I always liked the "Tastes great / less filling" campaign for Miller Lite.
I thought it was strong because the humor was built around the product's selling proposition.
Just like I think the current AT&T "It's not complicated" is great because the humor is built around bigger, faster, more and the like.
But it seems like a lot of commercials these days are built around something funny that has nothing to do with the product or service benefit.
For example, The Martin Agency is far bigger and far more successful than we are, but I just think building so many Geico spots around a joke - the pig that goes wee, wee, wee, the cavemen, the camel on hump day, the two idiots singing on a little stage . . . Well, sure, they're funny. But what the hell do they have to do with insurance?
OK, jump on me. They win awards and all and they draw a lot of attention to Geico, but it just seems like the long way around to me. Getting people to remember the company because of a joke that has nothing to do with the product. Geico could probably cut their media budget if their spots were more benefit-directed.
Now those Allstate "Mayhem" commercials - the humor in all of them has a direct relationship to the selling points. So it's not just memorable because it's funny, it's memorable and funny and reinforces what they are selling.
But that's just me. And I could be an idiot, after all.
Here's another great example of a very funny relevant campaign. DirectTV.
Earlier today I got an e-mail from a friend asking if we could do a hurry-up job putting together some digital ads for web and mobile. His client (he's a media company) decided at this late date to do some holiday promotion and the budget was limited . . . and well, you get the idea. So, even though the budget was less than it shoulda been, we said, sure, we'll help you out of a jam since you're a pal and all. Then he came back to us a few hours later telling us that he didn't need us after all because they found "a publisher who will do it for free." It's not like we'd have made anything on it, we were doing it as more of a favor than anything else. That's not what annoyed me. It's the "for free" part. And the fact that "you get what you pay for" is an alien concept to this client. Which - at last - brings me to my point.
It strikes me that our industry - marketing communications - is not held in very high regard by many businesses. (In other words by potential clients.)They tend to hire junior-level people to run the marketing, pay them very little, give them very small budgets to work with . . . and, of course, get everything free they can get from publications, stations or "publishers."
The Evil That Is Crowdsourcing is another example of this.
Just tune in to almost any creative forum on LinkedIn to get an earful of examples of this problem. It seems to me that local ad clubs and art directors' clubs could do their memberships a real service if they'd mount public service efforts aimed at educating the business public on the values of a) advertising and marketing communications (in whatever print, broadcast, digital or social media you may choose) and b) having it professionally developed and produced. A rising tide floats all boats and all that. So it seems to me that just as Sy and Marcy Syms used to tell us that "an educated consumer is our best customer," the more the business public knows about the real value of professionally produced marketing communications, the better we'll all do. I guess, though, if we're going to continue to let ourselves down and not make an effort to promote the value of what we do, we're going to get what we deserve. More station-produced radio and television, digital ads produced for free by a "publisher" and a continuing decline in budgets. Perhaps local ad clubs would do well to start promoting the industry to the world of potential clients out there. There are some really smart, really great creative folk at work here in the D.C. market. If only some of that firepower were applied to help the community thrive.
I've always believed that marketing communications can be summarized in four words: "Do good. Tell people." As good as the ad community is, it's surprising we don't make more of an effort to tell people.
OK, right up front, this image has nothing to do with today's topic.
But when I searched for "dollars and pennies" to illustrate this post, this is what came up with, and I really like it.
So there you go.
My topic today, fellas and gals is how interesting I think it is that so often organizations that charge a serious high price themselves want to go on the cheap for things like marketing communications or advertising.
If you ask these people why they charge so much more than the average in whatever their business is, they are almost insulted and will share with you several reasons why they are worth it. Most of them, I might add, are also good reasons why they should be happy to pay top dollar prices for top-dollar services.
Then - and often in the same meeting - they can't seem to understand why you're there charging them anything other than below-market prices for your services.
Honestly, there sometimes seems to be a inverse relationship between how much a company charges for its services and how much they are willing to spend to promote themselves.
What they don't seem to get is that when they take this approach, they are telling you "we're worth it, but you're not."
Thing is, in both cases, you usually get what you pay for.
I wonder how much the folks that make the Lucha Fuzz whateverthehellitis spend on their advertising.
At the risk of sounding like an old fart (I have no problem sounding like an idiot, because, as we all know, I am one of those, but I'm not such an old fart), I wish agencies would recognize that not everybody they need to be targeting is 20-something.
Seems like no matter what the product is, the concept, people in the commercial and humor, if there is any, is targeted pretty specifically at people Who Are Not Me. Which, in a way, tells me they don't want my business.
I believe in targeted marketing. I do. I believe that campaigns for Red Bull or Lite beer ought to be targeted to the demographic that drinks Red Bull and Lite beer.
But not everybody is in that generation. It just seems that the creative teams who do the work either are in that demographic or can't see past it. Or - and this is probably a big factor too - it's the old "let's do something really cool so we can win an award" factor at work. "Let's have a camel wandering through an office . . . "
Baby Boomers - make fun of them (us) mock our reluctance to act our ages, do what you want. But don't ignore the fact that more half the nation's wealth and more than $2.3 trillion in buying power is wrapped up in people born between 1946 and 1964. That's a lot.
Baby boomers dominate 1,023 out of 1,083 consumer packaged goods categories, watch 9-10 hours of video a day, comprise 1/3 of all TV viewers, online users, social media users, and Twitter users and are most likely to have broadband Internet access at home.
So think about who's going to buy that beer, use that credit card, test-drive that car or buy that insurance. Think about whether or not we're really going to respond to the same appeal as a 26 year-old will. Maybe one size doesn't actually fit all. Think about it.
And while you're thinking about it, get off my lawn.