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
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
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
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
Friday, April 24, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
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”
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”
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
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
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
Monday, April 20, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
