the big difference between two TV ads for airlines

The first ad is a little tear jerker from the famous airline down under, the second an effort from Richard Branson's lot.

Qantas have given us another example of something that is expected to engage you (whatever that means these days) with their brand  - but as a piece of effective advertising, will have negligible impact on the bottom line.

Surely the ad's job in this context is to give the viewer a really good reason to spend their money with Qantas rather than with one of their competitors? If the end result isn't to sell more planes tickets, what's the point in doing the ad?

You could stick another airline's logo at the end and be none the wiser as to why you should fly with Qantas. Every airline can bring people home around the world which basically renders the whole strategy worthless.

Really well shot - yes. Possibilities of being remembered and acted upon - very little.



Sitting on the other side of the fence is this latest ad from Virgin Atlantic.



Again a piece of well shot advertising from one of the big boys but this time the ad is definitely on brand (would any other airline but Virgin do something like this?) and weighs heavily on giving the viewer a number of reasons why they should choose their airline over someone else (Qantas for example).

One ad gives me tangible reasons to remember it, the other just hopes I will. Advantage Mr Branson.


Comments