Immune to Brand-less Brand Building
I’m a big fan of simplicity and minimalism, but lately I’m smelling a trend for advertising obviously intended to build a brand but without the brand.
Every other billboard in the Twin Cities has 2 green circles and the phrase “connect the dots Oct 12″, now New Patriot is reporting an annoying blimp, I won’t even start on the Subservient Chicken / Burger King crap from a year and some change ago.
I envision the designers of each one of these campaigns so proud of themselves for ‘building buzz’, for introducing the ‘element of mystery’, for selling more snake oil.
As a customer with more things competing for my attention than minutes in a lifetime, the first thing I do is glean who is sending the message. This is true in email, phone calls, billboards, weblogs, television, radio, and newspapers. Across the board. Without a return address, caller ID, or simply a name - it all gets filtered out. Gone. Without the name of the source, any recommendation I make will be less credible. So I refuse to make it…plus I can’t condone this irresponsible advertising behavior.
Update:
The ‘connecting the dots’ billboard was from the Star Tribune, weakly promoting their redesign? The blimp Darrel mentions below was from FOX9 as part of a misnamed ‘guerilla marketing’ campaign. According to the STrib article, the blimp was on heavy rotation at WCCO. Damn, MSM is more of an echo chamber than the blogosphere.
5 Comments
I heard about and saw both campaigns, numerous folks are talking about them around town, including you.
Buzzyworthy? I’d say so.
Return on investment? TBD.
I agree. I think the time for teaser advertising is long gone. With the short attention span of the average American consumer, and the immediate gratification most are looking for, I don’t think this is very effective.
That being said, the fact that we are talking about it here, and the fact that is has been mentioned on more than one local media outlet, means that teaser advertising may still be a decent way to generate buzz. However, if the ‘big secret’ leads to anticipointment (as it undoubtedly will), then why bother.
I saw the blimp the other night. Beyond that fact that it is a blimp, which is unusual around here, the campaign is meaningless. One of those things where they’re trying to build hype for something that is so infinitesimally meaningless.
Plus, the use of the blimp just reks of desparation to me. We have no message so we need gigantic gimmick.
As someone with a background in theater, advertising, and design, I know all too well the dangers of leaving things open to interpretation. By making your meaning opaque, people will either insert their own meaning or be so frustrated that they put aside trying to interpret yours. It just seems like the kind of bad thinking that advertising often finds itself trapped in because of the desire to do something “different” and “edgy”.
“Shampoozled” comes to mind for me…
I have to add a different perspective…the fact that we’re sitting here talking about these types of campaigns proves some level of success in the eyes of certain advertising strategists. I would have to say that our curious nature and specific bias in the fields we occupy somewhat slants the perspective of how these messages are interpreted by us, regardless of the actual effect they may or may not have on the target audience. Thoughts?