When does creepy become interesting: The Bird's Eye Frozen Peas Ad

     Last year, I wrote about Method's 'Shiny Suds' advertisement, which sparked a decent amount of controversy based on its slightly creepy appraoch to illustrate the effect cleaner residue can have on a shower. I've embedded the ad above because I'd like to use it to quickly discuss another ad which caught my attention, the Bird's Eye frozen food campaign using Willem Dafoe as a stuffed polar bear.





      The inclusion of Willem Dafoe in a fish finger ad would have garnered some press coverage on its own due to the seeming mismatch between the actor and the brand. This is the man from Platoon (and a less gravitas bestowing Spiderman), so flogging frozen goods may create a bit of a gap of expectation in consumer's minds. Brilliantly however, Bird's Eye & AMV BBDO leveraged the gap in consumer expectation to make a memorable ad by playing to Dafoe's unique image and the strangeness of his presence in the commercial.

'Never underestimate how far dedicated brand spokesmen will go to sell fish sticks'....

Source: Dafoe in Boondock Saints 

        Every element of the commercial seems to lend itself to being slightly off-kilter and creepy. The polar bear seems to be designed as part hallucination/part ratty hand puppet. The lack of emotion conveyed by the puppet's minimalist face and its passive-aggressive tone means that its expected behaviour and intentions are slightly worrying & unclear. Dafoe's voice makes this part as his tone easily switches from paternally reassuring & humorous to slightly sociopathic, leading the viewer to wonder if the commercial will end with a laugh track or simulated animal puppet violence. Conclusions like this make it woth noting that compared to Bird's Eye's previous campaigns (example below), this is quite a departure in a new direction.





       Compared to the previous campaign, and in general, I really like the Bird's Eye ad. However, as I previously said in my post about the 'Shiny Suds' ad, I'm not exactly the target market. I'm certainly shower much more frequently than buying frozen fish sticks, but in both purchase decisions, I don't have much involvement. As a 20 something guy, I'm still surprised that the shower doesn't clean itself with everyone using so much soap in it; as for frozen fish sticks, if I purchased any, I can tell you they would live forgotten in my freezer until the next equivalent of the Pre-Cambrian extinction came around. This aside, its not a great time to be a housewife in advertising. From showering to food, it seems that placing the archetypal homemaker in creepy situations is the current de jour for challenging convention and gaining interest.
         So, if both ads bank on housewives in creepy situations, how can I like one and feel slightly apathetic to the other? Relative to each other, the 'Shiny Suds' ad just has more malice, which while aiming to be funny, leaves an odd aftertaste on the psyche. Simply put, 'Shiny Suds' gives off a creepy/edgy vibe by being mean and creepy. The elements brought to bear in 'Shiny Suds' seems useful if attempting to bring about behavioural response to a worthwhile need (i.e. London Cabwise Advertisements), but just seems somewhat offputting when used on a FMCG.
          Alternatively, the Bird's Eye advertisement also comes off as quite creepy, but by utilizing odd voice acting, unusual visual cues and a soundtrack that seems like Phillip Glass also came along to production. The creepiness generated by the combination of the advertisments odd elements isn't as visceral or threatening as with 'Shiny Suds'. Instead its more of a novel creepiness, an awkward feeling that plays out like something from a TV edited David Lynch movie.




    
        The comparison with elements of a David Lynch film reminds of another recent ad set in suburbia (shown above) for Gu Chocolate Pods. The unusual composition of the Gu ad is leveraged to suggest some manner of illicit suburban underbelly instead of a purely creepy encounter, but once again shows that suburban convention can be challenged for an interesting effect. The product matches with the elements of the advertisement in a way that the previous examples do not (chocolate pods and a conveyed feeling of relaxation & illicit sensousness do go together better than with fish sticks), however all three show how skewering suburbia's norms and feeling of routinized security can generate attention.

         Regardless of comparions, considering the Bird's Eye ad as a whole, one can definitely see that potential exists to generate interest for the product. Perhaps the most final measure of success for the campaign though, is how the chief food purchaser in the household reacts to it. A stereotypical housewife may not be positively swayed by the method campaign, however, Bird's Eye's ad may have successfully found a balance that leverages creepiness into prolonged recognition and consideration.

What do you think? Are you more or less likely to buy frozen fish sticks after this? Where would you place the ads presented on a scale of creepy & interesting to creepy & uncomfortable?

KFC's Double Down & Stunt Product Marketing...

 
      Last month, KFC US launched the 'Double Down', a food offering, which if you haven't had the pleasure of seeing/trying yet, involves a sandwich with chicken breasts replacing the buns. Since the sandwich has gone largely unchanged since before the 4th Earl of Sandwich coined the term, the use of meat as bread managed to drum up quite a large amount of interest for the fast food chain.

       Company messaging stressed its filling qualities as a meal and as a culinary experience, though coverage of it in the press was more varied. The visual spectacle of the product led to an expected outrage from those within the health community (despite its nutritional content being less damaging than many other products currently offered within the sector), but it also served to generate a large amount of buzz and user generated content. Videos of people eating the Double Down (and their reactions) began uploading to Youtube and Twitter drove KFC to trending topic status around the time of launch. By marketing the product as an extreme experience, KFC managed to make consumers project expectations on a rather routinized (if slightly grotesque) food stuff. Before, one might experience an array of feelings at purchasing, consuming and then rationalizing a KFC meal bucket, now they feel as if they've conquered something, even if the act takes them one step closer to a competitive eating event.

      Of course, KFC's leveraged buzz and engagement comes at a possible cost, as with any extreme product entry, to the brand image. While fast food may always have to deal with charges about its health content, creating a deep fried zeitgeist and taking it as your own moves you to the front of the industry firing line for as long as your "buzz" lasts. For the Double Down to be a success, even during its limited run (till May 23rd), people have to respect its notoriety and infamy. Once the stunt is over though, how much of that infamy hangs onto the brand?

      Stunt product makers lacking brand equity or an established market position have the luxury of going all out without any real risk. KFC's healthier options introduced in previous years, and its association with the Pink Bucket Breast Cancer Awareness Campaign, don't allow the margin for infamy that other firms may have. Blair Sauce's "Ultra Death Sauce" & Brewdog's Tactical Nuclear Penguin (a 32% Beer) have only the stunt/experience value of their product to bank on, therefore infamy comes as an added bonus. If "Ultra Death Sauce" becomes equivalent to Tabasco in the consumer's mind or Tactical Nuclear Penguin is seen as boring, then the luster of the experience goes incredibly quickly. Therefore, while stunt firms can go for broke, buying into 'any publicity is good publicity' (barring the class action kind), established brands must walk a finer line. When image is at stake, the question doesn't become "how extreme can you go?", but "how extreme will the consumer let me be without thinking I can't be trusted?"

       Trust that a firm will deliver a value is at the core of all marketing. Delivering this expected value entails finding a balance between costs, benefits, image and messaging. Delivering the world's fastest car that can be safely driven daily and costs under £25,000 is virtually impossible. Car-makers offer mild stunt claims such as being 'best in class at comfort" or 'fastest 0-60' for its price range, creating a subset of extreme superlatives through messaging without actually attempting to build a cheaply made death trap attached to a jet engine. The Double Down utilizes the same technique through product design and messaging. The sight of the product, coupled with the press outrage and social media buzz means that a pretty unhealthy meal becomes the equivalent of a heart attack on a plate.

 Source

      Unlike a car manufacturer dealing with 'speed', KFC exists in an industry where positive superlatives aren't normally achievable. The 'healthiest' meal at Burger King isn't applauded but analyzed wearily by consumers for being the equivalent of taking a punch to the shoulder instead of the gut. Therefore aiming to achieve negative superlative glory within fast food can pose a much greater and lasting risk than other industries. Within this context, KFC's limited time stunt seems poised to do some lasting damage to its brand image. Though it can strongly be argued that KFC is already seen as unhealthy, lasting perceptions from the Double Down can make the brand seem to revel/wallow in cholesterol soaked glory, haloing over to their entire offering.

      With this in mind, how can KFC, its competitors and other risky sectors utilize stunt products effectively? One answer, I believe, seems to lie in comments about the Double Down itself. In multiple videos and tweets, consumers point out that you could easily make the Double Down yourself, without it being on the menu. If KFC had promoted consumers making the Double Down, through the dissemination of user generated content, they still receive most of the possible notoriety for the product development, without much of the blame for creating it. Consumers making extra large product servings, like this Giant Kit-Kat, promote the brand without drawing any of the fire that an obvious promotion would.

    Secondly, KFC could have placed the item on a secret or non-advertised menu. Most chains offer items that aren't on the menu, creating a feeling of being in the know as the information is passed between consumers. Coupling the ease of which the Double Down could be created from other items with the urban legend appeal it could have held would have generated a lasting 'cool' notoriety for a time to come, without much of the current backlash. In-n-Out's 100x100 burger is a great example of a chain offering something that borders on freakishly unfeasible and hugely stuntish, but without much infamy.  In both of these possible approaches, KFC could have minimized risk to its brand image and appeal, while fostering a growing notoriety and stunt factor.

 "Well, I did skip breakfast..."

      We won't know if KFC's choice of promotion for the Double Down was wise until it releases sales figures for the relevant quarter, but the buzz around the product seems to indicate that this isn't the last we've heard of stunt product development in fast food or other sectors.

What do you think? Leave a comment about your thoughts on the Double Down or other stunt products you might have tried.

When is an outdoor ad actually a homeless person?

Happy New Year everyone. I'm back from a restful holiday and aside from a snow related cold, 2010 is starting off well. As I'm currently in bed recovering from the effects of a cold and scouring the Sunday morning interwebs, I noticed this story on a few sites and Fark.com which seemed to ask an interesting point.

Source: Link

      The story behind all of these articles is based on promotions for the new Michael Cera movie "Youth in Revolt". David Permut, a television and movie producer associated with the film, has paid Ronald, a homeless man he passes on the way to work, $100 dollars to hold the movie's poster for the day under his normal sign.


     The reaction to this new media channel's creation hasn't yet been widespread or uniquely loud as a Google news search turned up 0 references of this and a Technorati search pointed to two blog entries (the original Nikki Finke story and Gawker). However, when comparing the opinions in both the articles and posted comments of the few sources that have covered this, there seems to be a rather defined split between those that view using a homeless individual in this way is exploitation and those that view $100 as a useful benefit to someone who normally makes $.50 to $1 a donation.

      Looking at it, my first reaction is to say that because Ronald isn't in a position to say "no" to $100, there is a small bit of exploitation. That being said, the more I think about it, the more I think that it truly is job creation for the man and it doesn't seem to being doing him any harm. People on the whole (especially in large cities like LA, NY & London), tend to ignore the transient, so anything that gets some response or moment of attention without degradation is useful. It could be argued that this may dehumanize the individual in a way, but I think society has done that to a much greater degree way before this was conceived.

     The risk in this situation is truly on the film, the producer and the associated brands. If this were to be done on a larger scale, or if this one occurrence were to be widely publicized, then the quick first reaction of the consuming public may be closer to what I initially thought, over what I came to with rationalization.

         Overall, is this different than paying someone to wear a sandwich board and stand on the street? No, and it's probably more lucrative as someone would have to work longer than a day to make $100 at minimum wage after taxes. Is this a signal of things to come? Probably not, as I highly doubt (using London as an example) that I'll see some homeless individual holding a sign next to Tesco reminding me to pickup a certain brand of pasta.

            What does everyone else think? Is this exploitation or a useful way to help the less fortunate?

Can brands pull? Consumers, Brands, Relationships & Love

"Love is an irresistible desire to be irresistibly desired." Robert Frost 

  "I love Mickey Mouse more than any woman I've ever known." Walt Disney 

Introduction 
     Whenever anyone mentions brand interaction with consumers, the term "relationship" seems to inevitably be used to describe the interaction between a firm a possible/current customers. Within such conversations, its usually stated that brands want consumers to engage in a relationship that involves "loving" (or at least consumer affinity) for the product or brand. If consumer affection is truly what brands seek, then some interesting similarities may exist between consumer-brand relationship dynamics and interpersonal (i.e. consumer to consumer) relationships. However, is what a brand obtains truly affection in any manner similar to personal relationships?

Why and how do people form relationships? or a quick overview of all of human behaviour....
        In comparing relationships across individuals (as both people and consumers) and brands, one first has to ascertain what the nature of both relationships are. The possible goals of forming personal relationships takes on a scale too large to fully discuss here. However, generally, one could say that people form three general categories of relationships with others: romantic, friendship/acquaintanceship and formal/functional.

       Romantic relationships at their most basic level aim to facilitate love (something we'll attempt to quantify loosely below) in its various manifestations, along with alleviating what could be argued are biological/evolutionary instinctual needs and sociological pressures (That's a seriously large concept to quantify). Friendship in its exclusively platonic form can be basically quantified as alleviating pressures for companionship and societal acceptance/esteem, as well as fulfilling instinctual drives for social behavior. Finally, functional relationships are generally formed based on a shared goal, position or objective and at their base fill the need to achieve the goal at hand.

       Along these rather basic and somewhat transitory categories, goals overlap and relationships may migrate. Exclusive friendship may transfer into a romantic relationship (or vice versa) and functional relationships based initially on a task or common goal may take on or migrate to additional categories. Proximity (literal or increasingly virtual) is said to play a large role in relationship building and it can be reasoned that it functions as an integral part of how relationships are formed in varying degrees by category.

         Along this rough framework, we can see how George Levinger's (1983)  theory of interpersonal relationship development may illustrate the transitory nature of relationships. Levinger theorized (initially for heterosexual adult relationships, but with later application to other groupings) that relationships had 5 steps:

Click for Larger Version..

      Through basic analysis of the model, we can see how interpersonal human relationships develop and relate to the roughly created categories.

How do interpersonal relationships differ from the basic consumer relationship model?


     While interpersonal relationships can quickly change their intended goal throughout development, consumer relationships are much more rooted in a fixed point. At the heart of all consumer/business interaction is the delivery of value. From a consumer's perspective, this makes the goal of the relationship alleviating a need or drive, while from the brand perspective this involves delivering the desired product or solution and completing the transaction. The general consumer buyer decision process states that 5 stages occur before, during and after the a consumer decision/purchase:

Click for Larger Version....

         Within the model of consumer purchase and interaction, value is what drives a repeat purchase. The brand must deliver on expected value to minimize post purchase dissonance and ensure that the consumer continues to keep the brand in a strong position within its consideration set.The failure of a brand to deliver on its value proposition may represent a possible "Termination" of an ongoing brand/consumer relationship, if the failure is strong enough. In this sense, the consumer decision model represents one interaction in what will hopefully be a string of interactions, while Levinger's model represents the development of an overall interpersonal relationship.

Is value an underlying force in all relationships?

   While both models seem to describe different aspects of varying relationships, there exists similarities between the two. Both the consumer/brand relationship and interpersonal relationship models rely on value as a driving force.While value may manifest in different ways between the two relationships, the overall implication is the same. Just as a consumer will prefer products that meet with expectations of performance and value, an individual will continue to develop relationships with other individuals that meet an individual's expectations of interaction. Logically then, it can be assumed that as value underlies both models, a combination of the two, with the consumer model describing micro interaction and Levinger's describing the macro or overall relationship development can be applied to both categories of relationships, as shown below.

Click for Larger Version....

If relationships develop similarly, does it mean a brand or product can progress down the model to love?

     While both categories of relationships can utilize a combined model, differences between the two mean that the rate of progression through the model and the final destination within it depend upon a variety of factors. Within the three stated categories of relationships, brands and individuals are most similar within the functional category, due to the limited distance traveled within the model to achieve such a relationship and the lack of complex emotional ties involved. Within friendship and romantic relationships however, a complex interaction of external factors and internal preferences and emotions drives the development of the relationship.

        Therefore, to understand the interplay between brands and love, we need to first look at how love can actually be defined. To define love fully is something that hasn't been accomplished in the course of human history and I highly doubt I'll be the first to do it. Love can be defined along scientific, religious, anthropological or psychological lines and even within the field of psychology, amongst multiple perspectives. For our purposes, love is defined amongst Sternberg's triangular model.

     Sternberg's model divides types of love amongst three main aspects (Intimacy, Passion and Commitment). The combination or absence of these key factors allows for the distinction of 8 different types of love, ranging from "Non Love" (the absence of all love) to "Consummate Love" (a perfect type of love involving all aspects of the overall concept).

     Though brands and individuals may share similarities in the combined model for development, their performance in evoking various components of love is different. This doesn't mean that brand's can't evoke some of the emotions involved in love, it just means that the limited performance in some categories effects what types of love a brand can possibly create.

The green area represents an approximation of a brand's possible positions within Sternberg's love model, based on the ability to evoke primary components from the consumer. It is admittedly,a very rough estimation. 

     Analyzing the three primary components, it becomes evident that brands can most primarily evoke "commitment" from an individual. By delivering value on a consistent basis, a necessary part of facilitating relationship development, a brand naturally develops commitment over time. "Intimacy", as Sternberg defined it, entails feelings of connectedness and bonding. While a brand or product can't achieve such feelings with a person the way another individual can, through marketing communications tools, a bond can be established between a brand image (and its stated values) and a consumer. "Passion" as Sternberg utilized it, entailed physical and sexual attraction and romance.While traditional elements of "passion" are possible for a brand to achieve, such as in the relationship between a luxury car and a auto enthusiast, the brand's inherent limitations keep it from achieving deeper levels of such.

      By generalizing a brand's performance in evoking the three core components of Sternberg's love, it becomes evident that out of the 7 types of love possible in interpersonal relationships, the consumer-brand relationship is assumed to achieve 4 of them (as shown above). The ability to create any of the 4 possible types of love with the consumer depends on a variety of factors, such as product, price and buying context.

Does a sports car evoke the same type of possible consumer love as a can of beans?

        If we follow the heavily generalized model created above, then it stands to reason that different categories of products can achieve different types of consumer relationships based on their inherent properties. A sports car may evoke passion in the consumer in a way that a can of beans wouldn't (barring the power of the bean lover's lobby)

A grid showing examples of the different categories of Consumer Involvement Theory (Laurent & Kapferer, 1985)

         In analyzing different products, Consumer Involvement Theory (CIT) can provide some distinctions between product classifications that will be useful in detailing the different types of love possible. CIT divides products across two axis, High/Low involvement (the amount of importance or effort allocated to a product) and Rational/Emotional decision basis (the context in which the product was evaluated). As shown in the above example, the matrix generated by CIT allows for products to be classified on a range varying from high end luxury items to routine FMCG purchases.

Approximating the location of examples of the 4 CIT categories on the Sternberg triangle shows how different products may interact with the consumer in affinity based relationships.

        Subsequently, approximating the position of CIT category examples on the branded section of the Sternberg triangle illustrates how different product categories form differing types affinities with the consumer.  

Low involvement/emotional purchases such as a music cd or other quick impulse purchases are rooted firmly in a passionate type of affinity. Forming such a relationship with the consumer may prove difficult for such products however, as the proximity and trust needed to work through the consumer relationship model to continuation aren't normally found in quick decision purchases. This lack of commitment is also found after affinity is formed, due to the fleeting nature of low involvement emotional purchase enjoyment.

Type of affinity evoked: Infatuation

Low involvement/rational purchases such as routine FMCG goods like a preferred breakfast cereal or cola hold a commitment of affinity with the consumer due to their extended relationship. The products in this category have delivered value to continue the relationship, but have failed to evoke passion from the consumer.

Type of affinity evoked: Empty Love

High involvement/ rational purchases such as Financial services are rooted in a high commitment, low passion type affinity with the consumer. The high involvement factor of products such as life insurance, mean that a commitment can be fostered through the consumer relationship, but that emotional elements are largely avoided within the product interaction. Products such as this also possess the possibility of forming a partnership type relationship with the consumer, increasing "intimacy" and allowing for the brand to take on a collaborative role.

Type of affinity evoked: Companionate Love

High involvement/emotional purchases such as a luxury sports car are primarily rooted in the passionate/emotional nature of the purchase. Interestingly though, this product category, much like High involvement/rational purchases, can build commitment or intimacy with the consumer though shared experiences and routinized use.

Type of affinity evoked: Infatuation or Fatuous Love

     Of course, these example classifications aren't static in their positioning within the Sternberg model. Approximate locations can move based on specific consumer perceptions, effectiveness of marketing communications and the overall performance of the product.

How can Marketing Communications tools shape the development of the consumer relationship?

 

       Since product positions within the Sternberg model of love aren't entirely static, the role of marketing communications tools extends beyond the basic consumer relationship model and has implications within shaping affinity types as well.

        Within the consumer decision model, marketing communications helps to shape favorable consumer perceptions of the product's value and ensure repeat purchase. During problem recognition, mar-comms helps to encourage consumers that a need is present and that such a desire is valid. Tools such as Advertising, DM & PR are useful during the information search & evaluation of alternatives through informing consumers of product features & promotions. Further, Sales promotions and DM can be utilized through the evaluation of alternatives and purchase to increase the value perception of a product. Finally, marketing communications efforts in the post purchase stage are utilized to reduce cognitive dissonance and convince the consumer the correct purchase was made (and should be repeated).

       Beyond this basic consumer journey however, marketing communications plays a role in the evolution of the consumer relationship. While its primary capacity is to aid in the consumer value perception, which continues the relationship, it also helps in aiding proximity. As was demonstrated earlier in the Levinger model, proximity plays a large role in the development of interpersonal relationships. Within the modified consumer model, product awareness plays the largest role in a consumer's search for information and evaluation of alternatives, which allows the brand to stay within a consumer's consideration set. In addition to this however, maintenance of product awareness between purchasing cycles may function in the same capacity as proximity for interpersonal relationships, helping to further along the development cycle of the relationship.

     Within Sternberg's model, marketing communications tools help products and brands to achieve capacity greater than that allowed by the product's characteristics. Once a brand has managed to reach a continuation within the consumer relationship, the product's general classification and characteristics should dictate what type of affinity develops. Marketing communication efforts can help to extend the position of the brand in the consumer relationship by increasing commitment from something initially classified as an impulse purchase or attempt to give passion to a routine FMCG relationship.

      For example, through mascot based advertising a breakfast food brand aims to add depth to a routine purchase decision by putting a personalized face on the brand interaction. Alternatively, a luxury car company may offer after purchase extras (i.e. free maintenance) to minimize dissonance about the purchase and create commitment in the relationship.

Not all mascots humanize the brand as much as others...but there's no denying Domo-kun's magnetic personality - Who wouldn't want to be on this guy's good side...

 Conclusions

        In response to the initial question of this thought piece, it seems that brands can evoke "love" from a consumer. However, as shown above, the types of love a brand can generate in the generalized consumer relationship are incomplete in comparison to love in an interpersonal relationship. Such a conclusion seems to be common sense, as brands will eternally be handicapped by their avenues of communication and personal assets. A milk brand may, with time, develop to be a comforting breakfast time partner, but it won't develop into any other dimensions, either emotionally or in different aspects of the consumer's life.

        When looking at the similarities between brand and interpersonal relationships, it becomes evident that personal perception, continued communication and the delivery of value are key in any type of relationship. Just as avenues of communication, personal attraction and emotional value are key in developing a relationship with another person, proper marketing communications, a favorable brand image and key value delivery are necessary to foster a proper brand relationship. By analyzing the type of relationship a brand hopes to form with a consumer (i.e. functional vs. more complex) and rationalizing what emotional and involvement the product is capable of, marketers can hope to coordinate a strategy that forms the optimum type of affinity based relationship with the consumer.

        Paying for love jokes aside, it becomes evident that in any type of relationship, continued interest, perception of a partner's emotional/intellectual position and effort are necessary for development.....so go message Aleksandr Orlov on Twitter before he gets all upset again.


Suggested Reading:
Sternberg, Robert J. (1988). The Triangle of Love: Intimacy, Passion, Commitment
Curtis P. Haugtvedt, Paul Herr, Frank R. Kardes (2008). Handbook of Consumer Psychology
Dwyer, Diana (2000). Interpersonal Relationships