It's been a very long week. One of those perfect storms: lots of new business activity, significant client workload, not enough time. Exciting stuff, really.
I've been delayed on posting. And over the last 7 days lots of stuff has been on my mind...
I'm going to resume by starting a dialog that I hope continues for awhile and gets some comments. The subject is High-Concept advertising. You know, those deeply smart and insightful ads that, once you understand what's going on, make you feel part of the club and look at something completely different. Great stuff.
The trouble is, often these ads fly right on by the consumer. High-concept ads are expensive, difficult for the agency and client to agree on, and if they don't work, often spell trouble for the entire relationship (see Bahamavention).
I don't know the answer but I think somewhere between Motorola and New Mexico Tourism the truth lies.
Like I seem to have been doing for the last several weeks, I'm going to use filmed content to articulate a point... Below is a recent campaign from M&C Saatchi for New Mexico Tourism and a Motorola spot directed by Michel Gondry:
They're both excellent. Each tell a story in a very unique and visually appealing way. What's interesting for me is how my familiarness with both brands affects my thinking of these ads.
I know nothing about New Mexico from a tourist perspective. I've lived 33 years and have never seen an ad for the state. But it's not that complicated of a product...we all have some imagery in our minds about New Mexico. After seeing these spots, I want to go visit and had to check out the site. The end shots look fantastic and the aliens make me watch. I mean, how can you not?
Motorola is a bit different. I know the brand, know it's cool and know it's relevant. As a consumer what I'm waiting for is new information. And I'm waiting for them to tell me 'when' to buy my next RAZR. The Gondry ad is beautiful but it does take a few viewings, and with me an explanation, to get it. Once you do, you're hooked. And the more I see it, the more I want to watch it. But because I was so familiar with the brand and was waiting for product information, I had a predetermined set of expectations surrounding what I wanted to see. I became somewhat perplexed when I didn't see it and felt dumb when I didn't immediately get it. (For what it's worth, agency and client parted ways after the ad was done.)
Overall in the US, I would argue that we don't have the patience for High-Concept advertising. A healthy combination of Wall Street, short CMO tenure and consumer message bombardment are to blame.
But there are three roles for it:
1. "I know you, just not your personality." High-Concept advertising is powerful when you have a product with established brand awareness, and minimal ongoing advertising--like New Mexico Tourism.
2. "I get it, you don't, and that's great." For niche/exclusive audiences--like IBM enterprise solutions, the Nike sport lines and Diesel--high concept is perfect because it's obviously only high concept to those outside the target. For those inside, it's a special connection that needs no explanation.
3. "Long live the web." In 2003 I was fed up with the rising costs of TV production. People were watching less TV, the internet had not yet developed to be a true viable option, yet production companies continued to raise the already insanely high costs for ads. My opinion has changed now if the value is there, meaning: well produced advertising will be with us for years and the high concept ads can be winning over viewers and niche audiences long past it's completion date. It's a great investment. The young Gondry's of the world have a bright future.
But I think marketers and advertisers would be wise to keep high-concept away from product pushes. They should center around ideas. Around the brand itself and ways of thinking. Marketers don't have the time and they can't risk missing people today due to the intensity of the c-suite they answer to. Keep high concept on the brand, and we'll see you at the shows. If the Gondry ad was about the brand itself: perfection.
I've been trying to work out my thoughts on high-concept advertising for years. This is a work in progress. Any thoughts/examples would be appreciated.
Glad to see you back at it, JD.
Everyone here at my shop was wondering where the ad man was. Was he flying around the country looking to merge with a big agency network? Was he taking a much needed vacation from all of those heavy loaded rfp's? Or was he auditioning to be Donny D's sidekick on The Big Idea?
Regardless, we are all glad you are back. As you know, I have a rule that I don't create my own insightful content, but I sure like to make fun of everyone else's. And I can't write unless you do.
I will be the first to admit that I have never never really done great high concept work. No client of mine has ever had the balls to pull the trigger. So, this comes with no proven experience, but if I had to throw out one rule for really high concept work, I would say that if should be saved for the brand leaders. The established story tellers. Nike. Starbucks. Southwest Airlines. NYC. BMW.
Coke "Happiness" and Sony "Bravia" are exactly what feels right with high concept.
It just doesn't work as well when an emerging brand goes high concept. It is like they are trying to become famous with their advertising instead of their brand, product or service.
But what do I know. I'm stuck with clients who are just learning about the web.
Posted by: Allen Jones | October 19, 2007 at 10:09 AM
AJ--thanks man. totally appreciate the words. and i absolutely agree with you... emerging brands and high-concept don't blend at all. there has to be some base knowledge there or it goes right over people's heads. financial services and high tech seem to get into this area a lot. i have a hunch there may be some thinking that "because our target is more affluent they'll understand it." i don't buy that. if it's niche than it's niche--doesn't matter if it's porsche or pony. a passive audience will only allow so much time to think about an ad.
Posted by: John Drake | October 24, 2007 at 06:12 PM