But that end line “everywhere”?
Does the message connect to what we already think of Visa?
But that end line “everywhere”?
Does the message connect to what we already think of Visa?
Usually I find cross promotions annoying at best, awkward and forced at worse.
This is the rare cross promotion that I think works for both products. It shows off some neat Godzilla special effect and shares something about the Fiat (surprisingly big). It fits the tone of other Fiat commercials, gives us some humor (craving Italian) and is on-message.
I found this video interesting but ultimately unsuccessful. Watching the girl go through her life was heartbreaking, made more so, by her narration. The repetition of the line “I didn’t cry” is really effective at punctuating her pain but also reminding us of her pride and resilience in the face of the horrors she faces. I felt the punchline which is really the call to action just falls flat. After all she’s gone through, is her biggest problem really she doesn’t have water? I guess maybe…, I don’t know, but it moves the video from an emotional appeal to a rational one, suddenly I’m thrust into the position of having to judge whether water is at the level of child marriage or your mother is a prostitute, that’s not really the level Water is Life wants to be operating.
Frankly I’m not sure if this ad is motivating at all. There’s so much wrong with the poor girl’s life, how is fixing one thing going to make it right, it feels so daunting, that you just want to give up.
This video from Save the Children takes another tact. It tried to use humor and surprise to get your attention (as opposed to Water is Life which just uses shock value). The punchline here is more effective, but I found myself distracted because I was feeling sorry for the models. It felt like they were being punked, and I shared their discomfort rather than engaging with their message. That’s where this video falls short, I can’t transfer my discomfort with the execution to being upset about the facts they’re presenting. The message is clear, but the emotions are muddied.
I think something both these videos show is the importance of the punchline. Both these videos depend on their punchline to deliver their message and their emotion, but they both fall short because the punchline doesn’t connect with what came before either emotionally or in terms of message.
Funny thing about this ad is that it wasn’t made by Tesla. You should read the story here, but basically it was a bunch of college grads looking to break into advertising. They spend a grand total of $1500.
What I love about this ad, is that it totally gets the emotion right. It tells a story of wonder, of excitement, of innocence. There are a lot of reasons to buy a Tesla, but basically, they’re saying you buy it because its just plain cool. (Not because you want to be cool, but because its coolness excites you.) They tell you that in a story, no, that’s not right, they don’t tell you, they show it.
What’s more, I think they capture the truth about what makes Tesla cool. I’ve reviewed a bunch of ads recently that tell great brand stories, but when the company is revealed, it feels like a let down because what they’re saying doesn’t match the identity that brand holds in my mind. Maybe because these guys are outsider or beginners (there’s a whole zen concept of beginner’s mind) or really smart and talented or just really in tune with Tesla (probably some combination of all those things), they seem to hit the nail on the head.
I love the moment with the dad where he dons the cardboard helmet. This spot is what it means to be on-emotion & on-message.
They could have chosen to sell a product, all electric, zero to sixty, cutting edge, blah, blah, blah, instead they created a brand identity. That’s a much harder lift, but it works here because its authentic to the product, and these days, that might be more important than creativity.
So this one missed the mark.
I like the delivery and Neal McDonough, but man is that ad off base. What is it selling exactly? Ok I know its selling a luxury car, but what is the message of the ad? A mindless devotion to stuff? Working obsessively? It’s almost like a warped parody of the Chrysler “Made in Detroit” commercials. Jingoistically proclaiming American greatness, but without the original’s grit or underdog spirit.
There’s an arrogance to this ad, an almost mean spirited tone that totally ruins whatever the creators were going for.
When you get the tone wrong, its really hard to recover.
Big disclaimer… this ad has some disturbing images.
I really don’t like this ad from Save the Children UK.
I don’t like shock value, and I think this ad depends on the easier to access shock value rather than the harder to achieve hope. Its shocking because they think that will get attention, and they’re right, it will get attention. But when they have my attention where do they take me? Can they get me to connect to the message and give me money to their cause, which the ultimate goal of this ad.
I think they missed the boat. They could have shown a mother giving birth, we could have heard the baby crying, but what about seeing the happy family members? What about seeing the mother holding her new born baby? They could have told a moving story, a story every parent could connect with, instead they decided to shock us into paying attention.
Instead of relief or happy or hope, they leave me feeling grossed out and kinda spent emotionally, that’s not what’s going to motivate me to give. The image in my mind is the mother turned on her side crying, is that really the emotion & message they’re trying to convey?
Beyond being off-emotion, I think the ad is off-message. The CG’s feel misordered, they should have put the midwife information into the middle of the ad, and ended with “Make sure a baby’s first day isn’t its last…” which has a nice ring to it and hits the message they’re trying to deliver.
Attention is easy, real emotion is hard, this ad takes the easy route and is less effective for it.
Is this the first political ad filmed on an iPhone?
I’m all for doing something to get some attention, but what the point of filming it on an iPhone (other than to save money or get attention)? There might be legitimate reasons to film on the iPhone, “My campaign doesn’t have as much money as my opponents…” or maybe its just a gimmick to make the ad feel more “homey” or to make her likable (see I’m like you, I film things on my iPhone). In that case you have to go with the concept and trust it. Having her holding the iPhone then cutting to images that were created in a studio seems like a cop out at that point.
I don’t find the ad cutting edge or really interesting, though the copy has some potential. To me the iPhone thing is more distracting rather than a plus or interesting, it takes away from what could be an interesting message. What if she used the iPhone to tell her story, then encouraged her supporters to send in their iPhone videos of their families? What if she used the iPhone like we all do, taking selifies and quick pictures from her day of filming, then continued to push out iPhone videos of her day? Then the idea is about more than just the ad, its a concept to engage your audience rather than a lame gimmick that doesn’t really tell me anything about the candidate.
So you might expect that I’d deem this Dell ad a failure based on my last post.
Yes, I know Dell was started in a dorm room and part of what attracted me to Dell (back when I was in the PC world) was that sense of excitement around something new. Dell was an innovator, selling directly to consumers, building PCs to order. But I’m said to say for me and Dell, that was almost 20 years ago now. The Dell of today,from where I stand, has become another commodity, whether they fell pray to the innovator’s dilemma, just didn’t have a second act, or just lost touch with their roots and values as they grew, I don’t know.
That’s why this ad is so compelling. It touches on the Dell that I remember, it touches on that excitement and the feelings associated with boot-straping and startups. I think this ad is well done, in case you haven’t gotten that point yet. But I think the real test of whether this ad is a success or failure is what Dell does next.
Is this just another ad designed to bolster Dell’s position in the market place or is this ad a real attempt by Dell to reconnect with their roots? Is this ad a signal that Dell is going to take ownership of that startup story?
If Dell thinks that they can run an ad like this one and continue with business as usual, and things will change, then I think they’re in for a surprise. But if Dell is really committed to having that start-up spirit again, if we (meaning consumers) see those changes in their choices as a company, well then that’s an exciting proposition.
What if Dell said, “We’re the computer company of entrepreneurs everywhere because we were started in a dorm room, so we get it” (ok that’s more of the meta-message, they should say that, but much less on the nose). What if they had special services that catered to the entrepreneur in all of us. Like what? I don’t know, Dell would need to figure that out, it could be a special tech support system or having a business consultant who could help you use Dell technology to start your venture, the details (so long as they’re actually useful to entrepreneurs) aren’t so important, what is important is that they match their message, the story they’re telling in this ad, with what consumers see them doing.
People have good bullshit detectors, if a company spins a story that doesn’t match the reality, folks usually pick it up. This is a compelling ad, an ad that tells a story, the real question is this: Is that story fiction or nonfiction?
I read a great book last year called “Hannibal and Me.” In a nutshell, the book talked about the writer’s obsession with the great Carthaginian General Hannibal. In examining his life, he makes a larger point about success and failure. Rome never defeated Hannibal in battle. At one point he killed something like 1/5 of all Romans who were eligible to serve in the army. Was Hannibal a success or failure?
Sixteen years always fighting the much larger Roman army on their home turf never defeated, and ultimately never victorious… Hannibal never took Rome, never brought Rome to its knees. He was defeated by a Roman General named Fabius. Fabius’ strategy, constant retreat, he never won a battle.
How we define success and failure is often overlooked, but it is critical to remember what your ultimate goals are.
Which brings us to these ads:
I think these are both terrific ads, great copy, well filmed with compelling visuals (wait for it, here it comes….). But I have to wonder if the build up matches the payoff.
After all that does an apron really equal progressive? Is that what Progressive is about? Is it about hard work, about the people who show up everyday without a hint of glory? That’s not what I think of as Progressive Insurance, they’re the ones with Flo and low rates, maybe.
And the second ad, is beautiful. Its how anyone in love feels when they look at the person they love, it captures a truth, and in doing so it says we get it, we understand you. I was with the ad, in with the payoff (how long did it take for those flowers to sprout) that was a little sappy. But its selling what? Hair care products, what? How are they involved in love? I mean the woman had great hair, but what? Now maybe that brand has some affiliation with that message, but still I felt cheated at the end.
So are these good ads? Yes. Are they successful ads? I don’t think so…. Which brings me back to my first question: Are these good ads? Can an ad that doesn’t succeed in pushing its message, that doesn’t change the image of a brand or build upon its existing image be a good ad?
I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think it can.