The architecture of advertising

My brother, who is studying architecture once told me that one cannot design a building without knowing its purpose. Similiarly, you can't create an ad without a strategy.

“Creative without strategy is called 'art.' Creative with strategy is called 'advertising.'” - Jef I. Richards (US advertising professor). The marketing team from the client's side and the account management team from the agency's side usually decide on the perfect strategy and consequently, the brand message. Depending on the creative team and the target audience, the same brand message maybe be treated differently. What happens when the creative rendition of the same brand attribute of a similiar service is radically different in two different countries?

Take the example of Hutch and Verizon Wireless. Both are cellular service providers with the same USP - great connectivity. Both are major players in their respective markets, India and US.

What O&M did with Hutch is legendary. The year was 2003. The basic concept was a boy with a dog which followed him everywhere, kind of like Mary's little lamb. This idea was spread across a series of TVC, print and every other media possible. What followed were awards, accolades and a significant increase in the sales of the dog, a solemn looking pug. The tagline was "wherever you go, our network will follow". The dog was a powerful visual aid symbolising the network and eventually became the Hutch mascot. The TVC was devoid of any unecessary conversation, a lilting background score not only made the campaign entertaining, but also pushed up the brand recall.

Did it work? According to Businessworld, "Hutch saw its subscriber base shooting up by over 70 per cent right after the campaign broke."

McCann-Erickson, armed with a simliar brief for Verizon Wireless created a TVC, with parodies of horror movies and ghoulish looking characters trying to scare a person with tales of a Dead Zone, who calmly responds that he or she has Verizon, and then the slogan appears, "Don't be afraid of Dead Zones". The scare lingers and the message is crystal clear. The brand attribute is understood and brand recall is very high.

Did it work? The ad was released in June 2008 and an October 27, 2008 issue of the New York Times says "Verizon Communications' stock price jumped 10.1 percent Monday on news that profit increased 31 percent for the third quarter, buoyed by surprising gains in the number of new wireless customers. Verizon Wireless added 2.1 million customers in the quarter — to total 70.8 million." Please keep in mind the economic condition of 2008 when you read this.

The premise of the Hutch campaign could in no way be called anything like that of the Verizon campaign. The campaigns proved that similiar strategies can have dissimiliar execution with exceptional results in both cases.

Here I must add that Vodafone acquired Hutch in 2007 in India and Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon and the Vodafone Group. Seems like network supremacy is the motto for this telecom giant.

One from each of the series of Pug Ads and the Dead Zone Ads for you to get an idea

Mentioning competitive brands in your commercial

After spending five years in Indian Advertising, I moved to Connecticut, the bedroom of New York. Hoping to get a first-hand experience of US ad agencies and their work, I dived in. Of course, anybody who is interested in advertising can see first-rate ads from around the world, thanks to the Cannes website, ad-based shows on TV and the youtube....but what about the regular Joes? How and where are American products being promoted day in and day out?

The first thing that struck me about American TVCs was the abundance of "comparitive ads". Pain relievers, sandwiches, car insurances....no category is spared. As an ad executive and a consumer, I can say that it does not work. What I am left with is either confusion or the competitive brand.

Let's take the example of Advil, a popular pain reliever in US. It actually shows us a split screen comparison between itself and its competitor Tylenol, complete with a voiceover and on-screen scribbles underlying the benefits of taking Advil over Tylenol. But know what, by the time my mind has juggled back and forth over the two brand names and their pros and cons, I have already moved on to another channel or the next ad.

Next time I am at a pharmacy, my mind has happily glided over the details and I am left with a feeling of "either this or that". Both are good as both are market leaders is the message that I have retained. Differentiation be damned when the basic composition and the usage is similiar. Note how the brand message is lost in a clutter of comparisons.

Also, why would you promote your competitor in your time? You bought space or time in a particular medium to advertise your brand, why waste it on anything else?