you know… sometimes the point isn’t about how many people see your ad, it’s about actually changing people’s behavior.
if it’s a matter of getting them to drink diet pepsi vs. diet coke, or getting them to shop at target vs. walmart… no one’s gonna die.
it’s not really a matter of life or death.
however, when the ad is for an hiv-awareness campaign…. it actually IS.
i have no idea if this was just a spec or if the spot actually ran, but if it did, i think it’s pretty fucking tragic:
“you have no idea what a difference that makes” …. they may as well have added “and hey, ignorance is bliss, right?” at the end, cuz it’s not like that ad conveys ANYTHING about the difference that DOES make.
so…. just keep having no idea.
don’t get me wrong, it’s hot, and you want to watch it…but is it really something that’s going to change people’s behavior?
since i’m not actually the target audience for this, a couple of gay friends later the consensus to that question is:
“not so sure.”
exactly what good does a sensational and even popular ad do, if the message isn’t effective? priority #1 should be to make an message that works, not a video that gets passed around.
the idea that some ad agency is actually thinking that it’s more important that a lot of people see their ad than that anyone is actually motivated to use a condom…. is kind of sick.
the point isn’t about making an ad viral… it’s about making a message that might actually help STOP the virus.
myth #2: ENGAGEMENT MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY EXPOSURE
it’s funny that as much time as i’ve spent explaining the differences between the effects of engagement vs. exposure, it seems i spend just as much time explaining the value of combining engagement AND exposure. it’s as if battle lines were drawn somewhere between the two and everyone decided it was imperative to pick a side about which one is more important. like you’re either a cat person or a dog person. carpets or hardwood. mac or pc. advertising or community.
each one’s got their defenses and excuses, right? advertising is all like, we’ve been doing it this way forever, and we’ll listen to what community’s got to say, but we’ll still play it by our rules. and community’s all like, obviously advertising’s just a dinosaur; they just don’t get it. and so it goes, with advertising trying to spray over its bald spot with engagement concessions while community tries to beef up its resume with ROI success metrics.
but maybe… couldn’t it make sense to consider that dog and cat people are both pet people? and even if you’re down with the wall-to-wall you’ve still got tile in your kitchen, and the folks with the parquet have rugs and bathmats for strategic purposes. and as for mac vs. pc… that might hint at the root of the fissure issue.
for 10 years i used a pc. and then 2 years ago, when my old toshiba fell and couldn’t get up, i decided to buy a mac. i can chalk it up to some practical and financial reasons if you ask me to, but the truth is those reasons weren’t really so much deciding factors as justifications for the decision that had pretty much already been made. the truth is that if you’re young and hip and need a new computer, buying a mac is just the thing you’re supposed to do. (hey man, identity marketing wouldn’t be so effective if it didn’t work on EVERYONE.) and that’s kind of the same way that the division between advertising and community seems to go down.
you know, while i’m here, i may as well point out that when i say advertising i’m including PR too. i’m including ANY kind of marketing technique focused on exposure vs. on engagement. the team you go to bat for is determined by which side represents YOUR identity.
yeah, YOU.
your years of experience, your industry awards, or your tech savviness, your youth and hipness. and, sure, whichever side of the tracks you come from has a whole lot of other folks there who fit that identity profile, and your approach translates for them, but… what good does YOUR professional identity expression actually do, you know, like, the campaign? or…the USER? or the consumer….
whoever.
my point is that an engagement strategy is not an upgraded substitute for a promotional campaign. and the measurement of the value of engagement if evaluated independent of the influence of exposure strategies is ridiculous. there’s a reason why the phrase “to work in concert” exists. imagine an orchestra insisting on making the violins compete with the percussion section to demonstrate which one is more worthy. marketing is a strategy symphony, and not the kind of strategy that’s about figuring out how to kick all the other instruments off the island, yo.
so how do we move beyond simply defending our particular tribal affiliations? how do we shift the focus from the segregation between exposure and engagement, to methods for integrating the two processes and, ideally, to creating ways for each to be enhanced by the other?
do 11 year olds really talk like sitcom writers now? i mean, it’s kinda funny… in a mildly disturbing sort of way. like one-liners are the next evolution of jr.’s “first words”…an eventually unmanageably annoying evolution, but, like the kids say… whatever.
check out these little Red “characters” (such as chill, grumpy, whatever, flirty) that were developed for beRed.com (now teens.aol.com) by ATTIK.
how to step up to the challenge of creating campaign elements that let kids know RED is the place for them?
when you show up at teens.aol.com, by the way, you’re greeted with a paparazzi shot of britney in a car with some guy obscured by the rear view mirror and big sunglasses, with the caption, “who’s that guy?run, guy we don’t know. run!”
so it’s nice at least that the messaging tone is consistent.
oh, chill also has a different aspect to his personality in other settings, like “why should i worry when my parents do it for me?” it’s like that fairy tale… you know, be Red and the seven obnoxious tween dwarfs? classic. originally these were developed as door hangers too:
now you can also find them as banners at profgilzot.com. (and while you’re doing that, check out the stunningly rock and roll SAT prep tutor illustrated there. seriously, like straight outta williamsburg.)
it’s undoubtedly great identity marketing: gotta speak to the audience on their own terms if you want to get across that your product is for them. unfortunately, why are those the terms? anyone remember all those post 9/11 predictions about “the death of irony”? yeah…. THERE was a trend forecast that was spot on, evidently.
tho… i guess i’m not helping any. but i mean, irony’s ok for adults, right? so maybe you should have to be over a certain age for us to allow ourselves to subject you to it?
