Filed under: Comment
In these highly commercial times, companies do all they can to either [1] maximise their revenue potential or [2] protect their revenue potential.
What this has resulted in is companies doing all they can to ensure the only brands that get exposure are the ones that pay for it.
Now I understand the reasoning behind it, but the problem is, in their eagerness to execute their ‘revenue guardianship’, they are inadvertently encouraging people to pay more attention to the brands they don’t want them to look at rather than the ones they do.
What do I mean?
Well, have a look at this …
Yes, it’s an ad for Johnnie Walker … but because they wanted to ensure their brand stood out most of all, they removed all the logos of the products surrounding it which – ironically – made me spend more time trying to identify who they were than pay attention to the whisky brand.
The same happens when TV shows blur out brand names in their programming. I get ‘why’ they are doing it, but it always ends up making me focus more on who the brand is they ‘don’t’ want me to see, than the one they are shoving in my face.
OK, maybe I’m the exception, plus in the case of the Johnnie Walker example, the fact is, [1] the only reason I noticed it is because the watch in the ad is the one I own and [2] I don’t drink so the chances of me ever buying a bottle was going to be small … however I can’t help but feel we tend to forget the way people often consume communication – and information – is through contextual cues and so in our attempt to ‘protect’ our clients investment, we actually end up doing the opposite.
Business decisions might be common sense, but people’s decisions often aren’t.
28 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Your last sentence should be printed out in large letters and glued to the desks of every person involved in marketing. Great point Rob.
Comment by Pete October 25, 2013 @ 6:18 amThe watch in the ad looks much smaller than I remember. Are you sure that’s the same as yours? I assume you would recognise it, but I remember thinking your watch was huge. Small wrists maybe?
Comment by Pete October 25, 2013 @ 6:19 amYou’re right Pete, Rob’s was bigger than the sun.
Comment by DH October 25, 2013 @ 6:33 amhe couldnt afford a porsche back then so it was the best cock substitute he could get.
Comment by andy@cynic October 25, 2013 @ 6:51 amOK, it’s not literally the one I have, but it’s pretty much the same. I’m quite alarmed you remembered that Pete … but not quite as alarmed as what you all think are the reasons I got it when it is literally anything but.
Comment by Rob October 25, 2013 @ 8:39 amyoure not fooling any fucker campbell.
Comment by andy@cynic October 25, 2013 @ 9:17 amIt’s amusing you have written this as I was discussing this exact point with Mary last night. It’s absolutely rife on American television. I understand the reasoning behind it but like you, I find myself trying to recognise the brand that’s blurred out rather than notice the brand sponsoring the show.
Comment by George October 25, 2013 @ 6:25 amI agree with Peter, your final sentence sums things up very well.
is that what you and mary talk about? is that what 3 kids do to you? thank fuck were stopping at one and i can continue being the avant garde man about fucking town.
Comment by andy@cynic October 25, 2013 @ 6:53 amVanity Fair will be so relieved.
Comment by George October 25, 2013 @ 6:59 amGold.
Comment by DH October 25, 2013 @ 7:10 amtwat.
Comment by andy@cynic October 25, 2013 @ 7:40 amAfter this post, I’ve finally understood what you meant when you banged on about sound twisted logic. Only 7 years too late.
Comment by DH October 25, 2013 @ 6:34 amyou mean you finally fucking worked out what a blagger he fucking is. you do realise this was his way of manipulating people to do whatever the fuck he wanted.
“you say no but my planner wank insight tells me you mean yes so now we are engaged”. i swear to fucking god that would be a cia transcript of campbells marriage proposal to saint jill.
Comment by andy@cynic October 25, 2013 @ 6:49 amThanks Andy, you make me sound like a double glazed window seller.
Comment by Rob October 25, 2013 @ 8:40 amIf JW are trying to claim the stuff in the ad are symbols of the adventurer, they’ve never gone further than Rodeo Drive during the sales. They’re not things an adventurer needs, they’re things a yuppie twat has who wants to look like an adventurer but doesn’t fool anyone. Or said another way, the JW target consumer.
Comment by DH October 25, 2013 @ 6:37 amis this where you bang on about your fucking school trip to ben fucking nevis when you were 7?
Comment by andy@cynic October 25, 2013 @ 6:50 amIf that’s a British ad, it’s all the more stupid because there was a no-brand exhibit at Selfridges in January designed to show exactly your point.
Comment by John October 25, 2013 @ 6:50 ami like your spite doddsy.
Comment by andy@cynic October 25, 2013 @ 6:51 amMy spite was restrained – I refused to imply that Rob read about it on my blog or that the creatives went to what was, in reality, not that great an exhibit and got the wrong end of the inspiration stick.
Comment by John October 25, 2013 @ 6:54 amyoure the right fucking social schmoozer arent you doddsy. picking up starlets doubling as waitresses every fucking night. or not.
Comment by andy@cynic October 25, 2013 @ 6:56 amNot.
Comment by John October 25, 2013 @ 7:12 amIncidentally, has anyone ever seen a good whisky advert?
Comment by John October 25, 2013 @ 6:52 amjw have done some good stuff in the past. but so did shirley fucking temple. fucking hell, ive just become as topical as campbell. what the fuck happened there.
Comment by andy@cynic October 25, 2013 @ 6:55 amAre you saying you didn’t like the Isle of Tranquility? Shame on you John
Comment by northern October 25, 2013 @ 5:29 pmIt doesn’t ring a bell.
Comment by John October 25, 2013 @ 8:24 pmUnlike the Hunchback of Notre dame. Boom Tish.
Comment by Rob October 25, 2013 @ 9:12 pmBloody hell, people have been busy with this. Now I’ll go and read them and see how many actually are on topic. My guess. 0.
Comment by Rob October 25, 2013 @ 8:28 amhey campbell, just saw someone with that watch. he looked a jumped up dick. just though you should know.
Comment by andy@cynic October 27, 2013 @ 10:45 pm