A while back I commented on the Guinness ad that I thought was a massive waste of money. If you spend a massive amount of money on crazy grandiose adverts then you're setting yourself up for a serious spoofing (even if the idea was unoriginal like the Guinness one). This effort from Pot Noodle has done away with fictional Argentinian villages (where most Guinness drinkers reside, apparently!) and set it in a more familiar setting for its target market: a council estate! You can bet your trackie bottoms this didn't cost 10 million pounds.
It's a bit early but Happy St.Patrick's day everyone!
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Thursday, 20 December 2007
The best thing I ever made
I'm a very creative person. I have lots of creative ideas, I spend a lot of time writing, and coming up with creative concepts. However, I have the dexterity and manual skills of a foetus. I cannot create anything with my hands, as my hands are very prone to destroying and breaking things. Recently it was my girlfriend's birthday and I baked her this cake. It's pretty shoddy looking but it tasted nice, and it's the best thing that I ever made with my hands, and I am very proud of it.
Just humour me!
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
Monday, 3 December 2007
Unilever Hypocrisy
This article on Brand Republic outlines the fact that Unilever has been criticised for giving out mixed messages about women and the beauty industry. The YouTube video from the article (included below) is a parody of Unilever adverts spliced together to make a very interesting point. It is without doubt guilty of giving out mixed messages but how in the wrong is it?
Article: http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/770806/Unilever-fire-hypocritical-portrayal-women/
YouTube Video:
I'll be the first to admit that this is funny. It's always nice to see people "socking it to" the big brands and picking them up on their hypocrisy and their dodgy dealings. The video makes a very interesting point - Unilever owns both the Lynx (or Axe depending on where you are) and Dove brands and both are giving out very different messages. One is campaigning for 'real beauty' and highlighting the dangers of the superficial beauty industry, whilst the other more or less objectifies women and promises you that a few sprays of a very cheap deodorant will have them stripping off and oiling themselves up quicker than you can say "pffft, like that'll ever happen". I'll let you figure out which is which.
Dove has very famously done very well by striking back at the beauty industry and telling women that they are beautiful however they look and that true beauty comes from within. The real genius is that they still managed to sell beauty products off the back of this. It's like a car advert telling you that driving is overrated and you should probably get the bus anyway. But, somehow it works and it has worked very very well and given the Dove (and in turn Unilever) brand a massive boost and a very clear brand image: one of a caring, benevolent company doing something genuinely different and selfless.
So how does that sit with the Lynx (I'm going to stop saying "or Axe" now because Axe is a stupid name and the idea of summoning women with "the axe effect" has always sounded rather frightening to me) brand? I'm going to try and break down some of the main points and have an argument with myself whilst talking authoritatively about it all. Then I'll try and make my mind up at the end (I'm still not sure where I sit on this one)
Article: http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/770806/Unilever-fire-hypocritical-portrayal-women/
YouTube Video:
I'll be the first to admit that this is funny. It's always nice to see people "socking it to" the big brands and picking them up on their hypocrisy and their dodgy dealings. The video makes a very interesting point - Unilever owns both the Lynx (or Axe depending on where you are) and Dove brands and both are giving out very different messages. One is campaigning for 'real beauty' and highlighting the dangers of the superficial beauty industry, whilst the other more or less objectifies women and promises you that a few sprays of a very cheap deodorant will have them stripping off and oiling themselves up quicker than you can say "pffft, like that'll ever happen". I'll let you figure out which is which.
Dove has very famously done very well by striking back at the beauty industry and telling women that they are beautiful however they look and that true beauty comes from within. The real genius is that they still managed to sell beauty products off the back of this. It's like a car advert telling you that driving is overrated and you should probably get the bus anyway. But, somehow it works and it has worked very very well and given the Dove (and in turn Unilever) brand a massive boost and a very clear brand image: one of a caring, benevolent company doing something genuinely different and selfless.
So how does that sit with the Lynx (I'm going to stop saying "or Axe" now because Axe is a stupid name and the idea of summoning women with "the axe effect" has always sounded rather frightening to me) brand? I'm going to try and break down some of the main points and have an argument with myself whilst talking authoritatively about it all. Then I'll try and make my mind up at the end (I'm still not sure where I sit on this one)
- Lynx and Dove are totally separate brands targeting different demographics and as such the messages in their advertising do not have to run parallel and can indeed be quite contradictory of one another.
- But they're owned by the same parent company, and therefore Unilever is endorsing two completely opposite messages about women, and as such should not be preaching about the negative effects of how women are portrayed by the beauty industry when its own adverts feature scantily clad women pole dancing.
- That's a good point, but the adverts aren't made by the same agencies, so perhaps the agencies are ultimately responsible.
- Unilever would have to approve the concepts and its marketing managers would be well aware of what was happening.
- But each brand within Unilever will almost certainly have a different marketing manager
- They should speak to each other a bit more, they need a water cooler!
- That's a stupid point...wait are you writing all this down? You bastard!
So, in conclusion: I need help and so does Unilever. I think that it is unfortunate what has happened and it almost certainly isn't any one person's fault, but perhaps someone somewhere along the line should've pointed out that they were in fact being really contradictory and sending out mixed messages. The two brands are totally separate and they target different audiences so it is entirely understandable that they portray women in different ways: ways that will appeal to their target market. However, I do think that as they fall under the same umbrella that is Unilever they perhaps need to have a rethink and bring the company's thinking more in line or face more criticism.
It's definitely a difficult question, and I think to answer it properly I would need a much greater understanding of parent companies and corporate responsibility, but with the knowledge that I have of advertising, and the opinions that I have as a man on the street, I think that Unilever has done wrong, but unwittingly, and does not deserve to face any ramifications, but it does perhaps need to have a bit of a rethink about where it stands as a whole company, and how its own image is affected by the individual brands that it owns.
Monday, 22 October 2007
Mario creates a buzz
I found myself in Nottingham this weekend, in particular I found myself in Nottingham's Victoria Centre, where I was lucky enough to spend 10 minutes playing Super Mario Galaxy on the Nintendo Wii. The game is to be released on the 16th of November, and let me tell you, it plays like a dream.The graphics are excellent, the music and sound effects are spot on, but where this game really shines is in the gameplay. The low gravity and exploring small asteroids literally adds a whole new dimension to the classic formula, and the Wii controls felt 100% natural after about 5 seconds. The level I played centred around Mario's bee power-up that lets you take flight and buzz around in stripy overalls. I was planning to ask for this game for Christmas and the sensible adult within me is still thinking this is a good idea, but the child within me who got to play the game is screaming at me to preorder it. I think we all know who wins when a child has a temper tantrum, and I'm not about to send myself to the Naughty Step.
I have criticised Nintendo's advertising on this blog before (I have also praised it) but they are pretty much spot on with their experiential marketing (courtesy of BD NTWK). The booths with people playing games caught everybody's attention and the staff were both enthusiastic and knowledgeable. Everybody wanted a go - Wii owners wanted to try the much anticipated game and vowed to buy it, non-wii owners had a glint of conversion in their eyes, and kids looked on in bemusement as a 21 year old man set the new high-score and reached a level that none of the others had!
My only criticism of the experience that Nintendo had set up is the choice of games: most were good choices, particularly an unreleased Mario game, but I saw one man attempting to play Tiger Woods golf, which hasn't received particularly good reviews and doesn't really show the Wii off at its best. That's my only problem with it, though, and the whole experience on the whole was brilliant, my hat goes off to Nintendo and BD NTWK.
Thursday, 13 September 2007
Run Fatboy Run (brought to you by Nike)
Last night I saw the film Run Fatboy Run. Seeing this film came with much anticipation for me having absolutely loved Simon Pegg's previous 2 films, the brilliant Shaun Of The Dead and the even better Hot Fuzz. I was fully expecting this film to follow the trend and be even better than the last. This, sadly, was not the case and the film was nothing more than a bog-standard RomCom with a brilliant cast sadly wasted on tired jokes and a hackneyed plot. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it: it was entertaining, and reasonably funny in places, but I left the cinema feeling somewhat indifferent.
What made the film a lot less palatable was the product placement, or perhaps I should say brand placement, of Nike.
*A few spoilers may follow, though nothing that would really spoil the film, as the plot was horrendously predictable.*
Firstly, the whole premise of the film is based around the main character Dennis running a marathon. The marathon is sponsored by Nike, with Nike logos emblazoned across the start and finish line banners, and along the entire length of the course. The commentators and news reporters in the film, naturally, mention the sponsors of the marathon many, many times.
I can handle this just fine, in fact it does add a sense of realism to the film that would be taken away by having the supposed marathon not sponsored by any brand (which simply does not happen) or inventing a fictional brand to sponsor it. However the sheer volume of Nike swooshes (the tick logo) to be seen was somewhat over the top.
What made this product placement unbearable, however were the ways in which the shoes had been worked into the plot:
Dennis is presented with a pair of running shoes by his assistant coach prior to the marathon. Cue a close up of Nike running shoes followed by the comment "the man in the shop said they were the best!" Cue cringing from the entire audience.
One of the other marathon runners proposes to his girlfriend at her birthday party. He gives a speech about how he's running the marathon, and how marathon running is normally a solo pursuit, but he would like his girlfriend to become his partner. He hands her a birthday present the size of a shoebox. She opens it and, lo and behold, inside is a pair of Nike trainers! Out of the trainers he pulls a ring box and proposes to her. Cue puking from the entire audience at the most clumsy product placement they've ever seen.
As I said previously, I don't mind the sponsorship of the marathon by Nike. That is product placement that makes sense. I could almost handle the fact that he was given a pair of running shoes and told that they are the best if it wasn't for the close up shot of the clearly Nike shoes. But to have a character propose by giving someone a pair of Nike shoes and pulling the ring out of the shoe is just about the most desperately ridiculous way of working in a product to a film that I have ever seen.
And guess what everyone is wearing when they run the marathon. You guessed it: not only do they wear Nike numbered bibs (which makes sense, and I don't mind) but they were all kitted out from head to toe in Nike gear. This is ludicrous: even if a marathon was sponsored by Nike, people would turn up wearing a whole host of other brands, even a mix of brands (Adidas shorts, Puma shoes, Nike t-shirt, maybe) but in this film EVERY SINGLE RUNNER was kitted out from head to toe in Nike gear, and this was made oh so apparent by the constant close ups of shoes, shorts and anything else with the Nike logo on it.
I'm all for product placement. I think it plays an important role in building up brand retention amongst consumers, and placed subtly it can work wonders. This Nike placement, however, was so constantly and obviously rammed down the audience's throats that it actually made for uncomfortable viewing at times and several audible groans could be heard towards the end of the film. If anything, I think that it will damage Nike's image amongst film goers. If they had stopped with the sponsorship of the marathon I think people could abide it, and would've gone away with Nike in their head without necessarily noticing. Unfortunately the sheer volume and lack of subtlety in this film meant that people went away feeling angry and annoyed with Nike. I heard a few people grumbling about the product placement, and one person angrily (and sarcastically) exclaiming "Yeah! Of course EVERYONE wears NIKE don't they?!" as we exited.
I hope this isn't the beginning of a trend towards more brand placement of this ilk. If it is I certainly will find myself going to the cinema a lot less. In the future I hope that companies just DON'T do it like Nike did.
What made the film a lot less palatable was the product placement, or perhaps I should say brand placement, of Nike.
*A few spoilers may follow, though nothing that would really spoil the film, as the plot was horrendously predictable.*
Firstly, the whole premise of the film is based around the main character Dennis running a marathon. The marathon is sponsored by Nike, with Nike logos emblazoned across the start and finish line banners, and along the entire length of the course. The commentators and news reporters in the film, naturally, mention the sponsors of the marathon many, many times.
I can handle this just fine, in fact it does add a sense of realism to the film that would be taken away by having the supposed marathon not sponsored by any brand (which simply does not happen) or inventing a fictional brand to sponsor it. However the sheer volume of Nike swooshes (the tick logo) to be seen was somewhat over the top.
What made this product placement unbearable, however were the ways in which the shoes had been worked into the plot:
Dennis is presented with a pair of running shoes by his assistant coach prior to the marathon. Cue a close up of Nike running shoes followed by the comment "the man in the shop said they were the best!" Cue cringing from the entire audience.
One of the other marathon runners proposes to his girlfriend at her birthday party. He gives a speech about how he's running the marathon, and how marathon running is normally a solo pursuit, but he would like his girlfriend to become his partner. He hands her a birthday present the size of a shoebox. She opens it and, lo and behold, inside is a pair of Nike trainers! Out of the trainers he pulls a ring box and proposes to her. Cue puking from the entire audience at the most clumsy product placement they've ever seen.
As I said previously, I don't mind the sponsorship of the marathon by Nike. That is product placement that makes sense. I could almost handle the fact that he was given a pair of running shoes and told that they are the best if it wasn't for the close up shot of the clearly Nike shoes. But to have a character propose by giving someone a pair of Nike shoes and pulling the ring out of the shoe is just about the most desperately ridiculous way of working in a product to a film that I have ever seen.
And guess what everyone is wearing when they run the marathon. You guessed it: not only do they wear Nike numbered bibs (which makes sense, and I don't mind) but they were all kitted out from head to toe in Nike gear. This is ludicrous: even if a marathon was sponsored by Nike, people would turn up wearing a whole host of other brands, even a mix of brands (Adidas shorts, Puma shoes, Nike t-shirt, maybe) but in this film EVERY SINGLE RUNNER was kitted out from head to toe in Nike gear, and this was made oh so apparent by the constant close ups of shoes, shorts and anything else with the Nike logo on it.
I'm all for product placement. I think it plays an important role in building up brand retention amongst consumers, and placed subtly it can work wonders. This Nike placement, however, was so constantly and obviously rammed down the audience's throats that it actually made for uncomfortable viewing at times and several audible groans could be heard towards the end of the film. If anything, I think that it will damage Nike's image amongst film goers. If they had stopped with the sponsorship of the marathon I think people could abide it, and would've gone away with Nike in their head without necessarily noticing. Unfortunately the sheer volume and lack of subtlety in this film meant that people went away feeling angry and annoyed with Nike. I heard a few people grumbling about the product placement, and one person angrily (and sarcastically) exclaiming "Yeah! Of course EVERYONE wears NIKE don't they?!" as we exited.
I hope this isn't the beginning of a trend towards more brand placement of this ilk. If it is I certainly will find myself going to the cinema a lot less. In the future I hope that companies just DON'T do it like Nike did.
Friday, 7 September 2007
A glass and a half of awesome
I have a new favourite advert. I have a new favourite advert every few months: I can never settle on just one great piece of work to say is my absolute favourite, it really depends on when you ask me. The same goes for music: I still don't know what my favourite song is after 21 years of life and gigabytes upon gigabytes of albums. Perhaps I'm just indecisive, but I prefer to think that I'm open minded and people keep creating new masterpieces every day, and when I discover them they temporarily take the number 1 spot along with a whole host of others.
To get back to the original point of this post, my new favourite advert is for Dairy Milk and features a gorilla playing the drums along to the classic Phil Collins tracks "In the air tonight".
Here's the ad in question:
I think Fallon have created an instant classic that people will remember for many years with this advert. I think it plays very well on the British love of off-the-wall humour and the simple fact that anything can be made exponentially more entertaining by placing a guy in a gorilla suit into human situations - see The Mighty Boosh and Trigger Happy TV for evidence. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that Bollo the talking gorilla from The Mighty Boosh is also a drummer: this may well be a deliberate link, I'm not sure.
Anyway, the advert is also very attention grabbing, both visually and aurally: the simplicity of the music and the close-up on a gorilla (which isn't obviously a man in a gorilla suit until further into the ad) is very powerful. When I first saw it I missed the opening "a GLASS and a HALF FULL PRODUCTION" which, of course, instantly informs the viewer that this is an advert for dairy milk, with a welcome return of this classic slogan. By missing it I thought that I was watching an advert for an animal abuse charity at first and I was intrigued to see where it was going. Needless to say I absolutely lost it when he (I'm assuming it's a he; I don't know why) started playing the drums. Somehow they've managed to make the gorilla's face gurn perfectly in the same way all drummers (myself included) do, which is a brilliant touch: he really looks like he's feeling the music.
I think one of the main reasons this advert is so good is that it is a refreshing change from the more standard in your face "here's the product, this product is great, did I mention the name of the product? Buy our product, here's the logo, slogan, blah blah blah buy our product!!" school of advertising. It is entertaining, and it mentions the product very briefly. Simple, effective, and I crave a dairy milk every time I see it.
I haven't yet seen any other media from this advertising campaign, but I hope that Fallon have integrated this advert across other platforms - billboards, digital and POS featuring the gorilla would serve as neat reminders of the TV version, get people talking about it and, of course, buying the chocolate bars. I am, in all seriousness, going to buy a big bar of Dairy Milk next time I go to the shop, just to say thanks for this great piece of advertising (honest, that's the real reason, nothing to do with cravings the likes of which have never before been felt by someone who wasn't pregnant).
To get back to the original point of this post, my new favourite advert is for Dairy Milk and features a gorilla playing the drums along to the classic Phil Collins tracks "In the air tonight".
Here's the ad in question:
I think Fallon have created an instant classic that people will remember for many years with this advert. I think it plays very well on the British love of off-the-wall humour and the simple fact that anything can be made exponentially more entertaining by placing a guy in a gorilla suit into human situations - see The Mighty Boosh and Trigger Happy TV for evidence. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that Bollo the talking gorilla from The Mighty Boosh is also a drummer: this may well be a deliberate link, I'm not sure.
Anyway, the advert is also very attention grabbing, both visually and aurally: the simplicity of the music and the close-up on a gorilla (which isn't obviously a man in a gorilla suit until further into the ad) is very powerful. When I first saw it I missed the opening "a GLASS and a HALF FULL PRODUCTION" which, of course, instantly informs the viewer that this is an advert for dairy milk, with a welcome return of this classic slogan. By missing it I thought that I was watching an advert for an animal abuse charity at first and I was intrigued to see where it was going. Needless to say I absolutely lost it when he (I'm assuming it's a he; I don't know why) started playing the drums. Somehow they've managed to make the gorilla's face gurn perfectly in the same way all drummers (myself included) do, which is a brilliant touch: he really looks like he's feeling the music.
I think one of the main reasons this advert is so good is that it is a refreshing change from the more standard in your face "here's the product, this product is great, did I mention the name of the product? Buy our product, here's the logo, slogan, blah blah blah buy our product!!" school of advertising. It is entertaining, and it mentions the product very briefly. Simple, effective, and I crave a dairy milk every time I see it.
I haven't yet seen any other media from this advertising campaign, but I hope that Fallon have integrated this advert across other platforms - billboards, digital and POS featuring the gorilla would serve as neat reminders of the TV version, get people talking about it and, of course, buying the chocolate bars. I am, in all seriousness, going to buy a big bar of Dairy Milk next time I go to the shop, just to say thanks for this great piece of advertising (honest, that's the real reason, nothing to do with cravings the likes of which have never before been felt by someone who wasn't pregnant).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
