These Jameson Irish Whiskey out-of-home bus shelter ads aren't exceptional in their messages, which seem to be all over the place, but are definitely noteworthy for taking advantage of their location. I've always thought that localized ads draw instant attention, especially in places like the Midwest, just because people are more likely to think, "Hey! Minnesota!" The second one's attention to its location at a bus stop is also clever.
The most confusing for me though, and the one that seems least on-target with the other two, is the Gaelic one. I get that it stays with the product's key attribute of being Irish, but it doesn't work for me. Keep going with the theme of local and how it relates to me in terms of the product, not this weird Gaelic reference!
These were made by BAI\TBWA. A similar online ad (with a similar editorial about a non-cohesive message) can be found here, along with commentary from the BAI creative director. His points about the depth and richness of the Jameson brand are valid, but split up in outdoor form, they muddle that message.
"Maybe because Jameson is great on ice. Rumor has it there's a lot of that here."
"Maybe because this bus doesn't go to Ireland."
"Maybe it's because if you read the label backwards it sounds Gaelic."
So Kleenex has been using the "Let It Out" campaign by JWT since January, and although most blogs I've found give it rave reviews, I have a couple problems with it.
Yeah, people do want to share their emotions and let The Internet listen, but how does that connect with Kleenex? The actual "letting out" is pushing the brand into the background. The Foghound conversational marketing blog thinks the campaign is stirring a lot of buzz, which I believe. I think they missed the mark in connecting the consumer to the brand.
Also, although the online comments/stories seem authentic, the TV spots are pushing it a little for me. I don't know many people who would stop at the sight of a big blue couch with TV cameras pointed at it. Granted, most of my friends aren't in the target, but I can't envision the emotionally connected mother types I know taking time out of their schedules to do it, either. And even if they did, I assure you they wouldn't be spilling their guts to a total stranger.
I guess my insight into the product is that tissues can actually be really intimate objects--they're there when you're crying or when you're feeling miserable and sick. Kleenex has a strong, reliable brand history; it's always been there in those emotional times. So keep the positioning of Kleenex always being there to comfort you, but bring the brand to the forefront as the hero a little more.
"Are people ready to let it out? Turns out all it takes is a good listener and Kleenex tissues." Would it be more powerful if Kleenex tissues could be the good listener?
I was always enthralled by the iPhone commercials that ran before the phone's launch at the end of June, not only because of my attraction to the phone itself, but because of the subtly beautiful art direction and the overall simplicity. The TBWA/Chiat/Day creatives were dead-on in keeping the ads completely feature-centered while staying true to the Apple brand personality of beauty, simplicity, and just the right amount of elitist and cool. Even now, I get little chills as the super changes with the beat of the music at the end. Perfect.
This campaign did a fantastic job creating buzz, thanks in part to its media placement. Even my 60-year-old parents, who would never read an online press release on Apple.com and might overlook blurbs about iPhone's arrival in the paper and Newsweek, were not only aware of the product but of its release date. Selling a million iPhones in 74 days sounds like successful buzz to me, especially at $400 or $600 a pop in a saturated market.
So the new campaign. As an iPhone owner/enthusiast myself, I don't have a hard time believing stories like this. The guy who had one phone for texting and one phone for making calls is a little over the top, but all these other stories are completely realistic for me. Just the other day I used my iPhone to Google the phone number of a car dealership, call them, set up an appointment, and get directions, all while walking to my apartment from class. Classic Apple simplicity, but I feel a giant leap away from the rebellion against the masses that has marked the brand since "1984."
Is this a bad thing? Maybe Apple, true to its name change from "Apple Computers" to "Apple, Inc." is segmenting its targets a little more (a little better?) than it has in the past. Instead of focusing solely on the brand personality, Apple is starting to gain some real insights into different consumers' personality and tailor their messages to unite the two.
The point is that iPhone has made a very clear move away from a launch campaign to raise awareness of the sheer coolness of iPhone to driving home what these benefits can do for the user every day. This change in campaign aligned almost perfectly with the price cut from $600 to $400, another sign that the "innovator" market had been exhausted. Onto the early adopters, who need a little more encouragement than just, "Cool! Look at how bright that screen is!"
Maybe the position could be summed up as "iPhone makes life better by giving you everything you need, wherever you are." Not only do I wholeheartedly agree, I think they're pushing the benefits to the front and making the brand the absolute hero. I feel like an emphasis on benefits or consumer values and making the brand heroic is lost in some big campaigns (look for the rant on Kleenex that will follow shortly).
So two thumbs up, TBWA/Chiat/Day. Just get rid of that guy who had a Blackberry and a cell phone, okay? Let me tell you about avoiding traffic with Google maps instead.
In my tagline, I have three pieces of advice from Jennifer Johnson, an adjunct professor at the U. I've taken classes in creative strategy and portfolio development from her, and she shattered my whole previous concept of creativity. I'm beyond fortunate to have had her input on my creative briefs and some of the ads I've put together.
The three pieces of advice she's given me come from the two semesters of class I've had with her. I don't know the story behind the first one, except that she tells us at least once a month not to cry at work. Taking her advice to heart, I've always sneaked to Vincent Hall (the math? science? engineering? building attached to the J-School) when I've needed to shed a few tears, because I never want to cry in Murphy Hall.
As far as being an elbow rather than an arm, she told us the story of working at Leo Burnett in Chicago in a building that looked over the Chicago River. She and a colleague would joke about seeing an arm in the river. But they realized that if they saw an arm in the river, they'd probably panic, grab the nearest phone, and call the police, because there very clearly was a body floating in the river and it had to be taken care of. But what if they saw an elbow floating in the river instead? The first reaction would be less, "Oh my god, it's an arm!" and more, "Wait...is that...is that an elbow? It kind of looks like an elbow!" And it would be a little ridiculous and a little bit funny. So don't fit the mold of what people already know at first glance. Throw them off and be endearing when you do it.
And finally, she told all the account planners to start a blog to talk about advertising and people and whatever we wanted to rant about. So here I am.
Some really lame nontraditional on my walk to class. First of all, it's spray-painted instead of chalked, which is so disrespectful. Secondly, I've never seen the first three Saw movies, but I kind of doubt that paint on the sidewalk is in line with either the plot of the movie or the campaign strategy. Looks like somebody wanted to do nontraditional for the sake of doing nontraditional...and in such a high-traffic area, it's a shame they couldn't find a better execution.
