Posts Tagged ‘Advertising’

Co-op advert fail?

In Advertising, Marketing, Movies, TV on January 29, 2011 at 4:40 pm

Take a look at the adverts below that have been on TV recently in separate forms, and edited together for cinema advertising. You might recognise them, but try not to think of who the advert is for, instead try to listen to that voice inside you which is trying to tell you what the solution to their problems is:

What was your little voice saying?  Was it “shop often and little, shop often and little, shop often and little” or was it “Tesco home deilvery, Tesco home deilvery, Tesco home deilvery”.

I like Coop’s advertising and their attempts to position themselves differently to the big supermarkets, but I fear all these advert do is sell the concept of online shopping and home delivery, rather than nipping round the Coop.

I love the Coop near me, but they’re always giving me vouchers for £2 of every time I spend £20. This suggests they aren’t actually happy with you just nipping in for ‘often and little’ and would prefer you to have a more substantial shop.  By the way, I have literally never redeemed one of those vouchers.  That tells the whole story, really.

Gillette ‘No More Blades’ ad – Sheffield special?

In Advertising, Marketing on January 22, 2011 at 5:14 pm

Driving down Attercliffe in Sheffield today I glanced a new billboard ad for Gillette razors, seemingly taking the mick out of their own propensity  to add more and more blades, and the slogan mentioned something about adding ‘no more blades’

I can’t find any reference to this specific ad online, although it does seem Gillette are pushing an ironic self-depricating campaign (’80_blade_razor’_spoof_ad)

The thing that struck me was the danger of using a ‘blades’ reference in Sheffield (Blades is the nickname of Sheffield United), and in a two club city at that.  It’s either a subtle regional version or, most likely, a national campaign which they’ve not realised might have regional problems. If the phrasing is as I thought as I drove by and glanced it, they may find problems selling whatever the new product is to half of the city.

If anyone else has seen this ad and can remember the exact wording please let me know.

However, I do like the acknowledgement that their product development had become stale and ridiculous – give me features that make sense, not just extra blades!  I never went past Mach 3 as I never saw the point.  Apparently, if humans had 3 legs, they would actually run slower – all razor manufacturers should take note.

Do misleading movie trailers work?

In Marketing, Movies on January 19, 2011 at 9:15 pm

It’s been interesting to see how Love & Other Drugs has evolved over the few weeks since it’s release in the UK.

When I was first aware of it, I’m sure I saw the poster and assumed, as you would if you’d seen the UK poster (below) that it was a fairly standard Rom Com, though perhaps a little elevated by having Aniston, Barrymore or Bullock in it.

Love & Other Drugs UK poster

Is this poster misleading?

Since then I’ve found out the plot of the film ( and have heard reviews (although not seen it) and it’s had a couple of Golden Globe nominations, and suddenly it looks like a different film – an emotionally tough film about whether love is worth chasing if it is bound for ultimate tragedy.

Incidentally, when looking for the above poster, I found the below, which I presume is the US version, and seems much more sombre and ‘indie’ in theme (although it still looks like Gyllenhaal is giggling, and Hathaway looks less bozz eyed, somehow).

US poster more loyal to film?

US poster more loyal to film?

Nearly a month from release (and it was released in the tricky post-Christmas period, where kids movies still rule) and it’s still hanging around at No. 6 – not bad for either an indie flick or a bog standard rom com.

So, the question is, how many went expecting a Rom Com, and of those that did, did they enjoy it, or feel conned? I’m not MORI, so I can’t tell you that, but it does raise interesting questions about whether it does any actual lasting damage if you do ‘con’ people  into the movie with misleading, or at least mis-targeted, advertising.

Standard Marketing theory would have it that you should never mislead your customers – your job is to make a product which fits their need, and find ways to let them know about it.  However, Hollywood seems to have a track record of putting that aside if it thinks the product doesn’t fit a given niche, and blitzing people with a version of the film they think they’ll like.

Take 2008 smash hit Slumdog Millionaire, for example:

Feel Good Hit of the Decade, with electrocution and eye gouging

This film was apparently almost straight to video, so someone obvously decided to rescue it it present it as a sort of Sound of Music for the Noughties.  Now, whilst the denoument of Slumdog may leave you feeling good, in the words of Dr Mark Kermode, there’s an aweful lot of Shawshank, and not much Redemption – the lead character is hung upside down and tortureed within the first 10 minutes, a small child has its eye gouged out for fiscal benefit, and the main character’s brother is a right bad ‘un and no mistake. Feel-good film of the decade?

However, the volumes that went to see it (£23m Box Office gross) clearly suggests that it’s that audience, and not the ‘gritty portrail of poverty-stricken India’ audience that turned up – but were they bothered? I find it unlikely that so many people went to see it because they loved Shallow Grave or Trainspotting, but it’s hard to find reaction to the film that is not gushing.  Rotten Tomotoes rates it at 94% collectively, with only 14 out of 221 rotten, and most of these come under ‘not my thing’ rather than ‘not the film I expected’.

So it seems the film was so colourful, engaging and entertaining, that by the time people came out they’d forgotten the marketing message that drew them there in the first place, which backs the idea that in movie world, you can lie to your audience as much as you want before hand, so long as the film has impact.

As Time Out critic Dave Calhoun said of SM:
“Slumdog Millionaire’, a film so upbeat and colourful that, by the time you’re relaying its infectious air of optimism to friends, you could forget that it features orphans, slaughter, organised crime, poverty, enslavement and police brutality.”

However, it’s easy to forget that drawing in the wrong audience can have conseqeunce.  My future  Mother-in-law went to see SM, I’m sure based more on the poster and trailer than any reviews, and didn’t like like it, not because it wasn’t a good film, but because she couldn’t get over her empathy with the poverty and brutality – eg/ it disturbed her.  Unlike many modern movie goers, who were have been desensitized by video nasties and TV violence, her preferred viewing is more Sound of Music (and I don’t mean it’s gritty portrayal of life under Nazi rule) or Miss Marple.  However, she knows this, and avoids the films that look likely to shatter her version of reality.  She was conned into the movie and I’m not sure that is fair.

So, Love & Other Drugs will probably get some Oscar nominations, which will boost it’s box office even further, but may at least get the message across that it’s a good film worth watching, but not to expect a fluffy piece of hankie fodder.

Maybe I’ll take the missus on Valentines Day and see what kind of mood it sets!


PS. Any other misleading film advertising – please add your comment, especially if it left you feeling conned.