I know it may seem strange, but we can literally call advertisements “good” or “bad”. It seems simple, however it’s as simple as the tip of an iceberg. Underneath the lightly put evaluation is usually a critique involving a justification in terms of strategy, creativity and execution. For my final post, I am going to discuss 2 main advertisements, one that I deem “good” and the other “bad”, with support to my blunt answer using the evaluation technique mentioned earlier. The 2 advertisements will be taken from my past posts so there’s nothing new to see here!
Before we get into the interesting stuff, I thought we could start with a few simple definitions to keep us all on the same page with regards to the evaluation.
Strategy = “The means by which an individual or business accomplishes objectives” (Wells et al. 2011. p.475.)
Creative strategy = “The determination of the right of message for a particular target audience, a message approach that delivers the advertising objectives” (Wells et al. 2011. p.462.)
Execution = “Refers to the various ways an advertising idea is presented as an advertisement” (Wells et al. 2011. p.463.)
.. For the last time
Oh and while I have you here, since this is my last post I wanted to thank you for your readership. I hope you enjoyed my IMC blog as much as I enjoyed creating it!:)
Advertising campaign: Nike “Just Do It.”
Yep, you had it right, of course I was going to choose Nike!
The incredible brand campaign (for this exercise I will just refer to this print media advertisement) came from a simple comment made at a meeting with the Advertising executives. As I wrote previously in my Advertisements by Category Post, The story goes like this, according to the Centre for Applied Research, “Dan Weiden, [spoke] admiringly of Nike’s can-do attitude, [and] reportedly said, “You Nike guys, you just do it.” The rest, as they say, is (advertising) history” (Nike’s “Just Do It” Advertising Campaign).
At the time of this particular advertising campaign in 1988, Nike were beginning to take the fall to competing sporting goods giant Reebok. It can be understood from this negative business viewpoint, Nike were looking to use their advertising campaign as a tool to take back their share of the market (and some more). This short and sharp copy “Just Do It” supported by the household image of the “swoosh” is the simple and clever advertising that led to the fulfillment of Nike’s business objectives, that being dominant market share and a strong brand awareness. It allowed Nike to expand and dominate the sporting goods market. Having a strong brand image permitted Nike to command higher prices leading to a larger revenue and in turn the creation of a competitive advantage against the main rival and issue to Nike at the time, Reebok. For a bit of quick theory, this advertisement most definitely adopts a soft selling strategy approach (Wells et al. 2011).
The creativity in this campaign can only be described as timeless. The advertising agency Wieden & Kennedy spoke not only directly to the sporting goods consumer, but every other consumer that could possibly relate to having (or in this case wanting) a “Just Do It” attitude. The sharp and concise message, “Just Do It” cut through the clutter of the opposing sporting goods advertising campaigns due to its revolutionary nature in 1988.
The advertisement is presented in this image in the form of a print media ad, however the campaign is still alive and continues to run taking many media shapes. The following images are examples of the “Just Do It” advertising campaign creative executions that are still used today in various newer forms to keep the brand fresh, innovative and up-to-date.
Advertising campaign: Tourism Australia “Where the bloody hell are you?”
This was difficult because I feel like I’m pointing fingers at one of my own, seeing as I chose the advertisement previously, but I have to say, it has got to be Tourism Australia – “Where the bloody hell are you?” global advertising campaign of 2006, created by the Sydney office of the London advertising agency M&C Saatchi. All I can say is classic mistake. This $180 million global advertising campaign for Tourism Australia suffered a slight beating in the United Kingdom due to the offensive word “bloody” used in the copy (Heinrich 2006). Although it received extensive media and press coverage it was withdrawn and deemed a failure, hence my decision to choose this advertising campaign for my “Bad” evaluation. Nonetheless let’s get into the analysis.
The goals and objectives of Tourism Australia in setting out to create a global advertising campaign in 2006 was primarily to “increase tourism spending and the amount of time tourists spend here” writes The Age (Bingle ad rakes in extra $1.8 billion 2007). It can be understood that the campaign was not targeted at backpackers, but at consumers who share longer time in Australia. However the campaign both TVC and print media seemed to have missed that audience completely. Aside from the fact that the campaign caused controversy and offense in some countries, in particular the United Kingdom, it failed to meet its primary objectives which tarnishes the effectiveness of the advertisements. This advertisement most definitely adopts a soft selling strategy approach (Wells et al. 2011).
From a creative perspective, the advertisement in my opinion excelled. It was extremely original. The colour tones of the TVC were warm, earthy and inviting in scenes and in others fresh, vibrant and inspiring. It showcases Australians of all multicultural backgrounds, ages, genders and sizes. I believe it is a lighthearted, warming advertisement that is playful and inviting in nature. It seemed very Australian, and if it were for domestic use and was perhaps campaigning something more along the lines of “Aren’t you proud of our beautiful nation?” it may have been taken differently. The simple fact that the target audience – that being the rest of the world – interprets Australian culture differently to perhaps the way Australians may see and talk about Australia. became this campaigns downfall. The Age article continues to write “The Australian Tourism Council said while it appeared Tourism Australia’s aims in attracting higher spending, longer staying visitors were paying off, the lack of growth in market share was a concern” (Bingle ad rakes in extra $1.8 billion 2007).
The advertising campaign was released in various forms. A print media examples is shown above, however the main controversy surrounds the TVC. In its finished form, it was felt that the advertising campaign for Tourism Australia had met its objectives and spoke to the global market in an effective manner. We now know that this was sadly not the case, offending a large portion of the target audience. However irrespective of the controversy surrounding the advertising campaign, it was executed using a spokesperson/endorser format by creating characters and presenting advice on visiting Australia to build brand credibility (Wells et al. 2011).
Bingle ad rakes in extra $1.8 billion 2007, theage.com.au, The Age, 19 March, viewed 13 September 2012, <http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/bingle-ad-rakes-in-extra-18-billion/2007/03/08/1173166848974.html>
Heinrich, P 2006, ‘Brits bloody well accept tourism ad’, theage.com.au, The Age, 19 March, viewed 13 September 2012, <http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/brits-bloody-well-accept-tourism-ad/2006/03/18/1142582577836.html>
Nike’s Just Do It Advertising Campaign n.d., Centre for Applied Research, viewed 3 September 2012, <http://www.cfar.com/Documents/nikecmp.pdf>
Wells, W, Spence-Stone, R, Crawford, R, Moriarty, S, Mitchell, N 2011, Advertising: Principles & Practices, 2nd edn, Pearson, Australia.