Tuesday, 27 August 2013

Rookie mistake Windows, rookie.

Apple, Apple, Apple, Apple, Apple, Apple, Apple, Windows, Apple.

After reading that, which brand are you more likely to remember?

This new Windows/Nokia Lumia ad shows a comprehensive misunderstanding of how advertising works.

Why does an ad paid for by Windows/Nokia feature the Apple iPhone for the lion's share of the time?

It exposes a complete ignorance on the behalf of its creators of the central role memory plays in advertising.

Advertising is all about memory building.

Without it, advertising would happen in a vacuum.

An ad is designed to put a brand at the top of your audience's mind (Store it in their memory) and be easily retrieved (Remembered) in a buying situation. (Achieved through creative problem solving)

So, why has Windows/Nokia (Two of the biggest brands in the world) paid for a TV commercial that will not only not be remembered as theirs, but worse still, builds memory structures for their competition?

But even more shockingly, the spot ends with:

"Do you know everyday more photos are taken with an iPhone".

This line is what's truly gobsmacking. As I write this I can't remember the ad's actual message.

I know it was one of those single minded propositions like bigger, faster, better etc. You know, real advertising-y - and forgettable.

What I am left with is this: More people use an iphone. Visually this is reinforced in the ad, and then verbally it's the last thing the audience hears.

(And according to the Herd Heuristic this is a very compelling line. Way more memorable than a stale SMP.)

The spot basically advertises the competition.

It's like taking a girl you're courting out for an expensive dinner and the whole time talking about how great the other guy is.

If someone from Windows is reading this: It's not too late.

Take the ad back into the edit suite, make all the Apple products generic, and GET rid of that last line. Stat.

As a side note, Bogusky did the same thing in his Sodastream Superbowl ad. At the time I thought he did this intentionally, see Bogus Bogusky and the Sodastream scheme, now I'm starting to think otherwise.

By Christopher Ott

No comments:

Post a Comment