In this week’s issue of Sports Illustrated I found a very confusing print ad placed by Intel. They got a great placement on the left side of the second page and then decided to vomit all over it. The ad conveys nothing to the consumer. The images of a soccer player and the scientist have no tie in. The copy at the bottom of the ad does nothing to give the reader any insights into what Intel is trying to say; it actually offends the reader.
There is a lot of discussion on what advertising should say and do for a company. The one thing that everyone agrees with is that advertising needs to convey some point to the reader. It has to say something about your company that the person reading will find interesting and remember. This ad just doesn’t do that. The only thing I learn by looking at the layout is that the scientist and the soccer player have different playgrounds. Yes, that is very apparent to everyone. Does this mean that Intel scientists can’t play soccer? Does this mean that soccer players can’t be scientist or even enjoy science as a hobby?
The separate images of the soccer player and Intel scientist have no tie in. There is nothing that connects the two images beyond the forced “playground” lines. They should have used a common element between the two to make the tie in. Have the soccer player calculating the precise angle needed to make the goal. Have the scientist figuring out some statistics to give a soccer team an advantage. Anything would have been better than throwing a soccer player on a field into the ad just to make it “relevant” to Sports Illustrated.
One of the best assets of print advertising in a magazine is the chance to capture a static audience. If you can develop an advertisement that is interesting and attention grabbing you have the consumer for as long as they want to stay on your page. You also have the ability to explain your product and its attributes in more detail. The body copy of this ad, while well written, doesn’t tell the reader anything. It tells the reader they have a lot of employees with PhDs and that those employees all share the language of math. That’s great, but what does it do for the reader? It doesn’t tell the reader how Intel will make their life better. It doesn’t tell the reader that Intel will make their computer run faster or their cell phone get better reception. There is nothing holding the reader to this ad. There is no benefit for the consumer.
Even the call to action is weak and meaningless. “Learn more at sponsorsoftomorrow.com”? Learn more? You didn’t tell the reader anything other than you have a lot of smart employees. You better have smart employees. What is the reader going to learn at this website? Is the reader going to learn more about your smart employees? After reading this entire print ad, the reader has no idea what Intel does or why they should be interested in what Intel does. They haven’t created a need or desire to go to this website.
I left this part for last because it melts my brain. A general rule of thumb is that it’s not a good idea to insult your audience. The line “your playground isn’t like our playground” is pretty harmless. Pointing out that the soccer player and the scientist “play” in different venues is fine. Then you combine it with the first line of the body copy and you feel insulted. “Needless to say, our people aren’t afraid to use a calculator”. Does that mean the soccer player is afraid of a calculator? Now some people might think I’m being a little nit picky with this, but if this ad offends even one person it is a horrible use of Intel’s advertising budget.
What do you think about this print ad? Have you ever seen another ad that does so little?
In this week’s issue of Sports Illustrated, Terminator Salvation continued its full on assault of the sports world by teaming up with Jeep to create this double truck ad. The strategy behind the ad is solid, but it misses on an opportunity to speak to a stationary audience.
The strategy behind the ad speaks to the ruggedness of the Jeep Rubicon. The Jeep Rubicon is so capable and comfortable that a robot chooses to take it out to its favorite fishing spot. If a machine that is hell bent on taking over the world and eradicating the human race can trust the Jeep Rubicon to get where it needs to go, anyone can. Imagination aside, the Rubicon is shown in the ad to be the exact vehicle you need to get you anywhere you need to go.
While I agree with the strategy behind the ad, I do not agree with the execution. This is a double truck ad, with entirely too much empty space. The robot fishing in the stream could be easily conveyed in the top two thirds of the ad, leaving the bottom third with space to convey some unique selling points of the vehicle. In my opinion when you have a stationary audience, like you do in a magazine, you should take that time to inform that audience of information you can’t fit into a TV or pre roll spot. This space could also be used to tie into the movie more. Having the unique selling points tie into the movie theme would be an entertaining way to convey interesting points for both the movie and the vehicle.
The ad feels like it was built plainly to appeal to both the movie clients and the vehicle clients. By doing that, both clients were shorted on what they could have been given.
What do you think about this print ad? Does it do anything to make you want to see the movie or drive a Jeep?
I’m guessing that over the last week you’ve seen the musical “lawn mowing” video by Wilkinson Sword. The minute long musical, along with the micro site has made its way around the Internet more for its unique musical topic than the product it’s selling.
As an American advertising professional, I’m always impressed by this type of advertising; advertising that pushes the boundaries on taboo subjects. I wondered to myself if something like this would fly in the states.
Then this weekend while flipping through my guilty pleasure, US Weekly, I found this print ad for the Schick Quattro Trim Style. I’m not sure of the association between Schick and Wilkinson Sword but there must be some as they are both selling a product called the “Quattro”. The ad does a great job of drawing from the video. It uses the same shapes seen the video and the same statue. The message is simple and easy to take away. The ad placement couldn’t be any better. Aside from me, US Weekly, has a predominantly female following and is the perfect age range for this type of product.
The print ad seemed like a smash until I thought about the American consumer who is reading this magazine. Have they seen the accompanying video to this print ad? I know it was popular last week in the advertising world, but did it make its way into the general American public?
I tried to look at it from the perspective of someone who hadn’t seen the video or micro site. It’s still interesting. It still grabs my attention, but the song doesn’t start playing in my head. I think the lack of tie in to the video takes away from the consumer’s experience. It makes the print ad and the product less memorable.
I don’t know if Schick has any plans of releasing the video in the US. I just hope, they don’t come up with some contrived version that takes all the fun and humor out.
What do you think about the video/site and the print ad? Does the print ad lose effectiveness without seeing the video?
I found this print ad in the most recent issue of Sports Illustrated and thought it did a great job of targeting the everyday man. Most of the yard maintenance advertisements you see coming out now show people smiling and excited to get out into the spring weather and breathe life back into their yards. That may be a certain percentage of the population. The other percentage sees the lawn as a drain. The lawn is a tiring obstacle standing between you and the rest of your weekend. This ad does a great job of speaking to that percentage. The ad’s headline is succinct and straight to the point. “Cuts grass and time”, lets you know everything you need to know about the lawn mower. It will do a good job cutting the grass and it will help you do it faster. The body copy goes on to explain exactly how this mower helps you cut your mowing time. It does a fine job, but I don’t even need it. The headline does it all for me.
The second impressive thing about this ad is the placement. As I said, I found it in the most recent issue of Sports Illustrated. That is the perfect target audience. Men who most likely are taking care of their lawn, but most likely aren’t weekend lawn warriors. They are more concerned with getting the lawn done and catching the rest of the baseball game or getting to their kid’s soccer game. Better Homes and Gardens, for instance, would be a bad placement for this ad. People reading Better Homes and Gardens generally take more pride in their lawns and might be put off by a lawn mower that helps you rush through the job.
What do you think about this layout? Does it do a good job of conveying their message?
Tiger Woods put a stamp on his comeback recently with a Tiger like come from behind victory. Gatorade wasted no time capitalizing on this latest fist pumping moment. They did exactly what they should have done. They grabbed the ultimate snapshot of the round, the ubiquitous fist pump, placed a simple, attention grabbing line of copy, and boom, they have an attention grabbing print ad. As an account guy, I like to see companies and agencies being light on their feet and grabbing a moment in time that could have easily slipped by. Tiger has done this dozens of times. Sinking an important put, throwing out the fist pump and giving Stevie a hug is nothing new to Tiger. Except this time, it comes on the heels of a reconstructed knee and two weeks before one of the most anticipated Masters tournaments in recent history.
I tip my hat to Gatorade and their agency for being quick and resourceful.
What do you think about this ad? Does it do a Gatorade justice?
Photoshop and its image altering brethren have opened up a brave new world to advertising and the rest of the media arts. It has allowed artists to create scenarios that were unthinkable before. And for this, image-altering programs have been a boon for the media arts.
At the same time, these programs have been used to make people in magazines “perfect”. They have raised the bar on what is considered “beauty”. Raised it to an unattainable level. Image altering has grown so out of control in magazines that they just remove human anatomy. This month’s issue of Self has the below image.
Did you find the altering mistake? Check out the zoom in if you missed it.
Yes. The girl in the red bikini has no belly button. Some artist went so altering crazy they just decided to remove the belly button. No big deal right. For a magazine that has a slogan of “you at your best”, they should really pay more attention to things like this if they insist on using altered images.
What do you think about image altering of people? Do magazines go too far?
Gatorade is in a unique position. On one hand, athletes all over the world are using Gatorade as part of a nutrition plan, to fuel and recover before and after workouts. On the other hand, from the days of wanting to be like Mike, kids and want to be athletes have also been drinking it. Some just like the taste. Others think it’s the edge they need to finally make their dreams of going pro come true.
Seeing as how the country has been taken over by a fitness craze the past handful of years, you would think that Gatorade would be dancing in the rain. Until you read the nutrition facts on the bottle and realize the amount of sugar in Gatorade. And you wondered why it tastes so good.
The sugar is fine if you are training for the Boston Marathon or if you are Kevin Garnett tearing through the NBA. But if you are Kevin “six-pack”, the sugar in Gatorade is a split rail on your train ride to fitness.
So, like any good business, Gatorade created a low calorie version of their product, called G2. They’ve expanded their product lineup to appeal to all athletes, professional and not so professional.
I found these two print ads in this week’s Sport Illustrated. They are laid out side by side in a double truck. Each layout is unique enough to stand out on its own but at the same time works seamlessly with the other as a combo.
The Kevin vs. Kevin setup appeals to both athlete and non-athlete at the same time. With Kevin Garnett standing intensely on the court in the NBA Finals on one side you get the sense of Gatorade being used at the peak of the sports world.
With Kevin “six pack” standing triumphantly outside of the pool after a workout, you get the sense of Gatorade being used at a more pedestrian, yet no less important aspect of life. It tells the guy down the street who is struggling to stick to his New Year resolution that it’s ok to drink the lower calorie Gatorade whether you are at the top your sport, or the top of your one-man swim team. Each “athlete” is using Gatorade as the spark they need to be the best they can.
What do you think about these layouts? Do they speak to both sets of “athletes”? Does showing the regular guy down the street make people want to drink Gatorade?
Tiger Woods has been out of golf for the last eight months recovering from knee surgery. And now he’s back and advertisers want to make sure you know it.
Golf and the PGA Tour existed without him. They managed to hold everything together and put out a good product for the last eight months. I understand that golf was around way before Tiger, and it will be around way after Tiger. But never have golf and the PGA Tour been more popular. Tiger is such an integral part of golf and the PGA Tour that I found three different ads celebrating his return in the last two days.
The first is a TV spot from Nike showing all of the happy competitors celebrating their time to shine while Tiger is out. And then reality hits them as Tiger walks into the locker room and steals the glory from their grasp.
The third is a print layout in this week’s Sports Illustrated by Gatorade. Another simply stated phrase. “Welcome Back Tiger”. In the upper right hand corner is the Gatorade Tiger (his flavor) logo. This is probably a client directed add in. But notice even in this logo Tiger is bigger than Gatorade.
All three ads have one thing in common. They push their products aside to celebrate Tigers return. Of course these companies are looking at this as a chance to garner a little good will and do a little branding at the same time.
But what it really says to me is that golf needs Tiger Woods. It says these advertisers need Tiger Woods. It says that Tiger Woods is a very powerful marketing tool.
What do you think about these ads? Are they a waste of money for the advertiser? Does the branding and good will from these spots justify the costs?
As companies make money, they become bigger. As companies become bigger they make more money. It’s a great cycle of capitalism. At some point though, companies become so big they can’t get out of their own way.
I hate when this happens in advertising. A company gets a big break through, or wins an award. Two months later you see a commercial or print layout touting their accomplishment. That’s great, but what happened during those two months that kept this from coming out a month and a half ago? This print layout, I found in Sports Illustrated, from Reebok is a great example of a big company being nimble enough to accept and embrace a quick moving moment that doesn’t come around very often.
It just so happens that in a big football game a couple weeks ago, Santonio Holmes won the game and the MVP award, while wearing a nice, shiny pair of Reeboks. Two weeks later, poof, we have a great print ad depicting a pair of Reeboks making the game winning catch in the biggest game of the year.
This print ad is great. It takes a fantastic moment in sports history, that had very little to do with the shoes he was wearing, and puts the spot light on Reebok.
As an account guy, I appreciate this print ad even more. The simplicity is amazing. You take a still shot that was taken by someone else. Create some great copy to go along with it and ship it out the door. The cost is minimal and the impact is far reaching.
Kudos to Reebok and the agency that created this ad.
Companies are very protective of their brands. And rightly so. Their brands are what keep them moving; keep the gold pieces in the coffers. But sometimes, they become too protective. They become afraid to let their brands be shown in any kind of light that isn’t pristine and magical.
Because of this, I was very excited to see this Crown Royal print ad in this weeks Sports Illustrated. It’s a great, simple, well-communicated ad. If your bottle of Crown breaks, you feel very sad, sad enough to cry. That’s how good it is.
I applaud Crown Royal for having the foresight to see that showing a broken bottle of their product is not a detriment to their brand. That when you trust in your agency good things happen. Even if it is with a broken bottle.
What do you think? Are companies to protective over their brands at times?
