Monday, 26 January 2015

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.


Tuesday, 20 January 2015

Newcastle Brown Ale get in on the Super Bowl action

In a couple of weeks time, Superbowl XLIX will be played between New England Patriots and Seattle Seahawks in Glendale, Arizona.

By all accounts the event is a big deal. Zillions of viewers, copious amounts of hot dogs, gallons of Budweiser whilst not forgetting $4m a pop for 30 seconds of prime time TV advertising during the game itself.

Yep, $4m for a whole 30 seconds to get your message listened to and remembered. With that sort of figure in mid it's no surprise that only the corporate big boys have the clout to take a gamble during the few hours of game time.

And when the corporate big boys of America do Superbowl advertising, it tends to be a little on the... boring side. Less 'we've got a great opportunity here to really stand out from the crowd' but more 'we're spending a bucket load of cash here so let's not be too risky chaps'.

And that's where the good people at Newcastle Brown Ale (yes, that NBA) stepped in. Well, sort of stepped in. They decided that $4m was a little steep for them so launched a pre-Superbowl campaign (at usual rates) that takes the mickey out of traditional brand/bland Superbowl ads. The time has been used wisely - their distinctive logo appears about every five seconds - and the tone/execution is definitely on brand.

Just goes to show that when you haven't got the money to outspend the competition, you have to use your brain to out think them.


Thanks to the guys over at Sell!Sell! for this story.

Thursday, 15 January 2015

great talk explaining why social media isn't right for brands

Not sure how many of you are avid readers of Marketing Week but they have a great columnist called Mark Ritson.

Mark is an associate professor of marketing and an expert on branding, has worked with some of the biggest brands all over the world, and you would like to think his opinion is a respected one.

But there's one area of marketing where his opinion differs greatly from the majority of his peers, and that is in the effectiveness of brands using social media as an advertising tool.



Back in November of 2014, Mark was invited to talk at the World Marketing and Sales Conference in Melbourne, and he took the opportunity to dismiss the effectiveness of brands using social media as an advertising platform.

Whether you agree with what he's saying or not (for the record we do), the guy is a great speaker and his words are well worth half an hour of your time.

has your online ad ever appeared before a human eye?

So you've been wowed by stats about the success of online advertising, invested a tidy sum and are now sitting back waiting for the clicks to ad up.

Based on some recently released figures (click on the link below for a lovely infographic from Google), you might be have a long wait if you think these clicks will all be from real people who could potentially buy your product. According to the search giant, a whopping 56% of online ads will never appear before a human eye. Never, not even once.

Also according to Google, an ad served doesn't necessarily equal an ad viewed either. Both advertisers and publishers are now catching on as the industry shifts toward valuing viewable (rather than served) impressions.

So what affects an ad's viewability? The Google study looked at their own display advertising platforms, including Google and DoubleClick.

In the infographic, Google list five factors that affect the extent to which ads are seen, from page position to ad dimensions and more.

A display ad is considered viewable when 50% of an ad’s pixels are in view on the screen for a minimum of one second (as defined by the Media Rating Council) whilst an ad 'above the fold' is 50% more likely to be viewed that an ad that is 'below the fold'.

Food for thought when considering to believe the hype or ignore it.

To find out more truthful facts about paid for, online advertising see the full infographic here