Have you seen this film for Carre-de-Chocolat from Japan? It’s a riveting piece of creative and a good example of exaggerating a claim and great story telling. This won a bronze at the Cannes Lions festival in 2008.
What makes the ad enjoyable and have repeat value are the little touches: the deceased gentleman in the photograph, the little tease when the woman sneezes and so on. Hats off to the client for believing in the idea and having it executed well. In most conference rooms, such creative will be rejected based on a simple question: why is this true of my brand and my brand alone? Wonder why such a question is asked only of the advertising idea and not of the product itself. Most products are mere copies of several others in the category without any intrinsic, inherent differentiation. In such cases advertising has to to be the differentiator. Advertising has to be the one that imbues ‘likeability’ to the brand and thereby subliminally creating preference.
Another reason why such scripts are rejected is the one pertaining to ‘branding’. In marketing & advertising discussions, the definition of ‘branding’ can vary depending on the context. When it comes to creative work, ‘branding’ is usually about (a) how often the brand name is mentioned in the TV spot (b) how soon the brand is introduced in the spot (c) how big the logo is. It also manifests in overt use of brand colours in the ad – yellow curtains to go with a yellow pack and so on.
The underlying reason is fear of mis-attribution i.e. watching an ad for Brand X and attributing it to the competitor Brand Y. The fear is understandable as no marketer or agency would like the competitor to benefit from their advertising. But insisting on repeating a brand name more than twice or insisting on the brand appearing within 8 seconds of the ad doesn’t automatically guarantee ‘strong branding’. Its about the idea and whether we manage to hold the viewers attention and ‘reward’ them at the end of it all. Having said that, the non-blinking woman has the brand introduced in the last few seconds of the 180-second ad. It is not a globally renowned name (at least not to me) and doesn’t have a differentiated feature. So is the creative property (non-blinking woman) overpowering the brand? And leaving the viewer remembering the protagonist but not the brand? Is there merit in the client worries about ‘strong branding?’ Do comment in.