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