They also are proving to be very successful, and based on sales results issued this week, they seem to be driving sales like crazy and putting pressure on other competitors. I note that is the same week one of the key ones (confused.com) has even "parted ways with their ad agency".This is usually a sure sign sales are down - and the ad agency takes the bullet.The gocompare.com ads feature a large opera singer popping up and singing a song that will stick in your brain all day. It seems to be on air all the time, is pretty crass and without a doubt means whenever you come to relook or renew your insurance they will be one of the first to pop into your mind. No doubt why they are doing so well. (If you not seen them, an example is at the bottom of this posting).
It also really annoying. But as it does the job that is probably enough. Isn't it?
In the UK three types of ads seem to do best.
1: Highly entertaining ads that people love to watch, and will be voted and played in those "favourite ads of the year/ decade/ whenever" shows, and that people talk about. I don't think any country quite does this style of ad as well, nor do they work as well. In the UK it is really hard to get high impact with ads, and this seems to encourage this. People reward being entertained with sales, as Cadbury proved with that Dairy Milk Drumming Gorilla
2: Ads that get banned. Nothing seems to get the result as having your ad banned. The press seem to love both songs and ads that get banned. You are guaranteed acres of comment, and now - thanks to YouTube - a lot if people seeing it. These ads get people to buy through being aware of you usually more through borrowed interest to create the fuss. One of the more popular techniques is having a gay theme, used by Heinz and more recently by McDonalds in France where a father and son go for a meal and clearly the son is not interested in girls that his dad keeps going on about. Huge uproar. Huge publicity. Huge hits on YouTube. Huge increase in awareness of McDonalds and as top of mind people popping by. (the ad is linked below as well)
3: Annoying ads. Ads that pound away relentlessly and pop into your brain. It seems these work best when all the advertiser really wants is brand recall and top of mind. They do seem to work in cluttered markets - like insurance - where products are largely seen as the same and pretty much commodity. So the key is to stamp your name and service firmly in the brain so you are always in the consideration set. Here it seems that annoying people is not a barrier to people actually using or buying you. They remember you when they need you, and if your offer is good then you sell. As the go compare.com experience shows.
Does this mean we should all focus on being more annoying or courting controversy? Should we be looking to being able to say when agencies present work: "great, that is really annoying!"?
No. But it does remind us how much advertising - be it online or traditional media - is all so bland and blends in. The above shows how important it is to be noticed and remembered. This is where to focus. You need to be remembered. And it has to be better to be remembered over time for being good, entertaining and interesting than just annoying?
Thoughts? Leave a comment on the blog post or email me gary@bembridge.co.uk
An example of a confused.com ad
THE FRENCH DAD-SON MCDONALD AD
Sign up now to get updates from Gary Bembridge: Marketing Unleashed
- For email blog updates: click here now
- Subscribe on iTunes to the podcast: click here now
- Follow @garybembridge on twitter: click here now
- Join the Facebook Fan Page: click here now
2 comments:
Just popped-by your blog and found the go compare piece. Good review. The annoying element is easy to understand. Something becomes annoying when it sticks with you whatever you do irrespective of it being functional to what you’re doing. The jingle plays on the back of the audience’s head for a while after they’ve been primed. It just sticks as background noise, that’s all they want. Annoying, but works. Look at their media execution and their scattergun approach (they don’t need much focus, as their audience is pretty much all adults) will undoubtedly pay dividends. Someone, somewhere, will be looking for car insurance (their core product) so it’s bound to lead people to pay a visit, and if the experience with the site is good enough, convert.
They can afford to be annoying because their brand strategy/positioning allows so. True, not quite the bullet for brands such as the ones under your watch, e.g. RoC or Neutrogena. Take RoC as an example. For a brand that’s been under heavy pressure for some time now, wouldn’t it pay off being a bit décontracté..? Think of it, for the most part we’re talking anti-ageing here. It opens the door to a myriad of creative options which could make use of that theme to build a creative that breaks the mould, bombs the place, redefines the way the category sees itself and its customers. If it’s not going to come from innovation/new news, if it’s not going to come from naturist credentials (such as Caudalie) it needs to come from breaking ranks. The ‘annoying’ equivalent of go compare in RoC’s marketplace.
The problem with many people doing analytics for brands is that they forget what goes in the middle. You can tie-up a media/campaign execution to sales performance and measure uplifts. You’ve built (hopefully) a causal link. That does not explain why it has worked, only that it has worked. It certainly becomes handy, but only informative in terms of ‘ticking the box’ (job done) rather than understanding how your brand has been building value. There are surely many interesting lessons from the go compare case that go beyond the cause-effect relationship of annoyance-sales uplift. I can think of many examples from the past (without the annoyance element; remember the work I did years ago for match.com) but that would require a lengthy e-mail and rather not bore you..!
Take care,
Eduardo Salazar
Hi..!!
Very good effort..
Keep it up..
Post a Comment