It is one of the best examples of campaign consistency. Sexy, fun ads for the target that are really great product demonstrations. Relevant, interesting and motivating from an emotional and rational point of view.
All with well crafted soundtracks (particularly the Baby “Zip It” work). And great product names / descriptors. Simple, but effective.
I hope with the changes at the company they stick to the plan – all too often the need for change in a campaign can be client rather than consumer.
Tourism Australia and Qantas have rejigged Icehouse singer Iva Davies Great Southern Land track.
The aim is to sell Australia to tourists.
The first thing that surprises me is that this is more music video than tourist ad?
The second thing is that It will run online only, including Twitter and TA’s Facebook page.
And this is on the back of DDB’s most recent incarnation of the There’s Nothing Like Australia campaign, which cost $4m to produce.
I’m not convinced that a song which means more to Australians than any other nation, sung by artists mainly recognizable only by Australians will attract a flood of foreigners?
And no surfing on golden beaches?
This will have to work very hard via social media if it is to attract the traveler in the face of a strengthening Aussie dollar and I can’t help thinking it is another montage of nice shots and song rather than a strategic advertising effort.
Kimberley Clark are going out of their way to push the problem.
It might be “leakage” or it could be the risk of attracting dogs by virtue of an unclean bum (ref Kleenex Cottonelle).
This latest effort is confronting women with what we are told is a common problem. The solution is U by Kotex.
In both cases the company tackles the problem with clear product solutions.
Both approaches and that of Carefree raise an interesting question. Do consumers respond better to direct, descriptive advertising and what level of directness is more effective? The word “vagina” has recently been a subject of many complaints regarding the advertising campaign for Carefree Actifresh.
It’s interesting to ask if this approach researches well with all women / consumers? The industry likes to trumpet from on high and say we MUST change the consumer – “better out than in!” and remove ourselves from these suppressed notions of discrete advertising…? A vocal minority applaud the use of language that can make mums and dads cringe into their sofa. “It’s a vaginal discharge so lets herald it from on high!”. I’m not so sure.
There is a subtle balance between being direct and being overtly confronting to women and families in their own living rooms. U, which is firmly youth targeted, gets it right. We aren’t shocked into awareness of the problem and efficacy of the solution, we don’t hear language that is too confronting and we are indirectly very aware of the problem without being told that it is a “vaginal discharge”…territory other brands would prefer to own.
At the end of the day it is about understanding the audience not just the user and when it is the mass medium of TV the family audience matters. This is why it is an interesting topic for discussion when used in mass market media (rather than more directly targeted communication).
Without being overly conservative I sincerely hope that brands don’t continue to reach for stand-out notoriety by the use of the lowest creative common denominators in overtly describing what many real people consider to be discrete categories.
The true creative challenge is to communicate the problem and benefit / solution without the reliance on the literal descriptions and language.