Archive for Specific Virtues
Sweet Holiday Memories… And a Coke.
Posted by: | CommentsAs October draws to a close and the trick-or-treaters make their last-ditch, mad grab at whatever remains of the Halloween candy, we (as consumers) know it’s coming. We can feel it…
Of course I’m talking about the annual, November 1st roll out of the holiday decorations and marketing material. From here on out it’s going to be nothing but evergreen wreaths, twinkle-lights and jolly men in red suits charging twenty bucks for a picture with the kids. And while some still manage to be enamored with festive cheer, most of us with ages in the double digits just bristle and steel ourselves in preparation for the onslaught of the holiday hustle and bustle, green and red price points, the must have items of the season, and two dozen of the same pop-singer-reengineered carol songs on repeat in every retail outlet. Tis the season for yuletide consumerism and its full swing, (Santa) baby!
However, I must digress from my traditional holiday humbugging to mention the one thing I do look forward to: the ads. This small stretch of the year between November and December has managed to produce some fairly iconic advertisements and commercials over the past decades. So much so, that some are even pulled out of the vault, dusted off and re-aired annually to inspire a sense of nostalgia in the consumer. For example, and my personal favorite, the Hershey’s Kisses holiday bells.
For others it’s the one where the M&Ms have a run-in with Mr. Claus resulting in Red and Santa fainting in shock. But I think for most of America, through-out the years, it’s always been the Coca-cola classic Commercials that are anticipated.
Starting in the 1920s with the iconic tin signs for Santa drinking a Coke Classic, Coca-Cola has established themselves as a brand with an annual holiday campaign, chalk full of memorable images and characters. As the years have rolled on, some of the other noteworthy holiday ads include the Coca-Cola Trucks in the 80s and of course most recently the Polar Bears (and subsequent penguins) campaign that’s been the Coca-Cola Christmas staple over the past handful of holidays.
This, in my opinion, is a great tactic because Coca-Cola Classic has not only managed to further their brand image, but establish long-term memory recall in the consumer base. When you think about it, the Coca-Cola commercials have, in some ways, woven themselves into the autobiographical memory of their target by purchasing key media slots so that the iconic commercials are seen during the seasonal, family get-togethers, traditional holiday parades such as the Macy’s Day, and of course on Christmas eve.
This year, Reuters is reporting that the brand is going to step away from the polar bears they have recently depended on. This year, Coca-Cola has partnered with the musical group “Train” and aim to produce a song akin in fame to the “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” campaign that ran in the 70s. They are banking on, if the song is a hit, to have audio memory recall of the brand whenever the song is played (on their commercial OR on the radio) in hopes that such a substantial recirculation and repetition will lock Coca-Cola in the #1 awareness slot of the consumers mind.
So, now the question is, since Train is a pre-established band that has a history of declining CD sales, will this go down in history as another Coke holiday hit? Or will it be an ill received, flash in the pan ad when compared against the likes of the classic polar bears? Only the iTunes download numbers will tell.
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.
What’s better, Pepsi or Coke?
Posted by: | CommentsA Coca Cola truck driver, who cannot resist the Pepsi Max for its taste, has been recorded by the Pepsi truck driver. And then the video has been sent to YouTube immediately.
Does this story sound familiar? Yes, it is a remake of the 1995 Pepsi commercial – only tiny changes in product and characters, as well as the contemporary social media – YouTube.
Truly, this commercial is undoubtedly a direct comparative message which emphasizes the “better taste” of Pepsi Max than Coke Zero. There are several scenes conveying this idea: 1) the Coke truck driver asked for confirmation: zero calories? It seems that he cannot believe that this product is zero calories – it doesn’t taste like that. What’s the implication? Usually people have the impression that something good for your health (i.e. zero calories) tastes bad. If you cannot decide whether this implies a better flavor, there are other two scenes. 2) The Coke trucker drinks a lot more. 3) The serving people’s conversation “maybe he likes this”. Why the trucker’s behavior can lead you to believe that Pepsi Max has a better flavor? First, you will never drink like that when it tastes bad. Second, remember he is working for Coca Cola. One of the assumption could be that he knew how the Coca Cola tastes. The taste of Pepsi Max seems to be so good that he cannot believe it is zero calories, and he forgets his employer, which is very important for him – or he may get fired.
In the book, it says that comparative advertising, especially the direct ones may remind the consumer of the named competitor, and may contribute to positive association to the competitor or heighten competitors’ awareness. However, the case here is that everybody knows Pepsi and Coke: whenever talking about soft drinks or cola, these two brands will be the first come to mind. Further, is this information less incredible because of being showed in a comparative way? Probably not. It seems widely acknowledged in the U.S. that Pepsi and Coke taste differently. So the problem for this commercial is whether it successfully conveys the idea that Pepsi Max’s flavor is purportedly MUCH better than that of Coke Zero. That is to say, no matter what is the attitude of the consumer (before or after watching the ads), as long as the audience realize “Pepsi Max has a good flavor even it is zero calories,” or “Pepsi Max tastes differently from Coke Zero,” this ads achieves its goal: differentiation.
Throughout the 1 minute commercial, there are a lot of things repeatedly tell you the idea “Zero Calories, Max Pepsi Taste”. Thus for a consumer who likes to devote much effort to processing marketing information in an elaborative and laborative way, this ads seems effective. And it usually help the consumers form a positive attitude towards Pepsi Max. Maybe next time if he/she want to have some soft drinks of zero calories, he will try Pepsi Max because he/she wants to feel better (good taste implies a good feeling).
Nevertheless, this comparison has risks. Taste is a subjective issue, so it depends on the personal preference. For consumers who like the taste, the ads will intensify their positive attitude; while for the ones who prefer Coke’s flavor, they may consider this ads incredible and might generate counterarguments toward Pepsi, toward the brand rather than the product itself.
However, is it possible for us to analyze the ads in a different perspective rather than a cognitive-based, high-effort route to persuasion? What if view it as a low-effort route?
In a cognitive perspective, this commercial repeatedly tells its audience two simple arguments: zero calories and better taste. And one of the unconscious influence theories or techniques it applies is Thin-Slice Judgment: the Coke trucker drinks Pepsi Max in a way that we will interpret as liking and then generate an association of good flavor. Also, how about the characters in the ads, the truckers that represent two brand? It seems that the trucker for Pepsi (the source) is more likable, or attractive. He is much younger, more handsome, sensitive and technique savvy (iphone, and YouTube) – is that consistent with the schema or associations Pepsi has tried to build from their first launch in the market? Pepsi is for youth, right? And perhaps it could be one of the reasons that Pepsi decided to remake the commercial by using a same plot.
This commercial chooses appropriate music, moderate level of humor, and evokes familiarity, and maybe a good mood – that’s mainly effective for the consumer who processes the message emotionally on low-effort base.
From the discussion above, we would learn that ads can synthesize techniques and theories to influence audience’s attitude in several different ways, and increase the likelihood of raising positive attitude as a whole. For example, processing in emotional way requires the participation of cognition, while in turn elements evoking good mood or pleasant feelings make consumers more willing to devote effort to processing. And it does not necessarily mean complexity to them. This commercial is a good example.
What about ethical issues? Often, for a comparative ads, it is easier to be accused for misleading or untruthful message because their competitor will scrutinize it. But there is no material claim here, taste is subjective and no way to test the BETTER flavor. And Pepsi is very smart that there is no direct expression of BETTER – it is a comparison, but you cannot find any comparison LITERALLY. Well, at first glance there seems to be nothing unethical.
But, can you remember that the Pepsi trucker records the Coke trucker and send the video to YouTube without permission? It is one of the interesting points in the commercial, where debates arise. Is it right for him to do this while the Coke trucker may get fired and be accused by his surroundings even the public? And is it legal to record or photograph others and then distribute the photos or video (usually it will exert negative influence on the person’s life) without permission? Is it a violation to privacy? Maybe Pepsi just want to link the old plot to contemporary context. And it seems nothing wrong to do this because everybody does so in daily life. The majority of people won’t realize this – we take it for granted. Who is to blame? Pepsi, the advertiser? Maybe not. Actually, it just honestly reflected a social issue. Thus, it should be our responsibility, to think more.
Anyway, I should admit that I have held a positive attitude toward Pepsi. All of my opinions here are more or less affected by this attitude. And this commercial did enhance my attitude.
But you, my friends, what’s your choice, Pepsi Max or Coke Zero?
“Don’t be a Sue” – Members Project from American Express
Posted by: | CommentsDo you record your TV’s shows and fast forward through commercials? Or scan through the other channels to avoid advertisements while you anxiously wait for your show to come back on? With recent technology, it is becoming easier and easier for people to avoid advertisements, specifically commercials. This raises a great concern for advertisers because they now have to develop other ways to reach their audience in order to grasp their attention and maintain the exposure to the public that they once had. As we all know, our attention is limited. While watching TV, you can also be talking to friend, on the Internet, eating food, etc. To have a successful commercial, the advertiser need to figure out a way to gain the viewers undivided attention and distract them from other tasks such as talking or browsing the Internet. The standard 30 second advertisement during a commercial break is definitely not as effective as it used to be.
Knowing this information, American Express has taken it upon themselves to create a new form of advertising which is both effective and grasps consumer attention. Members Project from American Express partnered with FOX’s popular hit TV show Glee on a brand new type of campaign. Members Project is a program devoted to making a difference through volunteering, voting, or donating to charity. The program strives to gain people to volunteer and donate to a variety of charities, organizations, etc. in order to make our world a better place. To advertise the program, American Express decided to work with the inspirational characters on Glee in order to inspire viewers, gain attention, and educate the audience on the Members Project.
Together, FOX and American Express have created a new type of commercial which incorporates the characters of the TV show Glee as they speak about Members Project. The main voice in the commercials is actress Jane Lynch, who plays Sue Sylvester on Glee. The unique part of the commercials is that Jane Lynch is not standing as a spokesperson for the Members Project, but rather her character of Sue is the lead voice of the advertisement. This creates an interesting way to communicate a message because it adds an element of surprise, which in turn draws consumer attention.
When first viewing the commercials, the viewer anticipates hearing the perspective of Jane Lynch. However, the viewer soon realizes that she is portraying her character of Sue in the commercial. For those of you unfamiliar with Glee, the character of Sue Sylvester has an “I hate everyone” attitude which is depicted in a comedic sense on the show. The commercials feature the characters of Glee doing a variety of charity work such as collecting old books and instruments to donate to other organizations. Following, Sue comes into the picture and questions why they are donating to charity. The characters of Glee are used to inspire people to take action. The clear conflict between Sue and the students is used to spark attention and interest. Would you rather be involved and donate to charity? Or be like Sue?
The new campaign educated Glee viewers on what the Members Project is and how they can get involved. By using Glee characters, the audience will be inspired because they can easily relate to the characters and see how they can take action as well. These commercials are targeted directly towards the Glee fan base. By incorporating characters of the show into the advertisements viewers can easily understand and relate to the advertised product. This new form of product placement has had an extremely positive reaction from viewers and has gained a lot of attention in the media. The shows fan base has commented on the new ads through the Internet and Facebook and the response has been nothing but positive.
The commercials have many positive features which are reflected by its success. For one, this is a new kind of product placement which incorporates the characters from the show. This concept in and of itself is new and unique to the industry and adds a shock factor to the commercials which automatically gains the viewers’ attention. FOX and American Express have blurred the lines between product placement, entertainment, and commercials. The ads are also socially responsible in that they are promoting community service and doing good deeds which has been highly praised by viewers. Overall, this will most likely lead as an example for other advertisers in the industry to incorporate characters from shows directly into their ads in order to grasp consumer attention. Do you think this new concept of product placement will be incorporated by other TV shows in the future? So far, with the success of the Glee Members Project…I would think so!
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.
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.
Did Nike Buy off More Than Tiger’s Reputation?
Posted by: | Comments
We all saw the ad: Tiger Woods stares stoically and misty eyed into the camera in his usual Nike apparel. The voice of Earl Woods, Tiger’s late father, questions him about his infamous adulterous escapades. “Tiger, I am more prone to be inquisitive, to promote discussion,” Earl Woods says. “I want to find out what your thinking was. I want to find out what your feelings are. Did you learn anything?”
Talk about powerful advertising. Nike is a company that sells sports gear, but this commercial is proof of just how far advertisers in our culture have come from simply selling products. For years, Tiger Woods has been the face of Nike, establishing a fiscally beneficial situation for both parties, who grew into a kind of comfortable codependence. Tiger was able to finance his yacht (or whatever it is celebrity billionaires do with the cash from their endorsements) and Nike was able to capitalize on an athlete whose talent on the golf course was matched only by his squeaky clean image. Tiger was a marketer’s dream, and Nike amassed the revenue to prove it.
Nike sold Tiger’s image just as much as his short game and swoosh-embossed polos; he was a family man to be revered for his unwavering morals. In the face of the past and present multitude of adulterous athletes who still received millions in product endorsements after their transgressions (think Kobe Bryant), Tiger Woods was a wholesome breath of fresh air. As a company, endorsing Tiger Woods meant representing his personal life, which at the time, was all about the values of our country. Or so it appeared.
Did consumers buy Nike products partially because they believed that Nike was a company with a similar set of values to their own? I’m guessing the marketers at Nike have heard of value segmentation, and targeting consumers who placed high value on family or who admired Tiger Woods for both his professional career and admirable personal life wasn’t a coincidence. Tiger Woods was a figure whose life was consistent with Nike consumers’ values, or so it seemed. When the Tiger scandal hit the media, the endorsers who had made him the most highly paid athlete in the world were faced with the big decision: damage control or exit stage right.
Several of Tiger’s endorsers did in fact choose to bow out, deeming his reputation irreparably damaged. But not Nike. Nike’s response to the scandal was this commercial, which in one thirty second spot repositioned Tiger as a living commentary on our society’s changing values. Instead of marking him with a letter “A” and writing him off as another professional athlete turned modern day Hester Prynn, Nike did what they do best: emblazoned their famous logo on their fallen spokesman and used the media to cleverly redefine him as a man who needed his father to help him through a difficult time in his life. Nike battled the public’s critique of Tiger’s tainted family values with the ultimate trump card- more family values. The only way Nike could continue to endorse Tiger, who at that point was so ingrained in the culture of their brand image and company that dropping him would mean redirecting efforts towards an enormous and risky counter-campaign, was to fight fire with fire.
The question remains: did Nike make the right choice? Was this commercial just about the money, and saving face? Or does it speak to our culture’s values at large? In spite of his egregious transgressions, Nike supports Tiger Woods. Advertising as an industry now carries a lot of social responsibility that it never did before, possibly because agencies now brand their image with meaning beyond simply functions of the product they’re selling. No matter what, Nike’s decision was going to make a statement, and the impact of the decision and the ad are unmistakable. Instead of changing their spokesman to an athlete who was a better representation of their values, Nike changed their values, and attempted to change ours as well. Did we fall for it? Like I said: talk about powerful advertising.
Do YOUR Trust Issues Affect THEIR Bottom Line?
Posted by: | CommentsWhy are we as consumers continuously trying to dodge advertising? The answer is both complex and yet quite simple.
As a consumer driven culture we are inundated with ads through various types of media every second of every day. From television and magazines to Internet and buses, we are never without the influence of some form of advertisement. Even those aspiring to build a career in the advertising field do not want to see ads–thus the genius behind such technological advances as DVR and Tivo–and yet, advertising drives consumerism just as much as it depends upon it. At the heart of this infinite cycle is trust, and the ability to distinguish the responsible from the irresponsible while wading through the ad clutter.
As a consumer, we directly and indirectly live by a value system where trust is the leading act (hard to successfully get and keep). In a culture so bedecked with various media and ads, which should the consumer trust? According to Judy Shapiro, this idea of trust correlates with decreasing integrity in media as a result of too many options and undefined roles of “credible journalists, entertaining bloggers, and self-proclaimed experts.” Who is deemed credible, and how does the consumer know if the ad or advertiser is credible?
This is where advertising and its responsibility to the consumer play a part. Advertising today has evolved from simply selling a product to selling a brand, lifestyle, and most importantly, a relationship.
They always say that the key to a good and healthy relationship in life is trust, why can’t this be true for all aspects of life? Today, consumers build and break and rebuild relationships without blinking an eye. How do advertisers get to the consumer through all other competition and ignored ads? Advertisers must successfully sell the brand image and wanted lifestyle in order for the consumer to buy the relationship. In this culture, consumers buy an identity or a symbol not a product. The black hole here, however, is that the consumer must first form a relationship to a product, which begins with advertising.
Consumers do not trust advertising because it has lost its credibility due to the volume of ads consumers are exposed to daily. Not only does the amount of advertising defer us, but also by human nature we tend not to trust. This can be attributed to our cultural foundation based on classical liberal beliefs not to trust centralized government or big businesses. Again and again, this notion has been proven through such overbearing players as the once powerful tobacco industry that used ulterior motives, morally ambiguous marketing tactics, and capitol based get-out-of-jail-free cards to enhance profit. Instead, consumers listen to other consumers through word of mouth because it is based on experience and direct human interaction, not advertising.
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.
