…is that (unfortunately) they don’t resonate with the majority of the North American audience.

Now, a few points I need to clarify here:

1) I’m in North America.
2) I’m not calling the general public a bunch of morons. … …
3) I’m not under the impression that this is a ‘new’ idea.

I’ve been going through the archives at http://www.ibelieveinadv.com/ and I just started to notice that whenever I’d smile and nod, savouring that “a-ha” moment that really good ads are known for inducing, it would be due to one of the non-North American teams at BBDO, Publicis, Oglivy etc etc etc… Seldom were those moments the result of an ad that was grown and cultivated here on this side of the pond.

This post however, is not about the differences between the North American market and… pretty much the rest of the world. I just wanted to make a few observations about ads that make me wonder about them for a little while after I’ve seen them, and the effect that has on the brand the ad is trying to represent. It tends to be the rule rather than the exception, that advertisers want their customers to “get it” immediately after they consume one of their ads. Sometimes, that actually works:

There’s an instant connection/spark/kick to the groin upon delivering their message. However if this fails, well then you can always resort to plan B; play the ad 10-15 times an hour, plaster it within view of any moving organism with a pair of eyes and shove it in every paper publication available on the news stand in order to beat your message over the heads of the public.

Or… you can do something like this (click the image to go directly to the IBIA site):

Now I’m completely open to the fact that I may just be obtuse and I didn’t “get it” instantly. But those of you that (like me) looked at it for a bit and went “…what?” will know what I mean. The internal monologue in my head switched on, and I started to wonder about what exactly was going on here.

There’s a shirt, a tie… a rather extreme closeup of said things. Hmm… It’s for Clearasil. They’re an acne cream. There’s not much of the guys face in the ad. “Say hello to the mirror…” What does that mean? … That guy’s collar’s kinda weird. You’d think he would ha-…

Now here’s an ad that just got me to stare at it for about the same length of time as an average television spot, and all it had in it was a picture of a shirt and a tie (and some stubbly dude). Is this going to have the same effect on me as an ad that repeats… *ahem* ad nauseum (sorry), or one that appeals to my sense of kitsch like a cute ol’ grandma wondering about the location of misplaced beef? Perhaps, perhaps not. I suppose the real question is, what kind of brainpower does one need to apply towards perceiving an ad (active or passive) before that ad becomes ‘effective’? Further, if both types of perception result in increased sales, does it really matter?

As usual, leaving you with more questions than answers,… cheers.

In the last post, I attempted to guess at the future of advertising with respect to the gaming experience. I suggested a scenario whereby you’d be able to order a pizza while playing a game, without ever having to leave the gamespace. Well, it turns out that this was in fact attempted (sort of) by Sony and Pizza Hut back in 2005. While playing EverQuest II, as a player you could enter a command into the system which would then bring up the Pizza Hut website.

This is not exactly what I had mind, as all this really does is launch a web browser which is outside the game world. But it was certainly a step in the right direction. Merging elements of real life into the game environment is something that’s evolved over the last few years, and it’s been met with equal amounts of positive and negative feedback from both consumers and game developers. The major concern amongst the gaming community is that the inclusion of marketing material into a game detracts from its creative value; if you put an ad for Coke or Pepsi into a game, the entire game essentially becomes one giant advertisement. On the other hand, the industry has to be open to different revenue models that will allow it to remain competitive. At the end of the day, someone has to get compensated. So where’s the middle ground?

Well, there are some companies that have been trying to strike a balance. IBM, SonyBMG (there’s that name again), and Nike among others have all set up permanent residence within SecondLife, an online world which has been eluding a specific definition since its inception in 2003.

Once a brand makes a transition like this into a virtual world, it changes in a way that marketers and gamers don’t fully understand yet. If you walk into a store “in the real world”, you interact with a brand. It’s the goal of advertising to make this happen (in order to facilitate a transaction). If you “walk” into a store in SecondLife, the distinction between marketing and brand-interaction becomes blurred. If you end up making a transaction, the experience is really no different than if you walked into a physical store.

The difference between SecondLife and other online worlds however, is that SecondLife has no inherent storyline. There’s no plot distract from, which makes advertising seem less intrusive. It’s almost part of the experience itself. The open ended nature of many modern online games allows for the same kind of “freedom” when it comes to in-game ads. As players find themselves in between a particular set of tasks within the game, they usually congregate in common areas, which provide prime opportunities for advertisers to engage them. At this point, it’s merely up to the advertisers to do what they’ve always been tasked with doing: Provide consumers with an engaging message that persuades them to [trans]act. This doesn’t mean billboards and banners, which seem to be the predominant form of IGA (in game ads) right now. This means being as immersed within the game world as the gamers are. This means understanding their behaviour, and responding to it in a way that is as engaging as the game itself.

An example of such behaviour involves something as simple as traveling within the game world. One of the more tedious aspects of online gaming involves plodding/flying/otherwise moving from place to place. Such a thing can take several minutes, hours, or in some cases, days. So what if a company like RedBull offered an in-game service that would take the player to their desired destination (giving them wings as it were… sorry) for a nominal price (real or virtual)?

Makes sense, no?

I had mentioned in my previous post that I’ve been a bit of a PC hobbyist since the late 90′s. Building my own machines, pulling my hair out when I invariably messed something up and had to start all over again. I’ve been clearing out piles of old PC magazines, including a rather bulky collection of Maximum PC which dates back to 1999. So of course nostalgia kicks in and I start flipping through some of the older issues, and I started to realize something. The actual specifications of PC components have become less and less prominent in just about all forms of marketing material.

There was a time when PCs were marketed and sold literally by the numbers. CPU manufacturers incorporated the processor speed right into the product names themselves. But a glance at an ad from Best Buy or Dell will reveal just how much this has changed. Processor speeds and cache sizes have been replaced with more “comfortable” features and benefits (space-saving, optimized, easy upgrades) and technology “microbrands” like Crossfire, Corei7, and BluRay.

The reason for this isn’t all that mysterious, and I think it represents a definite response to consumer feedback to the industry. The average consumer doesn’t really care what’s under the hood. Well let me rephrase that. Customers don’t care about the low-level details, as long as it performs for them as expected. As a PC manufacturer, this is a bit of an issue because you can’t continue to “wow” consumers with incremental increases in gigahertz or Terabytes anymore. So instead, you go back to basics. Focus on maintaining connection between the brand, and the consumer. The markets will sort themselves out in terms of who buys what. Hobbyists can still get ample information on component specs from any number of online sources, and when you look at it, they were never the primary audience for the major retailers anyways. What really matters is whether or not you (as a company) can recognize the difference between a message that says “We have a PC for you” and “We have YOUR PC”. Hobbyists are more likely to respond to the former. The rest of the world responds to the latter.

This is definitely the direction that the PC market has been heading in for a couple years now. The Mac camp of course has been doing this even before the infamous Mac vs PC campaign. Well, there was this guy too, but… that particular campaign didn’t last too long.

The same kind of shift has been going on in other areas of personal technology too. Consumer level camera ads speak more about ease of use than megapixels. Instead of listing off all of the bells and whistles, mobile phones are all about service plans and the different ways that you can connect with people once you get the device in your hands. Of course, improvements in technology will continue to make there way into successive versions of products, but it will be interesting to see if there will be another shift in the way that those products are marketed to us.