All of us harbour a theory about how advertising works because when asked, everyone has an opinion on what works and what doesn’t. But we’re not always aware what that theory really is and how it found its way into our heads. More often than not it is predicated on the assumption that people’s behaviour is rational and largely driven by reason – a rather self-comforting thought. Hence, we spend most of our strategic/creative agency conversations discussing ‘message’ – what’s easy to reason around.
Now, I’m not saying we should stop doing that or that this conversation is obsolete. Not at all. But I firmly believe it attracts a disproportionate amount of attention from both brand owners and agencies. Or rather, it draws attention away from the strategic question about what the audience outtake ought to be in a much wider sense than a verbal message. Most of planning processes and tools in the agency world today are constructed with the underlying assumption that their job is to help brands implant messages into the conscious minds of people. And in a majority of cases, this turns out to be verbal messages. A few personality attributes may also be injected as “wrapping paper” for the “core message”, often as an afterthought. This, I believe, is stifling Viagra-potent lateral ideas that can literally transform businesses.
This Audi film was developed from the insight that compact SUV-inspired cars are often perceived to be boxy, which isn’t the case at all with the streamlined Q5. While this barrier is being addressed head on in the creative with the message “unboxing the box”, you decide whether the effectiveness of this spot hinges on the rational, conscious understanding of this message or should rather be attributed to the emotion this ad makes you associate with the Q5.
Think about it.
In their article “50 years using the wrong model of TV advertising” Robert Heath and Paul Feldwick say the following: “Clients and agencies must take on board that advertising can be effective without “message”, “proposition”, or “benefits”, and recognize that attempts to impose these may reduce not increase effectiveness.” Does this scare you? Good. Find out more about why they say what they say
here:
- Exploding the Message Myth
- 50 Years Using the Wrong Model of TV Advertising.
Robert
February 18, 2009
I don’t tend to like this rational vs emotional argument that goes on in terms of communication because more often than not, they’re inherently linked anyway … the issue is more about relevance and resonance however you raise a great point about the secret to advertising success because in my mind and my experience, the answer is there isn’t one.
Infact, given the time it takes to make things happen, client and agency ego, competitive behaviour and just general ‘acts of god’ in society, if there is any element of genuine ‘effective advertising management and creation’, it’s the ability to get clients, society and retailers to start acting and thinking like human beings again
fredrik sarnblad
February 21, 2009
Does anyone else care to share their view? The questions stands: Does the effect/effectiveness of the Audi spot above hinge on the conscious, logical understanding of its “unboxing the box” message or should it rather be attributed to the emotion this ad evokes and makes you associate with the Q5?
Rob
March 3, 2009
Time for the next post I think Freddie
edward ong
April 4, 2009
I think the ‘unboxing the box’ message is a bit odd. That sounds like an Audi brand proposition not a Q5 launch ad.
Either way, it doesn’t work for me. The ad works on a more rational level – telling me that what I know is box is now more shapely and more streamlined. Ok. Sure. But when I switch off the tv, and look around and see boxes that look like boxes, I’d still think a box is a box is a box. And that’s what I see in about 80% of the time in the commercial – a box.
The Audi Q5 is a compact SUV that supposedly comes with a lot of features not found on a regular SUV. It’s a mini version of the Q7, and was launched last year.
I think this is the launch ad for the Q5 in Europe. (Apparently, there are more women buying the Q5). Anyway, why should an ad for a product never seen before presume to address a problem about its shape?
fredrik sarnblad
April 8, 2009
Hi Ed…hope all is good on your side. I take it you’re not interested in a Q5.
Firstly, I don’t actually think the assumption is that there is a problem with the Q5 itself. Rather this ad is addressing a wider problem related to the category of cars in which Q5 competes – the cars commonly referred to as “boxy compact SUVs”.
For me, this ad doesn’t work primarily on a rational, conscious level but rather by the emotions that the combination of the music and the interestingness in the execution evoke.
Rob
April 18, 2009
The thing I think some people are forgetting is that we’re in the commercial creative business and so even if an ad has no obviousness interms of ‘offer’ or ‘prop’ … at its inception someone, somewhere must of had an idea/direction for the creatives to work to and so at some point – whether blatant or via some form of subtext – there will be a brand related message somewhere in the communication.
Of course that doesn’t mean having Gillette style THIS RAZOR HAS 77 BLADES SO CUTS BETTER rational messaging, but it does mean that even emotions have to form some sort of ‘point’ for the brand … because if creatives can do whatever they want then we stop being a commercial enterprise and start being artists and as much as people may like that idea, adland pays better.
Rob
April 18, 2009
I should add … advertising pays better than struggling artists.
[Please note I am not disagreeing about the importance of emotional communication or its all encompassing power over say overly-rational ads ... however I just don't like when people say 'propositions' are outdated because they're not, they influence the creative direction which is needed because free-form is not a commercially viable [or sensible] approach.
The issue is when creatives/planners think the proposition has to be translated/expressed in such a way that it spoon feeds the viewer/reader etc into understanding what it’s all about – because [1] the assumption people are thick/lazy is offensive and [2] communication – especially on television – is meant to entertain, not bore people into submission.
There’s other reasons but I can’t really be arsed to write anymore … ha!
fredrik sarnblad
April 18, 2009
I share your view Rob.
james povolotski
October 15, 2009
thank u fredrick for sharing,i also share da same view about advertising.please also check my website for
3d,graphic design jobs,models,portfolio and more.