Aesthetics of Promotion

To answer your question, 2 words: brand imaging… or if you like image branding, image advertising, positioning… tap dancing. LOL (Okay, maybe the last one not so much ) The bigger the company and the more well-known the product, the more likely they are to engage in image branding. And we know it’s effective, just ask Coke… but not always.

The first ad is a good example. It’s not original (I’ve seen this ‘busy subway scenario’ waaaaaaaay more than 4 times) and it really doesn’t seem to have much to do with the product. Just out of curiosity, where was this ad aired? Obviously not on broadcast TV… no one does a 2 1/2 minute commercial. Even cable commercials aren’t that long. Heck, it’s even too long for the Internet. Quite honestly, I was done with it about half way through… get to the tagline already.

However, I do not think the second ad fits into this visually-stimulating-but-not-relevant-to-the-product category at all! In my opinion, the opposite is true; the visuals PERFECTLY drive the product (or in this case, service) message. It’s a textbook example of how to capture your audience’s attention and leave them with an image that communicates your message without the need for words.

But was that your point…?

I agree that larger brands often employ the method of aesthetic advertising for the sake of being aesthetic…and many times it works for them too.
However, I also wonder if many of the advertisers who use this technique don’t have a well-defined target audience? It seems to me that aesthetic advertising would appeal to a much wider audience than other techniques. I guess this is because we are all attracted to the aesthic. This would make sense for the first ad with T-mobile. Everyone has a cell-phone and the commercial emphasizes that by showing a large array of people, young and old, male and female, etc., and allowing the viewer to identify with them. Like Lisa said, I do think the visuals of the second ad are relevant to both the message and the service offered, and I think it demonstrates how an ad can be both aesthetic and relevant.
So the question becomes, is aesthetic advertising a cop-out for not having a defined target audience or wanting to appeal to everyone?

To clarify, the T-Mobile was an online viral ad. I’m not sure if they organized the whole thing themselves or bought the rights to the film and added their name to the end which is kind of the opinion i’m getting. I find Ashley’s point interesting. It does seem that T-Mobile has such a broad audience that specifically gearing an ad towards one DMA would not appeal to the other consumers. I would have to say aesthetic advertising IS a cop-out and sort of a ‘lazy’ method to reach their audience via the Internet. It seems that companies realize the great potential of online marketing but do not necessarily get how to utilize it effectively. I too fast-forwarded cause it was too long and has been done multiple times before. The T-Mobile ad, like is said, just screams laziness and that they’re trying to find every way to make themselves seen online.

The second ad I really like but I feel the same way about it. It seems they just asked a graphic designer to make an advertisement that could be interpreted as meaningful towards the company. I guess it has just been a while since I’ve seen an ad that really drives the message effectively while still rewarding the viewer.