex Knows commercial has been around for a number of months now and every time I see it I’m reminded how effective it is. The messaging is simple and conveyed in a humorous and memorable fashion. This is the perfect example of an effective commercial in my mind. Not only do you get the point the advertiser is trying to make, the addition of humor makes it stick.



What do you think about this commercial? What is the key to an effective commercial for you?

- Dennis

Missed Details Bother Me

This Heineken Light commercial has been all over sports programs recently. It’s a pretty good commercial. It makes me remember Heineken Light and gives me a chance to look at Eva Longoria. These are two great things. At the very end of the commercial though, they loose lose me. When the waitress brings the two gentlemen their Heineken Lights, she brings them glass bottles. Not one stadium, arena or amphitheater in the US, serves any kind of beer in a glass bottle.



I don’t know why this gets under my skin so much. It doesn’t distract from the communication, but for some reason I can’t get past it. Is it because it takes something away from the authenticity?

It’s a beer commercial. They are not generally based in reality. The idea that these guys would be moved down to courtside seats isn’t based in reality, but that part doesn’t bother me.

Am I crazy for letting this bother me? Does this oversight make it a bad commercial? Have you seen other mistakes in commercials that ruin it for you?

- Dennis

Brink’s New Target Audience

For years Brink’s Home Security (or now Broadview) has had the same feel to their commercials. As real and frightening as it is, they have always shown a family being attacked. Whether it is the wife at home alone, the wife with the kids, the kids home alone or the entire family, Brink’s has been targeting the family market. With this newest commercial, Brink’s is going after a different market, the single female market.



My focus of this post is not the commercial itself. The commercial does a fine job of depicting a female preparing for a first date when a man dressed in the burglar uniform smashes a sliding glass door in an attempt to get it. The burglar is quickly scared away by the sound of the Brink’s Home Security System. Besides the avalanche of information that is thrown in at the end, I think the commercial does a good job of conveying the main idea Brink’s is seeking.

My goal for this post is to analyze the switch in target markets. The switch seems like a natural one. Women are seen by society as being more vulnerable to an attack of this type, making the visual images of this stick in the mind of the consumer even more. But I wonder what brought on this switch in focus from families to single women. Does it have to do with more women living alone because of the increase in divorce? Does it have to do with people delaying marriage and therefore more women living alone, or with female roommates? Does Brink’s get any type of halo effect from this? Does it carry over from single women, to families or even the elderly?

I guess this post is more of a question than anything else. I like the move on Brink’s behalf to show the vulnerability of a single woman and the safety and protection that a Brink’s Home Security System provides.

What do you think about this commercial? Does the switch in target markets or branching off of target markets help Brinks in your mind?

- Dennis

Perfectly Targeted Natural Light Commercial

I saw this commercial over the weekend and I was immediately hit with a flashback. I could smell the aroma of stale, three day old beer. The image of waking up to roommates and other people I didn’t know sleeping on the floor. I was brought back to a simpler time in my life. A time when a 12 pack of Natural Light was dinner on a Friday night. A time when I would sit on the couch and have beers thrown at me so I didn’t have to get up. As I watched this commercial I felt like they had rewound my college life and put it on TV.



Natural Light has put a spot light on their target audience with this commercial. There are no fancy parties, no glasses of wine, there isn’t even a bottle of beer in this commercial. Natural Light in a can is joke to many people. To their target audience a Natty Light in a can is an inexpensive, crisp, clean tasting night with your friends. You don’t have to worry about which fork to use, or which glass in front of you is for water. You sit back and enjoy the beer and your friends.

The natapult is a great extension of the emotional connection formed by the commercial. I can remember multiple times when I didn’t want to get up at a party or while watching a football game because I knew my seat would be stolen while I grabbed another beer or some more chips. This commercial puts a humorous yet realistic spin on a situation the target audience can relate to.

This commercial is perfectly targeted for the Natural Light audience. I was captured the second the commercial came on TV. However, it is very heavy on the emotional connection. Having a rational connection mixed in may have made the commercial a little stronger for a viewer who doesn’t have the strong connection to the product that I do.

What do you think about this commercial? Does it have the same effect on someone who doesn’t have a strong previous connection with the brand?

-Dennis

Old School Thursday - Lil' Penny

In honor of the Lebron James/Kobe Bryant Nike commercials being made irrelevant by the Orland Magic knocking the Cleveland Cavaliers out of the playoffs, I thought I would take a look at the original Nike puppet commercial, Lil’ Penny. These series of commercials were full of star power and humor. While they were light on in your face promotion of Nike products, they stuck in the minds of the target audience. Very similar to the Lebron/Kobe commercials, Nike benefits from attaching their logo to the star power of the people/puppets in their commercials.



This commercial was everything I wanted when I was 10 years old. Penny Hardaway was a great basketball player, had a hilarious side kick constantly cracking jokes, beautiful women and most importantly the hottest shoes around. I remember running around the playground yelling “the secret service couldn’t guard me” as I made a lay up. Now that I look at it from an advertising perspective these commercials did a great job of creating an emotional connection. There isn’t a very big rational connection because they don’t need one. The emotional connection was strong enough to make me want to be Penny and wear his shoes.



The Lebron/Kobe commercials are very similar to the Lil’ Penny originals. These commercials also rely on the emotional connection over the rational. The commercial doesn’t contain any technology or value messages that give you a reason to buy Nike products. They are relying on that same emotional connection they made with me when I was 10 years old. I can imagine a 10-year-old kid running around a playground in Cleveland yelling “playoffs” as he puts up jumpers. It doesn’t matter that the only shoe shown in the entire commercial is a puppet shoe. The consumer connects Nike, Lebron and Kobe together in their memory. Not because Nike reminds the consumer of Lebron and Kobe, because Lebron and Kobe reminds the consumer of Nike.

I’ve said before, that in down economic times, companies need to give consumers a rational benefit, be it value or other, if they expect someone to spend the money they are so dearly holding on to. These commercials don’t do that so I don’t think they are exceptional commercials for this current economy. If Nike is willing to ride out this down time and focus on the emotional connection with their consumers, these commercials do a great job of that.

As for the Lil’ Penny commercials, they will forever be ingrained in my mind as a fond memory from my childhood and as an argument in favor of a strong emotional connection lasting a long time.

What do you think about these commercials? Does the emotional connection work like it did with me?

-Dennis

Third Party Frenzy

During economic down times consumers become skeptical of companies selling to them. As a counter to this protectionist way of thinking two companies have gone to third party companies to back up their claims and supply extra credibility. They combine the reputation of the third party companies with a simple to understand main idea. By doing this they lower the iron curtain of skepticism and allow the consumer to see the benefits that are being offered.



This T-Mobile commercial has a simple premise. People are paying too much for their cell phones. They wrap the message in comedic packaging with the story of sending auditors to people’s houses to show them how much they are over spending. And when that doesn’t work, they send in their beautiful spokesperson. The comedic topping to the commercial does a nice job of making you smile, but the main idea is what really sticks with you. T-Mobile will save you money and you don’t have to listen to us, check out billshrink.com for proof.



The Honda commercial works off the same idea as the T-Mobile commercial. They give you the reasons why people buy Honda and stay with Honda. They focus on rational reasons to buy a Honda which work well during down economic times. But since they are so heavy on rational reasons they need some back up to prove they are a good as they say they are. They decided to go with Edmunds.com to prove their story. This third party reinforcement is even a little stronger than T-Mobile’s because Edmunds to more well know and will grab the attention of the consumer easier.

Both of these companies are saying, we have a better product and will save you money and we can prove it. This is a very strong message in a time like this.

What do you think about these spots? Does it matter which third party proof a company uses if they choose to go this route?

-Dennis

“Own Your C” Shows the Light and Dark Sides of Choices

Recently the “Own Your C” commercials have been running with pretty good frequency. The one I’ve noticed the most has a teenage boy throwing his “choices” into the air, only to have them boomerang back and attack him a year later. I thought this was a very good commercial. The strategy was simple and conveyed in a way that was interesting and memorable. After seeing this and the other complimentary commercials, I noticed a pattern. I noticed all of the commercials had a negative tone to them. All of the commercials spoke about negative choices coming back to haunt you. So the other day when I saw the “Tree” version I stopped and thought about which version was more effective.



The negative commercials have fear on their side. When the “Cs” come flying back at the teen that seems to be minding his own business, you get the feeling of fear and shock that the teen is feeling as he crawls into the phone booth for cover. You can picture yourself in that same situation. How many times, especially as a teenager, did you do something that wasn’t the best idea and got away with it? This commercial brings to light that you don’t always get away with it.

The positive commercial does something that is often overlooked when trying to speak to teenagers; it encourages good behavior instead of putting down bad behavior. The commercial depicts a girl nurturing her “C” as it grows into a tall, strong tree. Not only does the tree grow big and strong, it also catches her as she falls out of it. The strategy is easy to comprehend and expressed greatly by the growing tree.



I don’t think one commercial is more effective than the other. They speak to different people and work well together as a rotation. The best part of the campaign to me is they show both sides. They have commercials that show the “dark” side of bad choices and the “bright” side of good choices. I’m also glad they chose to do this in two different commercials. A lot of brands would have tried to put a positive and negative side in one spot, which would have become confusing. Separating the two makes both messages clear and concise.

What do you think about these spots? Do the positive and negative aspects of the two spots work well together?

-Dennis

Old School Thursday - Dodge Charger Circa 1971

In honor of Chrysler coming out with their new campaign to save the company, I thought with this week's Old School Thursday I would take a look back at an old Chrysler spot. I found this old Charger spot intriguing and may give some insight into why the big three are in the position they are in right now.

The 1971 Charger was a great vehicle. It had sleek lines, a low, powerful stance and an aggressive grille. The car was the epitome of muscle in a muscle era. That is why the strategy of this spot is so confusing to me.

The customer in the commercial is shown a Dodge Charger. He loves the car but is looking for something more family friendly since his wife is expecting. The salesman then spouts off the usual family car line, economy, fuel mileage and room … and promptly shows the gentlemen another Charger. This strategy shows Dodge trying to make every car fit everyone.



Instead of making a muscle car for the people that want a muscle car, and a family car for the people that want a family car they tried to sandwich everyone into their best selling vehicle. This strategy only leads to a water-downed product that disappoints everyone.

The road to where the big three are today was long and winding. There were a lot of factors that went into their demise. But in my opinion, this kind of thinking was the beginning of the end of them.

What do you think about this spot? Is this one of the reasons the big three are where they are now?

-Dennis

Baked Lays, The New Gatorade

Baked Lays newest campaign, targeting women is riding the strategy that baked lays will help you get into or stay in shape. On the surface this strategy works. Women trying to trim a few pounds will be drawn to a product that will help them curb their cravings for unhealthy food. Everyone has cheat days. Everyone has cravings. The key to dieting is not totally cutting out the bad food. It’s limiting it to a manageable level, a level that allows you to attain your goals. Lays is trying to position its self as this product, but doesn’t do a very good job in this commercial.



In this commercial Lays shows a woman working out with her trainer. While the trainer goes to get some water, the woman cheats, hide and seek style. She stops working out and upon the return of the trainer, continues counting way ahead of where she actually is. The woman is utterly exhausted and collapses to the floor. Immediately after the woman collapses from exhaustion they show a bowl of baked lays. The voice over then comes in and says, “staying in shape can be deliciously fun”. At this point I’m very confused. Are Baked Lays some type of rehydration product? Will eating a handful of Baked Lays make me feel re-energized? Re-energized enough to finish my work out?

With the way this commercial is cut together Lays is positioning their product as a Gatorade type, re-energizing snack. The last thing I want immediately after working out is a bowl of chips. Baked Lays have 65% less fat than regular potato chips. That’s great. But how does that help you stay in shape. Will the Baked Lays run a mile for you? Or do 50 sits ups for you? No. Baked Lays can’t help you stay in shape.

Lays would be better suited positioning their product as the alternative to full fat snacks for people that are trying to get into or stay in shape. Show a woman in workout clothes at the store. She reaches for a bag of regular chips and has a flash back to her workout she just finished a half hour ago. Then she decides to grab the Baked Lays because they have 65% less fat. Make Baked Lays the snack you choose so you don’t ruin the work out you just finished. The emotional and rational connection would be far more effective this way. Baked Lays just aren’t believable as the product that will help you stay in shape.

What do you think about this commercial? Does the strategy work for you?

-Dennis

Old School Thursday - Wendy's Fashion Show

On a trip through the You Tube universe this past weekend I stumbled upon this old Wendy’s commercial. This first thing I thought was, wow, that was actually a good spot. I started looking further and found more and more classic commercials, both good and really, really bad. These gems have been collecting dust on the shelves of memories long enough. I am going to start bringing them back to life. Every Thursday I will reveal a different Old School commercial and dissect it like I do with current day spots. If you have any ideas for commercials that have gone the way of the dodo email me at UltimateAccountGuy@gmail.com or send me a tweet @TheAccountGuy.

Now on to this week's Old School commercial.

Amid a sea of cardboard cut out burgers Wendy’s went out on a limb and proclaimed they were the unique burger in the fast food dinning experience. They used timely humor and a straightforward strategy as the platform to display all the options Wendy’s has to offer.



The strategy was perfect for the time. At the time fast food restaurants had very choices and there was almost no customized orders. Before Burg King started delivering burgers “Your Way, Right Away”, you were forced to take what was available. Clearly Wendy’s competitive advantage was the ability to get your burger the way you wanted it. This commercial does a great job of conveying the point that at Wendy’s you get exactly what you want and at other places you don’t.

As the dowdy Russian woman walks out again and again in the same outfit you’re hit with a laugh. Add on top of that a good jab at the hated enemy of the USSR and you get a great commercial that conveys a solid strategy and sticks in the mind of the consumer.

Let me know what you think about this spot? Does it hold up to the test of time?

-Dennis

Gillette Focuses In On Their Current Customers

Gillette has adjusted their strategy recently to capitalize on their current customer base. The newest spot for the Fusion blade has a talking blade telling a gentleman that it’s time to get a new blade. When the lubrication strip (also an indicator strip) turns white. It’s time to throw it out and get a new one.



Everyone learns in Marketing 101 that 80% of your sales come from 20% of your customers. So the strategy to focus on keeping your current customers instead of going after the competition makes sense. It even makes sense to try to grow the revenue you receive from your current customer base. They are already buying your product. Why not try to get them to buy more?

It seems like a natural evolution until you think about the current situation of the economy. In this economy people aren’t as brand loyal as they usually are. They don’t feel the need to stick with one brand because that is what they always use. So when you tell your consistent customer of 5 years that he should be buying more of your product you run the risk of coming off as greedy. Granted, there is a payoff to ditching your razor (a better shave) when the indicator strip turns white. But when everywhere you look, people are cutting back and hunkering down to ride out this economic downturn, using your razor an extra week seems like the least you can do.

In my opinion, Gillette would be better served to offer some type of reward program if they want to focus on their current customer base. They could make a program where you sign up on their website, enter the skew numbers from your package of Fusion blades and after your 5th or 10th package you get a $5.00 off coupon. Or even a referral program to earn free packages would help to keep and engage your current customers and bring new customers into the fold at the same time.

Right now, it’s harder than ever for companies to keep their customers. Since it is so important to keep the customers you have already earned, they should be working harder and making it worth the customers while to stick around.

What do you think about this strategy? Is it a solid strategy to keep the customers Gillette already has?

-Dennis

Visa's New Strategy - Security Not Spending

Last month I wrote a post about the new Visa Campaign and how the strategy was miss-directed for the current economy. My view is a this point the consumer isn’t interested in being told there is an easier way to spend their hard earned money. They want to feel safe. They want to know how to save money, how to make their money work harder for them.

So because of this, I was excited to see this new commercial from Visa. It address’ the main problem I had with the previous one. The strategy behind this commercial is safety. You can shop online and know your card information is safe.



In this economy consumers are still skittish about spending money. But if you have to go online and buy a book from Amazon or a pair of shoes from Zappos you have the confidence that your purchase is secure. This commercial makes the consumer feel like Visa is on their side. That Visa cares about their financial security during this tough time. They aren’t just another big bank out to pry more money out of their clenched hands.

One thing I wish had a bigger prominence in the commercial is their website. Visa’s website has an abundance of quality information on their safety features. Why not drive people to your website so they can check out and experience all of the safety features up close and personal. Give the consumer a chance to develop a relationship with the brand.

What do you think about this new commercial compared to the previous one? Does this do a better job of explaining why Visa is the card to use during this time?

-Dennis

Schick Quattro Trim Style In America

A couple weeks ago I wrote about the Schick Quattro Trim Style
European micro site and American print ad. In that post I wondered if they were going to make an “Americanized” version of the commercial. It turns out they did.

I’m going to leave the discussion on American vs. European commercials for another day. We all know that European commercials are more risqué than their American counter parts. I’m more interested in whether or not this subtler version is as effective as the original.



To answer that question simply, yes, I believe it is as effective as the European version but in a different way. The strategy is the same for both commercials and communicated just as well. The “hedges” are trimmed and formed into the same fashionable shapes without the overt double entendres. The American version is more effective in that they show the product more and show how it can be used. The European version is more effective in that it has comedy on its side. Commercials that make people laugh tend to stick around a little longer in the mind of the consumer.

All in all they are both effective commercials in my mind. It’s interesting to see how Schick took the essence of the European commercial and made it suitable for American TV.

What do you think about these two versions of basically the same commercial? Does not being able to be overtly sexual hurt American companies?

-The Ultimate Account Guy

Subway Blows A Great Opportunity

Subway’s newest commercial features “real” people singing the famous/infamous “5 dollar foot long” song. They sing their own rendition of the song in front of a blue, Subway branded wall. As the spot progresses, a message compelling viewers to visit SubwayFreshBuzz.com comes on screen. Upon watching this commercial and visiting the site, I was thoroughly disappointed in Subway.



The “real” people in the commercial and on the site don’t feel real. Even subway calls the videos “auditions” and that’s exactly what they feel like. It all feels very contrived. If authenticity is what you are looking for, and when you go to user generated content it should be, you need to have an organic feeling to it. At least give me some background information on the “auditions”. Where did they take place? When did they take place? Who are these people? Are they just people pulled off the street? The chorus makes me think there was some type of casting call or at least an announcement that Subway was looking for people to sing.

I think they blew a perfect opportunity to interact with the consumer. Especially since this campaign has been so polarizing. A quick YouTube search brings up dozens of user generated videos of people singing the song in every conceivable situation. Wouldn’t it have been better to use theses videos? Subway could have put out a contest where consumers send in their own rendition of the subway song. Give away a first, second and third place prize as a way of enticing entries if you think you wouldn’t get enough user generated content.

What do you think about this commercial and the accompanying site? How could they have made it better?

-The Ultimate Account Guy

Gatorade Goes Animated With Tiger

Gatorade has always been good for a couple impressive commercials every year. From the days of wanting to “be like Mike” to now they’ve been able to keep the attention of the consumer while staying true to their strategy. This is why I was shocked to see an animated commercial from Gatorade. They’ve used CG in the past but, to my recollection, they’ve never gone fully animated.

In the commercial Little Tiger is coached by a wise talking bear. After making a bad shot, the bear gives him some words of wisdom, Little Tiger drinks from a fountain of Gatorade Focus and he’s able to pull off his patented ball-juggling trick.



The strategy is solid, easy to understand and conveyed well by the spot and because of that I like the commercial. You get it. Gatorade keeps you hydrated, which helps you focus and perform better.

The part that confuses me a little is the decision to go with full animation. I have nothing against animation. I think it can be used very effectively. I just think it is an odd choice for Gatorade to use for its Tiger Focus brand. Especially since they didn’t use the animation to do anything extraordinary. There are talking animals, but that can be done with CG or even animatronics.
One reason I can think to use animation is because they couldn’t get Tiger for a shoot. With his knee injury and rehab, were they not able to get him? Seems like a stretch, but maybe that was the reason to go with animation this time.

Either way it’s an interesting commercial that speaks to the consumer in an effective manner.

What do you think about this commercial? What do you think the reason for choosing animation was?

-The Ultimate Account Guy

Just for kicks “Be Like Mike”

Sprite - Slam And A Miss

Sprite has continued its love affair with the NBA during the playoffs. Watching any one of the NBA games this weekend you would have seen this Sprite commercial dubbed “Slam”.



The strategy is the same as usual. Sprite is refreshing and quenches your thirst. The way the commercial conveys that main idea disappoints me. Having people in the spot jump into each other and combust into a spray of Sprite doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t convey a sense of refreshment and enjoyment to me. Why do they have to jump into each other to receive the benefit of the drink? Is the drink painful at first, then the refreshment washes over you?

On the other hand the Sprite commercial below does a very good job of conveying the main idea. Again, Sprite is saying their product is refreshing and will quench your thirst. To do that they have the people in the commercial jump into a basketball court that morphs into a pool. This makes me feel like Sprite is refreshing. I can picture myself standing on that blistering hot basketball court, taking a sip of a cold Sprite and being transported into a refreshing, cool, pool. We all have memories of being at the beach or a pool on a hot summer day, and how nice and refreshing it felt to jump into the water. This spot does exactly that.



What do you think about these spots? Do you think they both convey Sprite’s main idea well?

-The Ultimate Account Guy

State Farm + Lebron = Good Commercial

If you’ve watched an NBA game over the past couple of months you’ve most likely seen the Lebron James State Farm commercial. This is an all around solid commercial. It has an easy to understand strategy, a famous face, a little comedy and most importantly in my eyes it is easy to relate to.



The strategy behind the spot is simple and sound. Most people don’t understand insurance. They don’t really know what is in their coverage and what isn’t. But with State Farm, you don’t have to worry because you’re covered.

Having Lebron James in the commercial lends a memorable face. The “Kid and Play” dance session between James and one of the friends gives the otherwise serious commercial a moment of levity. These features combine to make a memorable and effective commercial.

What puts it above and beyond in my eyes is the selection of the friends. State Farm could have chosen to use three players from the Cavaliers or just two other famous NBA players. Instead they chose to go with Lebron James and two “regular” people. I think this was a great choice. It allows the consumer at home to relate with the “regular” person who had his car broken into. If it was James’ car that was vandalized, you would expect him to be covered because he has millions of dollars and can afford top coverage. Having the “regular” person’s car broken into allows the consumer to feel like they could be in that position. It allows the consumer at home to feel like calling State Farm is a good idea to make sure they are covered.

What do you think about this spot? Does it speak to the consumer effectively in your eyes?

-The Account Guy

Pampers' 1 Pack = 1 Vaccine Campaign

Pampers’ newest commercial is spotlighting their “1 pack = 1 vaccine” campaign. The spot features a woman and her baby, as well as all the babies she helped get vaccinated by buying Pampers diapers.

The strategy behind the program and the spot is very simple. Buy a pack of pampers and an underprivileged child will receive a vaccination. The commercial does a great job of conveying the main idea by showing all of the smiling, healthy children hugging the woman and thanking her for, in effect, buying Pampers.



I think this program and commercial will be effective because it doesn’t ask you to change any habits. The commercial doesn’t ask you to fill out a post card on the package to donate a vaccine. It doesn’t ask you to go to a website to donate money. All you have to do is buy a pack of Pampers.

If you have a newborn baby at home, you are already buying diapers, you might as well buy Pampers and help an underprivileged child at the same time. Even if you normally buy a different brand or find Pampers more expensive, you may be tempted to ignore your brand loyalty or price sensitivity because it is such a worthy cause. Especially when all you have to do is buy Pampers.

What do you think about this program? Will it be effective? Is this commercial an effective vehicle for the program?

-The Ultimate Account Guy

At The Beach … And Screaming

At The Beach is a tanning salon with locations in Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado. I’ve never been to one of their salons, as I do not tan, so I can’t comment on the quality of their tanning products. But because I live in Colorado, I have been exposed to their unique brand of TV advertising.



The strategy seems simple enough. They have tanning beds, something called the mystic tan and you won’t have to wait. As far as that goes, everything is fine.

Then there is the issue of the character/voice over. Is the point of this to annoy you into paying attention? It’s brutal to your ears. It may make you pay attention to the commercial the first time. After that, you want to stab a Q-tip in your ear. I literally change the channel when this commercial comes on. That’s saying a lot for me. I purposely watch commercials because that’s what I do.

Not to mention the character is strikingly similar to Donna Versace.

Has anybody else seen this commercial? Is the point to annoy you into paying attention? Is that an effective mode of communication, or is it damaging to the brand?

-The Ultimate Account Guy

Mother Nature Is A Busy Bee

Mother Nature has found steady work in these unsure times. She’s appeared in multiple forms of the newest Tampax campaign as well as most recently appearing in the new Vitamin Water 10 commercial. Both are fine ads. They have a simple message that is easy to understand and conveyed in a memorable way. The thing I’m interested in is the difference in use of Mother Nature.
In the Vitamin Water 10 commercial, Mother Nature is the CEO of the fictitious “Water Incorporate”. She’s rallying her troops, both Human and Animal, to fight back against the new Vitamin Water 10. She’s a strong personality that will fight to defend what she has created.



In the Tampax commercial, Mother Nature plays the villain. She is bestowing the unlucky woman with her “monthly gift” at a very inopportune time. She’s distraught to find out that the young woman has protection, and won’t be bothered by her “gift”.



I find it very interesting how the fictional character of Mother Nature can be used so differently and at the same time do a good job of getting the message across to the consumer.

What do you think about these commercials? Have two figures been used so differently by two separate companies before?

-The Ultimate Account Guy