What the heck, guys? I saw it and immediately though, "But those other ads told me something else. Who is THIS ad from?" Whereupon I looked down, saw the logo, and realized I better re-read the headlines.
"OOOOOOhhhhhh, it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek..."
Knowing that consumers are more likely to read just the headline than they are the headline + the body copy, this ad did little to educate, which seems to be the purpose of the campaign. Certainly its ok to attempt some humor, but it was much easier for me to respond to just the headline and skip the body copy, which explains the sarcasm. Maybe it was just the speed at which I was paging through, but that just puts me as a typical consumer. Had I not been attuned to the campaign in the first place, I probably would have taken the "fact," turned the page, and never given it a second thought. Especially because the "fact" given is the common misconception that they're trying to reverse, it didn't quite hit the mark.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have used humor, or made an attempt at more creativity in their education, but I think the ad was poorly done and ineffective, and possibly might set them back further.
Posts
2 comments:
This is what happens when a marketer (and their ad agency) play defense.
-The Thin Man
Defense is perfectly fine and oftentimes smart (see Microsoft's new ads) when done correctly. But this was confusing, not clear enough about the message it DID want to portray--that HFCS is no worse than sugar or honey. It required the reader to cover just a bit too much ground.
Post a Comment