Archive for Medium
BP: Taking Responsibility or Polishing Up Public Image?
Posted by: | CommentsThough it seems like a distant memory to some, the fiery demise of BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig occurred only six short months ago. Within this six-month time frame, BP has experienced relentless criticism from a surfeit of media, politicians, and Americans. (See: South Park’s interpretation or President Obama’s candid reaction)
Unlike the Exxon Valdez, BP faced a media landscape that disseminated information and images in a matter of seconds for the whole world to see. And while the Deepwater Horizon oil well was successfully capped in mid-July, enduring images of 4.9 million barrels of oil blanketing beaches, wetlands, and the ocean are engrained in the minds of Americans. Who could forget the oil-soaked pelican on the cover of Time magazine? Or the outraged shrimp boat captains advocating for financial assistance on the nightly news? The BP oilpocalypse is an unshakable memory.
In an effort to reshape public perception, BP spent $93 million in corporate advertising between April 2010 to July 2010 to inform Gulf Coast residents about the recovery effort. From a YouTube channel (with 5.8 million plus views to date) to national TV commercials, BP’s expansive Make It Right campaign delivers messages about the steps BP is taking to restore and revitalize the Gulf Coast in the wake of the oil spill disaster.
Initially, the campaign featured former BP CEO Tony Hayward assuring the American public that BP was taking responsibility for the spill by responding to claims at no expense to the American tax payer. However, the campaign quickly shifted its focus after heavy criticism about the message and the disgraced CEO.
Is it any coincidence that BP’s new messaging strategy incorporated iconic images from the spill? BP’s strategy is smart – reframe public perception by allowing the public to reinterpret BP’s role in the oil spill tragedy. In the BP Make It Right Wildlife commercial, Time‘s oil-soaked pelican is oil free and released into clean waters. In the Mississippi Fishermen message, the angry fisherman is happy once again and open for business. BP enhances the reinterpretation of their role in the disaster by recirculating the same message through a variety of different advertisements and vehicles that reinforce BP’s agenda – “BP has got to make things right and that’s why we are here”.
Once the well was capped, media coverage of the spill evaporated quickly. As a result, BP uses these messaging vehicles to improve the view of the organization in the eyes of the American public and company shareholders. The Make It Right messages provide insight into how BP continues to improve lives in the Gulf Coast area long after the TV cameras and journalists return to their news desks.
Yet, are these messages necessary? Does a $93 million campaign justify the means?
Some may argue that BP should be syphoning advertising dollars into the bank accounts of those impacted financially by the spill. And though this is a valid argument, BP must generate revenue in order to pay the hefty price of their transgressions. The mismanagement of the crisis in the early months of the spill is indefensible, yet the steps BP is currently taking to “right their wrongs” should be commended. If deemed a success, BP is faced with a unique opportunity to parlay this initiative into a model to follow for future crisis communication advertising.
Though the line is thin, BP has to take responsibility for the spill in order to polish their public image because the implications of this campaign are crucial to BP’s future success. After all, memories are powerful predictors of future behaviors.
“Fast Don’t Lie” or does it?
Posted by: | CommentsHot off the press Adidas launched their new “Fast Don’t Lie” campaign including TV spots and music videos featuring well-respected athletes Derrick Rose, Dwight Howard and MR. T-esq character Slim Chin. The ads portray the idea that the new adiZero Rose and Beast, both footwear, give you speed that “Don’t Lie.” Each ad makes a humorous attempt to send the message that Slim Chin got rich because he’s fast and the rest of us can achieve the same goal if we wear gold chains, stand on top of bikini towers and hang out with pro basketball players. All the flashy bling and catchy songs, all the while blatantly shoving the shoe in our face, capture our attention. But is it too much? Are these ads over kill with the multiple spokes characters and peripheral, superficial cues?
We know that our attitudes towards products and brands can be influenced depending on the effort we place on them. The factors that affect our attitudes come from all different angles. Communication source can foster source credibility, strengthen or weaken company reputation and even lead to source derogations. Consumer attitudes are influenced by where and from whom the message is delivered. Consumers are more likely to trust ad messages if the spokesperson is perceived as knowledgeable or an expert as opposed to someone who has no experience with the product or industry at all. Research shows that credible sources have a higher impact on consumer’s attitudes when a message is hard to understand or complex than if Joe Schmo is the source. Consumer’s attitudes are also influenced by more credible sources if the spokesperson is a good match for the product. Consumer confidence in their attitudes about a product is heightened with better source credibility. That being said consumers with very confident attitudes are hard to sway using communication sources if there is already a firm belief in that attitude.
This Adidas campaign seems to contradict itself in few ways. Multiple spokespersons in the same ad seem like clutter. The fact that the two different spoke characters are on entirely different spectrums is another story. As discussed above in order to foster positive attitudes about a product the source credibility needs to be good. Having professional athletes advertising the shoes gives great credibility because they are experts. These men base their career on their performance and being fast is key desire for getting ahead in sports. If you want to be fast you are motivated by Derrick Rose and Dwight Howard to get the shoes that are best. On the other hand we have a humorous character that seems to be for entertainment purposes only and has no experience in the sports industry. One expert plus and one flashy unknowledgeable bystander cancel each other out. Another aspect of the ad is its complexity. This campaign is packed with gold chains, gold jumpsuits, gold jet skis, lady pyramids, cheetahs and side shots to basketball courts and shoes in action. Where is the focus? It is all so distracting. Consumer attitudes are influenced by this kind of confusion. If the sources are credible it is easier for them to sort through the clutter. Once again the more distracting spokesperson is the less credible source therefore motivation to organize the message is low.
Do these types of advertisements work based on our attitude effort levels? On one hand we have source credibility issues that tap into central-route processing. Strong, accessible, persistent, and resistant attitudes are what we use to judge complex advertisements. If we are confident in our attitudes towards source credibility then it is easy to make a judgment about Slim Chin. On the other hand peripheral-route processing can be more prevalent because of all the visual cues this ad presents. Not having to process the information intensely might be appealing to consumers who are just looking for more entertainment in ads. Either way it is processed I think there should be only one attempt made by the message, high involvement by the consumer to process or low effort to entertain but sell.
Don’t get me wrong the ad is hilarious but will we remember it was for Adidas shoes for will we just be harmonizing with Dwight Howard “Fast Don’t Lie?”
Socially Responsible Social Media?
Posted by: | CommentsSocial media is truly the wild, wild, west of the advertising industry.
This is especially true when deciding how to regulate information as it is disseminated throughout social media channels. The regulatory bodies are struggling to police an overwhelming amount of new content (the internet) while staying current by creating and enforcing applicable regulations.
One example of regulation in the new medium comes from the Food and Drug Administration’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications. The FDA was able to find and reprimand a pharmaceutical company based on its use of social media.
The company, Novartis, was providing information through a Facebook sharing widget on the company’s US consumer website. The widget is simply a clickable button (Pictured below) that will allow consumers to share the Novartis generated content with everyone in their Facebook and Twitter networks.
The content would be shared without the normal regulations placed on pharmaceutical companies such as conveying risks, directing them to more information or possible side effects.
In a letter sent to Novartis, the FDA stated that the shared content is deceptive because it “makes representations about the efficacy of Tasigna but fails to communicate ANY risk information associated with the use of this drug”. Tasigna is a drug that treats chronic myloid leukemia and the FDA realized that the risk to consumers was substantial.In this case, the FDA was fortunate to catch the unintentional deceptive practices but the era of relying on regulators to help weed-out misleading messages is over.
Social media has many murky areas for advertisers, including marketing of alcohol. In the past, manufacturers have required everyone to enter their birth date when entering their private website while Facebook and Twitter don’t require a minimum age to access content. The general rule in television advertising is that the general audience for the ad should not have more than 30% of the audience under 21. With social media, curious consumers of any age can access pictures of adults at various stages of intoxication, read comments advocating the use of alcohol, see promotions, and play games directly on the libation manufacturer’s page.
The Federal Trade Commission and consumer watchdog groups are doing their best to monitor alcohol-related content, but are having little success because of the overwhelming number of outlets.
So where does the responsibility fall?
The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the institution of advertising, now more than ever. Advertisers and other message builders must step-up and take responsibility to police their own actions and realize the impact that the institution has on society. Not only does the institution of Advertising reflect societal and cultural beliefs, it also models ‘rules’ of behavior. If agencies continue to use misleading practices and model negative behavior they could change the normative values of society.
These ideas are especially important when addressing the issue of social media because the enormous volume of messages shared daily can never be monitored comprehensively. So with the shift of power from the few traditional gatekeepers to the general public, the institution of advertising must mirror this move and take on more responsibility.
In the fast evolving and quickly changing landscape of social media, the responsibility must shift toward individual agencies to produce work that is beyond the obligation to the client by serving the good of society.
Indulgence vs. Indecent…when advertising takes guilty pleasures too far.
Posted by: | CommentsFast Food, Shoe Sales, Ice Cream, Reality TV…The things that we absolutely adore, but rarely admit for fear of facing judgment. Things we don’t need, are not necessarily good for us, but we occasionally justify because they make us feel so good.
Haagan Daz Print
Sound familiar? It should, even if you never fall prey to temptation. Ad agencies learned long ago how effective it is to appeal to consumers’ hedonic needs. Of course consumers purchase products and services to fulfill functional needs. We need water to stay hydrated, food for sustenance, gas to make our cars run, but often the things we really desire; decadent food, lavish clothing, and sex, drive our behavior. Marketers and agencies alike have told us to spoil ourselves, to give in and let our temptations take over, be it chocolate, ice cream, a soothing bubble bath or big greasy cheeseburger.
Adrina Patridge for Carls Jr.
Some of these indulgences are worse than others and because many of them conflict with our symbolic needs, (our desire to be perceived in a particular way by and how we relate to others), many people keep their “guilty pleasures” a secret.
Yes, consumers go to great lengths to hide these little imperfections. Women cut the tags off of new clothing before slipping it in the closet, hoping their husbands won’t notice. Meanwhile their husbands are careful to dispose of the cheeseburger wrapper from their fast food lunch before pulling in the driveway. And who hasn’t spent a Saturday in your pajamas watching an all day marathon of Jersey Shore or Top Model, all the while hoping your friends don’t call so you won’t have to come up with an excuse for missing spin class.
All of these things, despite the pleasure they provide us, create turmoil in our minds because although they bring us pleasure, “we know better.” It’s an approach-avoidance conflict that we all experience when we desire something that fulfills one need, but fails to meet another. These examples are mild; we know that all things in moderation can be healthy, but what happens when the desire is truly wrong? As consumers, where do we draw the line at acting on our hedonic needs and overlooking our symbolic needs. And as advertisers, is it right to encourage an unethical action to fulfill these needs?
Earlier this month the Buffalo Bills radio network dropped an advertising campaign for AshleyMadison.com, an online dating site that uses the tagline, “Life is short. Have an affair.” This isn’t the first time that this site has been dropped from or denied an advertising buy based on the ethical position of the network or broadcast association. The site also tried to purchase a spot in the 2009 Super Bowl and the 2010 Academy Awards. Both networks denied the site’s bid for airtime citing a conflict of interest between the ad content and the demographics of the audience. The site was however, allowed to run an ad during the February 2010 Pro Bowl which reached an audience of 5 million viewers.
Jenna Jameson for PETA
It’s no secret that sex sells. In recent years we’ve seen ice cream, fast food and even PETA embrace sexual images as a way to capture attention and sell their products and ideas.
Obviously everyone has a set of values and ethics that we live by and we make choices based on these values, a sort of internal monitor as to what we find offensive, inappropriate, or edgy, but acceptable. Sometimes these perceptions very by situation and company, but with changes in social values, the proliferation of free media and a desire for networks and terrestrial radio to keep up with cable and satellite competitors, it’s no wonder ads are constantly pushing the limits of social propriety.
Advertising has the power to persuade. It’s dependent on each of us within the Advertising Institution to determine how we use that power. Some say because a product is legal, it’s fine to promote, while others think there is a right place and time for specific products and messages given possible dangers, i.e., alcohol, and tobacco. Given the content of the AshleyMadison.com commercials, what do you think?
The 30-second spot is beyond suggestive. It outright tells you to go out and cheat on your spouse. The company even has additional campaigns running online to teach you how to cheat without getting caught. Talk about a guilty pleasure you want to keep under wraps!
You might expect to see commercials like these on an adult cable network, or hear the radio version of it while listening to Howard Stern on satellite radio, but during the Super Bowl or any other professional sports event? Never! There are children watching those games, who follow their favorite players week after week, dreaming of emulating their performance on the field. It’s bad enough that parents have to hope their son‘s or daughter’s idol is truly someone for them to look up to, without also having to censor the ads they will see while watching them perform.
I applaud the networks that denied AshleyMadison.com these opportunities. Everyone knows that extra-marital affairs happen. In fact, Americans are seemingly intrigued by adultery scandals involving celebrities, professional athletes, even the President of the United States. The more scandalous, the better, but that doesn’t make it right.
In a society where bisexuality, homosexuality, co-habitation, divorce, and multiple marriages are widely accepted there should be no need for a service like AshleyMadison.com or for the promotions of the service to be placed in mainstream media where inappropriate audiences could be exposed to the messages. We as advertisers need to recognize that there is more to life than pleasing a client and making “funny” or “pretty” ad. We need to show more social responsibility when considering the time, place, content, and context of the messages we produce and places in which those messages are received.
AshleyMadison.com can keep running on the Playboy Channel, Howard Stern Radio and in Maxim magazine where the appropriate (if there is such a thing), audiences can receive their messages. The only guilty pleasure I want with my football is a big plate of hot wings and a frosty beer.
It’s a New Barbie World
Posted by: | CommentsRemember those lyrics – “I’m a Barbie Girl, in a Barbie World . . . Life in plastic, it’s fantastic”? Sure, I’ll admit that I do. But I spent most of my childhood years playing with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Transformers action figures. I was more concerned with Master Splinters and Megatrons than with Kens and Dream Houses. Yet I still know the song, and I’d venture to guess that most everyone does. If not, they definitely know Barbie. From toddlers to grandparents, all of us – regardless of age or gender – know who she is. And that’s the point: We really do live in a Barbie World. Whether we’re active participants, or casual by-standers, we are indeed living in it. Well hey, haven’t you heard? That world is changing, and it won’t be the same again.
(a snapshot of the interactive Barbie Channel)
Please say hello to the newest Barbie for our digital age. An article from Advertising Age explains how since October 2008, Mattel – the company that produces the Barbie dolls – has been running an interactive “channel” (more of an interactive web portal) on cable television that is all things Barbie. This channel functions as a one-stop-shop where viewers can get videos of Barbie on demand, play games, and immerse themselves in the “Barbie World” experience. Now Mattel is gearing up to launch yet another Barbie Channel on AT&T’s U-Verse starting this October. One channel; now another. So why the forward progression? Mattel has found that between September 2009 and April 2010 they were effectively reaching their targeted audience of girls, and they’ve got the numbers to prove it. Girls were spending about seventeen minutes per day interacting with the Barbie channel and 17.7 million consumers were viewing the Barbie webpage. Of course, their 2010 sales were looking pretty good, too. With such strong numbers backing up their efforts, the new Barbie Channel is estimated to reach an expected 19 million people. Don’t be surprised if in the near future you witness more marketers turning to this new trend of interactive television. This same article shows how according to the findings of a survey of 100 national marketers conducted by the Association for National Advertisers and Forrester Research, 75% of the respondents said they thought interactive television would be the next big source of marketing and advertising. Break out the Dream Houses everyone ‘cause Barbie’s coming home.
So what are the potential implications of such an expanded Barbie World? If things shift from being a Barbie World to a Barbie Universe, where does that leave us? Barbie, and her maker Mattel, have for years come under fire, with concerned parents and advocacy groups questioning whether Barbie is a responsible role model for young girls. For the most part, we’ve all heard the basic general complaint that Barbie is too perfect and that this causes lower self-esteem among girls who wish to, but can’t (for obvious physiological reasons) emulate her appearance. It seems only natural that citizens of this new digital Barbie World will again pose the same questions. That’s not to say that people shouldn’t do so. It is vital for consumers, especially parents, to examine this new trend of interactive television – not limited to solely Barbie, mind you, but everything their children may potentially watch.
Was the creation of the Barbie Channel a responsible decision on the part of Mattel? On the one hand, one cannot blame Mattel for doing business; it’s what they are, after all. Does anyone blame Apple for creating the iPhone? Most likely the answer is no. However, it probably won’t be too surprising if Mattel and the Barbie Channel come under attack yet again. “They’re targeting children in a whole new way, which will in turn make them feel bad because they don’t look like Barbie.” “Mattel is invading our homes with ads for products and toys to make themselves richer.” These may be two hypothetical complaints regarding the launch of the new Barbie Channel. Is Mattel is doing at least one thing right, though? In one instance, they are bringing parents into the process and offering a way for them to request information about Barbie through the interactive channel with the click of a button. They want everyone to be involved in the Barbie experience. Win the parents over, win the kids – that’s their mentality. Should Mattel be congratulated? It’s difficult to say. While they do provide parents with requested information about Barbie and her products, Mattel is providing a host of other things – products, ideas, and feelings – to the children who, one could argue, do most of the actual television viewing. And these offerings are loaded with potentials risks – risks that will soon be accessible with the press of a button on the remote control. Is this responsibility? Providing children with an interactive channel that seemingly fulfills their every Barbie desire, while promoting Barbie products within an inclusive Barbie world comes close to resembling a kind of hypnotism. There’s got to be some lasting effects from all this Barbie exposure at such a high, interactive level. So is this healthy for kids? They might as well be making their products with poisoned plastic parts.
Earlier it was mentioned that the usual questions of self-esteem will again surface in the face of a new digital Barbie. Let’s examine some of the potential risks. First off, with increased interactive exposure to Barbie through various means such as videos and games, one must be sure to monitor the self-concept of the channel’s viewers, which have the potential to be altered. Children watching the new digital Barbie may be more inclined to create a negative self-concept of themselves due to the highly interactive nature of the channel. Negative self-concepts existed back when it was only toys, so imagine how it will be in the new world of on-demand videos and interactive play: the effects of these risks may be multiplied in their strength and influence. These kids may wonder if they are pretty enough, or why they aren’t blonde. In addition, there may be increased desires to fulfill symbolic needs – this includes everything from purchasing the latest Barbie products and toys to even buying make-up so as to look like Barbie – so that these girls will feel pretty enough. An increased motivation to acquire these products will eventually occur. Wanting new toys in not inherently bad, of course. Yet if this desire becomes paramount to a child’s maintaining high self-esteem, a line has been crossed, and a psychological risk could potentially develop. In the short-term, it may be that parents spend a little extra money on Barbie products so their kids stay happy; in the long-term, however, the cost may be a question of more than mere dollars and cents. As will be seen next, the risks do not stop once children reach adulthood. In fact, they may become life-long ghosts that haunt Barbie-stricken individuals.
Issues of low self-concept, unfulfilled symbolic needs, and psychological risks that stem from Barbie exposure can extend into adulthood and cause people to drastically alter their outward appearance. There is even a term of this affliction known as the Barbie Syndrome. An article from CBS News illustrates how in one case, a woman was reported as having undergone 31 plastic surgeries over the course of 14 years (the cost coming close to $100,000) in order to come closer to resembling Barbie. Spending over $100,000 on 31 surgeries! When is it too much? The woman who underwent these procedures stated that at age 6 she looked at a Barbie doll and wanted to be like her, seeing Barbie as glamorous. The article states, according to the woman who had the surgeries, “’I just wanted to look better,’” she says. “’Barbie was the blank canvas I filled in all those years ago. It was still my role model.’” Bull’s-eye, folks! When Barbie becomes the role model for looks for any person – there is a Ken Syndrome, too, gents – there is an inherent problem with the values it is sending to consumers. This case occurred years ago, before the advent of the interactive Barbie Channel. With a result like this that speaks for itself, what does it say about the implications of an entire channel devoted to Barbie that’s targeting girls ages 2 and up? Well, for one, plastic surgeons may soon be cashing larger checks. Here’s the overarching issue of the interactive Barbie Channel: it increases the ability for young girls to immerse themselves in Barbie, and come out of the experience with feelings of inadequacy. Before, one had to actually acquire the doll, open it, and play with it for this psychological process to take place. Now it’s as easy as clicking a button. Less time can have major implications for the young generations. This isn’t a Barbie you can hide in the toy box anymore.
Tomorrow’s Barbie World is here. Like it or hate it, there is no real escaping it. There hasn’t been any escaping from Barbie since it was first created back in 1959. It’s part of our culture, and world culture for that matter. But does that mean we should lower our defenses just because something is familiar? I know my neighborhood, but I still lock my doors at night. The implication is simple: a life in plastic is NOT so fantastic.
Driving the Message Home Safely: An Ad Standing Out Against the Trend of Violent PSAs
Posted by: | CommentsPublic Service Announcements. We have been seeing them for decades and many of them have famously educated us on important information about safety, health and societal concerns: if you lock your doors at night you’ll take a bite out of crime; Mr. Yuck means poison; by ten o’clock at night you should know where your children are; this is your brain on drugs… and it’s fried.
However, a new trend seems to be emerging in the PSA genre. Gone are the days of Smokey-the-Bear-type “safety mascots” and crying Native Americans on the side of littered highways. Instead, these somewhat conscientious and prudent methods of distributing information to the public seem to be taking a backseat to more realistic, graphic, no holds barred approaches. The previous appeal to subtlety and implied undesirable consequences has dissipated. And now, more than ever, it has become acceptable to portray violent behavior and physical trauma as a suitable means to drive home a point.
As one might expect, some of these more gritty Public Service Announcements have garnered media attention for their arguably flagrant use of violence. One such television spot that made waves in the social media community and graced the headlines of CNN, FOX News and TODAY was a PSA released in 2009 titled “COW – The Film That Will Stop You Texting and Driving.” Produced by the police department of Gwent, Wales, the short film realistically depicts an intense traffic collision, graphic injury to children, and death. Yet another was a PSA for Women’s Aid called “Cut Movie” where actress Keira Knightly was shown being brutally beaten to spread awareness of domestic violence against women. (The PSAs can be viewed through these links. WARNING: graphic images of violence and abuse. Please view at your own discretion.
So, herein lies the problem. Is it ethical feed into the media machine of realistic violence on television just to reach the public? Have the values and behaviors of society been altered to the point where a PSA requires tragedy and gore to obtain the attention necessary to educate? Or is it just easy?
Despite the appearance that shocking images and scare tactics are the new standard for disseminating public awareness, a PSA released by the Sussex Safer Road Partnership in early 2010 has done much to combat that notion. The announcement, titled “Embrace Life” tackles the serious issue of seatbelt safety. Interestingly enough, though, the ad is not filmed in a car, but rather at a child-sized table and chair in a living room. This setting gives the spot elements of whimsy and abstraction, but when the message is delivered, it is received powerfully and clearly.
The “Embrace Life” campaign assumes a component of responsibility lacking in the aforementioned graphic ads. It does not alienate a part of the market by being potentially disturbing for children to view, or too intense for people who abhor violence. Nor does it make the viewer want to tune out, which researcher are discovering is happening in ads using scare tactics. Recent studies suggest violent PSA are not effective and even counterproductive because they cause some viewers to take on feelings of defensiveness instead of receptiveness. While other ads are throwing physical pain, personal anguish and damnation in the face of the viewer, the “Embrace Life” PSA influences the greater public by suggesting that loved-ones care. They want you to be safe and will suffer if you are gone, which is much more impactful and positively received.
Overall, it is refreshing to know that responsible advertising can still carry some clout in regards to information dissemination. And, with this emerging information about the potential damage and ineffectiveness of fear-centric “shockvertising,” it is a wonder if advertisers will regress and pursue a different, more appropriate creative avenue. Or will they continue their current path of trauma as means of reinforcement because society claims it’s necessary in order to make a lasting impression? All I know is, we’ve come a long way from Vince and Larry the crash test dummies, folks.
Low-involvement, consumer goods brands face the challenge of differentiating themselves in product categories that are sufficiently saturated with very similar products, such as the beer industry. Dos Equis, in 2007, launched an advertising campaign centered on a fictional character, The Most Interesting Man in the World, whom they portrayed in television advertisements accomplishing outlandish feats and seeking adventures around the world. This ad campaign plays on the trickle-down effect as Dos Equis seems to assume that consumers of lower economic classes than the Most Interesting Man in the World will seek to emulate his behavior, and in this case, drink Dos Equis beer. Generally speaking, American consumers strive to better themselves economically by working hard enough so that they may achieve financial success. Thus, those in the elite are admired for their success, or envied for their inherited wealth; either way, those in the middle or lower classes tend to look up to the elite, and try to imitate their behavior. So, Dos Equis is using this wealthy and adventurous character to persuade consumers that although they aren’t as interesting as he is, they can be one step closer to being The Most Interesting Man in the World by drinking Dos Equis beer. The brand positions its beer as an affordable luxury; while the Most Interesting Man in the World enjoys the finer things in life like exotic vacations, he also drinks Dos Equis. If the average Joe can buy a six-pack of Dos Equis for $7.99 (at your nearest BevMo) and feel like the Most Interesting Man in the World while drinking one, why wouldn’t he?
Dos Equis, in creating such a worldly and accomplished man to recommend their beer, also takes advantage of the fact that consumers value the opinions of those whom they perceive as experienced. His age, estimated in the fifties or sixties, also adds to this image of a knowledgeable man. By incorporating characteristics that consumers value into the character of The Most Interesting Man, Dos Equis makes his recommendation of drinking their beer very persuasive.
At the same time, they use humor by going to such great lengths to portray him as “interesting” with absurd traits or hobbies that the viewer cannot help but laugh. These commercials entertain, and some viewers even look forward to seeing a new one, to see what his next ridiculous talent will be.
The institution of advertising as a whole is expected to be socially responsible by informing the consumer, rather than manipulating the consumer into buying products they don’t actually need. Alcohol advertising is held to even greater accountability with regards to sensitive social issues like drinking and driving and underage drinking. Though these topics are never directly addressed in these commercials, one could argue that Dos Equis is being socially responsible in the way that it frames the act of drinking beer: a leisurely activity which adults (twenty-one or older) engage in occasionally after a long day of work, or in the case of The Most Interesting Man in the World, worldly activities. The Most Interesting Man is not shown guzzling multiple Dos Equis before “curing narcolepsy” or while chest-pressing two women in chairs; rather, when the mood strikes for a refreshing bottle of beer, after a day of exotic adventures, the Most Interesting Man reaches for a Dos Equis. His now infamous tag line “I don’t always drink beer. But when I do, I prefer Dos Equis,” clearly does not encourage binge drinking or other socially irresponsible activities involving beer. This almost serves as a reminder to the consumer that excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages is very rarely perceived as a classy act. A Dos Equis, as portrayed in the commercials, serves as a final note to the day, not a start of a rowdy night.
There are opponents to this campaign, some of whom argue that the commercials are not believable, specifically in the fact that a wealthy man like the Most Interesting Man in the World would drink a Dos Equis. He is portrayed as a man who can afford many luxuries, so the question some critics ask is why would he settle for a Dos Equis? This all depends on taste, for these critics clearly do not like the taste of Dos Equis, so cannot buy into the idea that such a worldly and rich man would enjoy this specific beer. Others question why an older man was used as the main character of beer commercials, which are generally targeting college-age young men.
However, most consumers enjoy the entertainment aspect of these commercials, and those of age to consume alcohol might say, “If the Most Interesting Man in the World drinks Dos Equis, why wouldn’t I?” Class is the ultimate persuader in this ad campaign, as Dos Equis creates this character of the Most Interesting Man in the World who possesses both money and worldly knowledge. This has such an impact on the consumer because these are two qualities which most Americans strive to accumulate a wealth of over the course of their lifetimes. The commercials thus position The Most Interesting Man in the World as someone who most consumers will respect and therefore value the opinion of. The sarcastic nature of the ads simply adds to the positive associations consumers will create in their minds toward Dos Equis beer for although we strive for perfection, we do so knowing that perfection is impossible. So by making the accomplishments of The Most Interesting Man in the World so wildly impossible to believe, Dos Equis takes advantage of this tension within consumers of craving perfection while knowing it cannot be achieved. This ad campaign influences consumers to consider Dos Equis when purchasing beer, and influences the beer industry in creating an ad campaign that stands out from the rest in using such a classy and respectable character to persuade consumers.
This campaign could influence the greater society in the interpretation of The Most Interesting Man in the World’s sign-off “Stay thirsty, my friends.” This could have multiple implications, but the most plausible would be that it encourages consumers to “stay thirsty,” keep drinking, Dos Equis beer. This affects society in its promotion of alcohol consumption, and the side-effects or fatal accidents which occur when consumers do not drink responsibly, but is a relatively moderate statement due to its abstract or vague nature and the many different possible interpretations one could make of it. However, in conjunction with all other advertisements for beer, this could lead to an all too positive perception of beer by consumers; while beer is not a harmful substance by any means, irresponsible consumption thereof has caused an obscene amount of injuries and fatalities. This explains why alcohol advertising in general is a very tricky business in walking the line between promoting its products as superior to competitors while not condoning irresponsible behavior, which both public and private institutions make sure to monitor.
A compilation of the Most Interesting Man in the World commercials:
Liberty Mutual-Responsibility
Posted by: | CommentsThe first time I saw this commercial, it really stuck with me. Liberty Mutual doesn’t mention their name or brand logo until the very end, so before even knowing the sponsor, I really appreciated the ad. The concept is ‘Pay it Forward;’ each little nice/helpful thing you do for someone will continue a chain of helpful events. I love this concept because it’s a reminder for all of us in this fast paced world that all the little things add up. Picking up a toy a child in a stroller dropped is such a simple thing to do, yet it is so helpful for that parent trying to juggle a million things and may not even realize the child dropped their beloved stuffed animal.
At the end of the commercial I was really surprised to learn that it was for Liberty Mutual, an insurance company. I think they’ve done a great job emphasizing that their company is responsible, and will be there for you when you need that extra bit of help. Furthermore, they managed to create an insurance ad that isn’t dull and dry; something I haven’t seen since the Geico Insurance ads.
Buckets For The Cure
Posted by: | CommentsWith Susan G. Komen ‘Race for the Cure’ events taking place across the nation this April, KFC has found a perfect time to partner with a charity. KFC has now launched their ‘Buckets for the Cure’ campiagn, which gives 50 cents to Susan G. Komen for every bucket of chicken purchased.
However, with buckets of chicken costing around $10 these days, is this really a charitable enough contribution? 50 cents of 10 dollars, thats 5%…I don’t find this number to be impressive honestly. If a major national company wants to partner with a charitable organization, great, but actually make a significant contribution.
KFC hopes to reach their 8.5 million dollar goal of money raised for the cure by May 9, 2010. The campaign, which began April 5th of 2010 has raised a little more than $2 million right now, and KFC is quickly running out of time.
In my opinion, they should have made a bigger contribution to the Cure for each bucket sold, even $1 per bucket would have been reasonable. Is a 5 percent donation per bucket large enough for KFC to reach their 8.5 million dollar goal? Doubtful.
If interested in more information, visit www.bucketsforthecure.com
Bank of America Doors Ad
Posted by: | CommentsThis ad has been out for a year or so, but they have started showing it on TV again and I really like it. I’m a Wells Fargo customer, but this ad is inspiring and shares the right message at the right time by a bank. I think its inspirational and just makes the character of BoA seem virtuous.
