The general consensus of the room was that its a really cleaver ad, demonstrating how marketing and communication today is moving away from a push marketing approach, (that is the company or seller directly tells you information and why you should buy the product, and is now about engaging the audience is a subtle branding exercise that allows the audience to sub-concisely associate themselves with the person and the ideals of the advertisement.
However, I disagree with this pretence, this ad is to subtle, and not enough people watching make the association that this is promoting jeans, or even consider that jeans is an important element of the ad.
If we look at the general discussion on the actual Youtube page we can see that whilst some people make the association with Jeans, "this would be a good levi's commercial", "i dont know why, but i really really want to buy some levis" "BEST. LEVIS. COMMERCIAL. EVER" are just some of the few times Levi's is even mentioned in the comments. Most of the discussion is around, who is the music by, and a completely inane discussion on why if the title says America, when the guy didn't walk through South America and Canada.
Now it is clear that Levi's did not want this to be seen as an ad in the normal sense of the word, and I am sure the comment "This would make a good levi's commercial" is the exact sentiment they would be looking for, it is not the norm, and even if you say its the majority, would it not be equally as effective if they had more branding at the end.
Furthermore, whilst the video is engaging many people may not watch until end missing the pocket zoom at the end in any case.
If we look at the Olympus Pen Story ad we can see a video that also went viral with over 2.8 million views employed the same technique just made the branding at the end far more clear and less subtle.
Are you less likely to watch or share the Olympus ad because its more clearly an ad?
I personally am not, I am equally happy to view the ad based on the creativity of the production, it does not bother me that one is and ad and the other a subtle product placement, if anything, I am more upset at Levi's for trying to promote to me something on such a subconscious level.
The production of both ads in terms of time and money is clearly extensive if I was a company I simply would not take the risk. But, that's just me...
The production of both ads in terms of time and money is clearly extensive if I was a company I simply would not take the risk. But, that's just me...
What do you think?
You have to stop trying to think as a marketer and put your self in the shoes of the consumer.. the consumer wants to be entertain and not have the brand up in their face!!!! Using these short films creates brand awareness sub-consciously and consumer are more willing to share these films with their friends..... The film wouldn't have the same impact if it was plastered with Levis at the end. The consumer has a sense of gratification and enjoyment when watching these youtube videos, which the company hopes in-turn will rub off onto their own products...
ReplyDeleteDon't you have to take risks like these to cut through the clutter of ads out there?
http://logged-into-emarketing.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteMonte: I agree with you in the sense that ads need to break through the clutter but do you really think that the Olympus ad was less effective because it was branded??
ReplyDeleteBut, I do hear your argument I think at the end of the day it comes down to preference and I think the only way to really tell is by looking at the KPI's..would you at least agree with that statement?
I agree with you in that I think the Levis ad was too subtle. If Wags hadn't said it was a Levis ad, I would not have made the connection. If the ad had a very quick levis logo at the end,more clearly identifying who the clip was for, I would be quite happy to still send it on to my friends as it still entertains me. As long as im not having the brand pushed in my face for a full 3 minutes, and the brand is only shown briefly at the end, i am quite happy to watch.
ReplyDeleteOw I just did a post on this on my blog.
ReplyDeleteWAA youtube video made it onto ABC World News with Diane Sawyer which averages from 6 million to 9 million viewers... so the cost of making it and the reach that is has got , has to be more effective then the Olympus ad... Blogs are a buzz with the ad, taking about how it was done....
ReplyDeleteHasn't this video got more bang for it buck then the Olympus ad?
Monte, no question the Levi ad has gone viral, I accept it is a very good ad. The only issue i have is whether or not they took too much of a risk being so subtle.
ReplyDeleteMy point of the comparison is that both ads hit millions of viewers is one worse simply because its more branded i think my question still stands. .