It’s really hard to determine if an ad is
misleading because standards and laws have not agreed on a definition. How do
we protect ourselves?
Thursday, 20 November 2014
Wednesday, 19 November 2014
Ethical Standards in Advertising
It is really hard to determine if an ad is misleading. Even
with the use of laws, standards and academic research there is still a lack of
understanding and an agreed upon definition which could be used to identify it.
With this being said, if the definition of a misleading ad is so broad how are
consumers expected to be able to identify it?
What might we assume to be a misleading ad if it is so hard
to determine it?
Three types of false
advertising
- Fraud
- Falsity
- Misleading
A misleading ad really focuses on the belief of the consumer
in combination with the exposure of an ad. In this situation, there is a
discrepancy between the belief of the consumer and the facts presented in an
ad.
So now we have a good understanding of what a misleading ad
is, how does this played out in an actually campaigns? When a company has stepped
over that fine line, how much does it cost them? For the company, we have to
question if they are willing to change their policies to provide accurate
information to the consumer or are they only interested in their profits?
Lets look at three companies to answer these questions.
Activia Yogurt (Falsified information)
The brand Dannon falsified information about their product
by stating that the health benefits of their yogurt were superior to the
competitors. The company used such words as clinically and scientifically
proven to drive this falsified belief in their campaigns.
This information was incorrect because the nutritional value
of the yogurt was exactly the same as any other yogurt. Over time, some
consumers started to question this claim and they ended up bringing the company to
court. In the end Dannon was force to setting a pay up to $45 million in damage
to its consumers.
In 2009, Olay used the model Twiggy in their ad campaign to promote an eye cream. In this ad Twiggy was shown with no wrinkles. They claimed that the eye cream would remove wrinkles so you can look younger. Twiggy, at the time the ad was released, was in her early 60s and that the images were excessively retouched. In some areas of the world, such as Britain, the ad was deemed as misleading and could potentially have a negative impact on the body image of individuals. In the end, the ad was pulled.
In 2001, the Korean Ministry of Construction and
Transportation found out that the two car company tolds their consumers that their cars had 9.6% more
horsepower than the cars actually had.
When consumers received their car they were extremely
disappointed to find out that the car they were expected was not what they got.
As a result, comsumers in California took a class action lawsuit claiming that the
company was able to sell more cars at higher prices because of the fraudulent
claims made in their ads. They settled the lawsuit for something between $75 million and
$125 million.
Even if determining if an ad is making a false claim, as a
consumer we have to make wise decisions based on prior research and our own judgement. Yes, at times this is hard to do. With that being said, with the tools and the knowledge in your hands you will be able to determine if an
ad is making a false claim. Furthermore, with these tools you can
stand up for yourself and over time with enough people making claims, companies will be forced
to change even if they do not care too.
Tuesday, 18 November 2014
Our Attention Spans is not the Issue
Over the last 10 years, TV commercials have dropped much of
its airing time. When television was first invented and became commonplace in
the average consumers household, the average commercial lasted approximately 60
seconds. In 2014, the average commercial was a mix of 15 seconds to 30 seconds
in length. This is the result of the emergence of digital venues such as
YouTube and Facebook.
So are shorter ads the way to go when a company is trying to
grab the attention of its viewers? The answer to this question is yes and no.
The average commercial lasts more than 15 to 30 it will lose the viewers attention if it does not have any value to them. With that being said, if the commercial has value and a good story then the
possibility of the a viewer to watch the whole ad will increase.
What is Good about
Shorter Ads?
Short ads do not mean that the ad is lacking quality. Even
when you are limited to say 15 seconds for a Facebook ad if the story
behind the ad is really good the viewer will watch it. According to Heather Taylor vice-president at
Ogilvy, “the short form is extremely valuable, because we want to consume
quickly.” In many of these cases the point of a shorter ad is to just get the brands message across. Furthermore, Heather
explains that shorter ads have a higher chance of being shared on social media
websites such as Facebook and Twitter.
A great example of this idea of a short ad is when General
Electric paired their logo with the caption “Innovation starts at
the drawing board.” This ad is effective because the main focus behind it was
to get their brands message across. Every great thing the company does starts at a
drawing board. This in reinforced by the illustration of a logo being drawing
on graph paper implying that their brand was started at a drawing table.
Overall, due to our shorter attention spans, advertisers are
now forced to create better content that is more entertaining, meaningful and
relatable. They are forced advertisers to get to the point without losing value
or details. They end up having to focus
on the images, keeping the message short and having quick, interesting and
clever headline.
The Case for Longer Ads
According to Kelly O’Keefe, a professor of creative brand
management at Virginia Commonwealth University, “it is a myth that consumers
reject long ads. They reject uninteresting ads, irrelevant ads or ads
that insult their intelligence, and unfortunately these represent the majority
of what consumer encounters.” For ads that use meaningful or insulting content
“even 10 seconds is intolerable, so many viewers just skip them. But life isn't shaped by 30-second moments, and if a story is relevant, compelling and well
told, consumers have proven that they are interested.”
In April 2014, Firestone released a 90 second
commercial that did not emphasized the product but the story of two young
lovers who run away from their parents in a flatbed truck to elope. Even though
this is a great example of a longer ads being effective, it was not originally
intended to be this long. The agency, Publicis Groupe, who created the ad, sent the company an unedited version of the commercial. The ad originally
was suppose to be aired in 15-30 second slots. With that being said, the company felt that the
full version elevated the brand and helped with increasing interesting in their
product.
Tuesday, 11 November 2014
It Sounds like sit!
What is wrong with
swearing?
The main agenda of a brand is to attract as many possible
costumers as possible so by using content that may be seen as inappropriate
limits the companies reach on its audience. With that being said, there are
situation where swearing could work and allow the company to identify with its
audience.
Lets take bear as an example. If a company is trying to
identify with 20-35 blue-collar workers who enjoy a beer after work, an ad that
using swearing, like these guys probably do, it stands to reason to use taglines such as “this beer tastes f**king great! Probably not, but this goes to show
that swearing when used in the right way can be very effective.
So, how does this
sh*t work?
As Leo Burnett once said, “Make it simple. Make it
memorable. Make it inviting to look at. Make it fun to read.”
In more then one way this quote really sums up the backbone
of what a good ad should be like. With that being said, I feel there is one
element that is missing which validates the use of swearing in ads. The final
element is an ad needs to be clever. A clever ad is the key to making
swearing work! If an ad is not clever the viewer will read right through it and
just think you are swearing for swearing sake.
In terms of the world of advertising there seems to be only
three ways in which swearing can be successful:
- The use of puns or double meaning.
- When swearing is implied but not actually said.
- Clever
Slipstreaming
Why do we want to incorporate swearing in our ads? The answer
to this question is to create emotional impact and to grab the attention of the
viewer. Swearing is an extreme use of language to imply something that is
impactful. With that being said, swearing is really tricky in ads. In our
society swearing is used to express frustrations, anger and to release tension
in difficult situations. It is a way for us to communicate strong feelings and
to get a strong response back.
It is very rare
to see swearing in advertising because of the high possibility of offending somebody.
This is why it is important to know who your demographic is and understand the
possible implications of adding swearing into your ads. With that being said,
if the benefits of using this tool outweigh the negatives there really is no
reason to not use the tool but to remember to use it in a smart and creative
way.
Are you being implicit?
So how can you jump on the bandwagon and incorporate
swearing into your ads? Well the answer is rather simple. You tone it down and
imply swearing instead of explicitly saying it.
A great example of implied swearing is used in the ad for
Air Asia. In this ad the tagline reads “Cheap enough to say, Phuket I’ll go.” When
we read the ad our interpretation of the word “Phuket” is influenced by the
verbal composition of the ad but at the same time we see the rudeness of it.
This vulgarity is really created in our heads and the use of phonetics used in
the ad.
When words are used to imply swearing it really is important
for the word to have purpose and integrity. They also need to be able to
generate an awareness of words that might sound and feel familiar to the swear
word.
A great example is an ad done by Virgin Atlantic’s called
“Sit, Shower, Shave.” This ad was created to promote the Virgin Atlantic’s
upper class arrivals lounge. This ad is effective because it plays on words and
it really is in the eye of the beholder to determine the contextual context of
the ad itself.
Are you implying
something?
Another tool is to imply swearing. For example when people
swear on TV the swear word is implied by a bleeping. This notion was used in
the Bud Light ad called “Swearing Jar.”
In the video, the bleeps only partly cover up with swearing
and as a result, the context of the ad exposes the advertisers intent. The issue
with this ad, is if it could work with other brands that are not as large as
Bud is?
Be Bloody Clever!
Regardless of the ad shown in this post, they all have one thing in common. All of these ads are
clever. The are able to cut through all of the clutter to grab the attention
of the viewer long enough to create a challenge and a sense of discovery. It is
a puzzle to solve and a reward for solving it. When the reader finally figures
the ad out there is a sense of appreciation and a liking of the ad. People like
and enjoy clever ads. They become memorable and this feeling is transferred
over to the brand itself.
Overall, when incorporating swearing into ads, it is
important to avoid giving offence and being crude about it. It is more
important to be smart and to use the tricks illustrated in this post.
I will leave you with two little gifts!
and last but not lease!
George Carlin – 7 Dirty Words
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)