My friend Erik Du Plessis, author of The Advertised Mind, seems to have undergone a transformation last week. On Wednesday, January 24, 2007, he was portrayed as Darth Vader on the blog Scamp, when he defended himself against an attack made on him in an Admap article by David Bonney. Subsequently David followed up with this in two posts of his own. Has Erik now become the savior of Millward Brown, or has he simply articulated our belief about how emotion works better than the rest of us?
David Bonney makes a very valid case for “sad-vertising” in his Admap paper (posted on his site below the one referring to Erik). “Sad-vertising” is David’s term for brand communications which evoke feelings other than momentary cheerfulness or excitement. According to David, advertising does not tend to represent life’s less-than-upbeat moments, and that, he says “is why most advertising is so perpetually irrelevant and irritating to most consumers.” He suggests that advertising too rarely captures “these emotions from which real life is born – the themes of hope, regret, gratification, resilience, ambition, love, hate and competition resonate deeply and are founded upon a confusion of positive and negative emotions.”
I could not agree more. Personally I think the case would be a whole lot stronger if he had not used the name “sad-vertising,” because, as he admits in the article, “Now the term “sad-vertising” risks being misleading – for the downbeat communications I allude to do not necessarily leave you feeling sad. On the contrary, because these communications hit deeper, because they may say something more meaningful and truthful, they can leave one feeling affirmed, revived, even exhilarated.”
The debate between David and Erik is interesting to me because it highlights the ease with which generalizations can be misunderstood or misinterpreted (particularly by someone starting from a position which is antagonistic toward pre-testing). The last thing anyone in Millward Brown should be suggesting is that the only advertising which works is “glad-vertising”. An ad that touches deeper emotions which resonate with the target audience will always be more effective than a “happy-talk” ad. There is, however, a very important distinction to be made between how we feel when we watch an ad and how we feel about the brand as a result of watching the ad.
David Bonney references an ad which, as an ex-Brit, I remember very well even now, many years after seeing it. It features an older gentleman who is looking for a book on fly fishing by J.R. Hartley. The man visits different book stores in search of a copy, but doesn’t find one. When he arrives home, disappointed, his daughter suggests that he try using the Yellow Pages. A phone call puts him in touch with someone who has the book, and he asks them to hold it for him. He gives his name: “J.R. Hartley.” He has been trying to find a copy of his own book, now long out of print, and Yellow Pages helped him find it.
When I first saw that ad I was far younger than J.R. Hartley. I had no interest in fly fishing. But I remember that ad because it was poignant and engaging.
The key point is that the narrative flow of the ad resolved my sadness and empathy into affirmation, just as David suggests it should. That’s what great ads do; they engage your emotions in a way that leaves you feeling better disposed toward the brand. The problem is, not every ad is a great ad. Not every ad resolves itself to leave you feeling affirmed, revived, or exhilarated. All too often ads which seek to utilize “negative” emotions end up turning people off the brand because they fail to close the loop.
Pre-tests like Link provide us with feedback on how people feel as a result of watching an ad. People are responding to the ad as a gestalt – they tell us how they feel now, after having watched the whole ad. If people report that the ad was involving and unique, and left them feeling inspired, confident, proud, affectionate or contented, then it is highly likely that the ad is working as intended. If people report that the ad was disturbing and unpleasant, and left them feeling repelled, inadequate, disappointed, guilty or sad, then it is highly likely that the ad is not working as intended (unless it is a drunk driving or anti-drug ad). Both types of ads will be memorable, but only one is going to benefit the brand.
So your ad is not intended to generate those specific emotions? Well, tell us ahead of time what it is intended to do, and we can add more. We want to judge the ad in terms of what it was designed to achieve. In the unfortunate event that an ad has not gelled with people as intended, the beauty of Link is that we can then delve deeper, looking into the recall of the ad, the interest and emotional traces, in order to identify where people lost the plot.
I can already tell from the e-mail debate going on at Millward Brown that this is a topic that evokes a strong emotional response from many. Please share your feelings with us.
Tags: sadvertising, sad-vertising, David Bonney, Nigel Hollis, emotion in advertising
(22 votes, average: 3.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
January 31st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
A really interesting post - thank you for the coverage!
I’ve posted a quick reply on my blog (www.sad-vertising.blogspot.com).
In essence, I’m really glad you agree with the thrust of my sad-vertising argument and it’s heartening that Millward Brown are so open to this debate. But I’m not yet convinced we can confidently say that negative emotion is no good for brands or even harmful for brands if it does not get positively resolved (either within the ad or within the person having watched the ad).
I present a few arguments in the Admap article that would tempt one to keep an open-mind on the matter. But we would need a pretty thorough exploration of the neuroscience and psychology behind all this if we were to be 100% sure, and for the moment it seems beyond the scope of my blog and the free time I have available!
When I was doing the research study at the core of the Admap article (yes, there’s a 1000 sample study in there, though only scantly addressed) I was hunting for sad ads… and a number of people spoke of purely negative ads which i never managed to get hold of. So I must track them down…
Thanks again for giving my article some thought - it really is very gratifying and I look forward to the continued debate.
David
January 31st, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Hi David, thanks for the comment. You continue to raise some interesting questions.
I read your post and I can see that some of the cases you suggest could work to benefit a brand. I guess the concern that I would have, and no doubt many clients, is that they seem pretty risky.
Take the example of the Smirnoff Triple Distilled ad that you cite, “a sad tale covering a break up, adultery and a “positive” resolution which at first only came about if you pressed the “red button”. What happens to the many viwers who do not access the interactive part of the ad? I am not familiar with the specific ad, but your description makes it sound like viewers who do not press the button may be left bewildered and upset? Can that be good for the brand?
Similarly, I love the idea of communications that lead someone on a journey of discovery and I can see how a series of negative ads could lead up to a positive resolution, but what happens to people who miss the finale? Do they implicitly start to associate the brand with negative emotions? It is tough enough to reach a significant proportion of people with one ad these days, let alone ensure they see a complete sequence.
As you suggest in your post this is a complex topic but one well worth exploring further. Let me know if there is anything we might do to dig into our data on the subject, meanwhile, I look forward to reading more on your blog.
Cheers, Nigel
January 31st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Interesting topic indeed!
Reading this post makes me think of the “?-vertising” that I’ve noticed. I think of “?-vertising” as advertising that does not initially incite a “positive” or “negative” emotion, but rather leaves the consumer thinking about what may have happened. These ads usually call for the consumer to explore the story further, usually by going to a website, to discover the ending. Some key examples that come to mind are the BMW tv/mini-movie ads and the Banana Republic print ads.
In these cases, it would be interesting to see how compelling “part of the story” could be (and through what medium) to engage consumers in a brand. Potentially, if these “teasers” were done well, the consumer’s engagement in the brand would increase, regardless of whether a “negative” or “positive” emotion was the outcome of the story.
Thanks for all of the interesting reading!
Ruthana
February 1st, 2007 at 9:08 am
Hi Ruthana,
Yes, I was thinking over the issue of what happens when someone has to take action in order to find out what happened as a result of David’s reference to the “red button” (UK’s interactive TV). As you suggest, the ad has to be pretty compelling on its own to cause someone to take action. I can see it happening if it is a real cliff-hanger but most times I suspect people just will not bother. Then you have to rely on the people who do bother to spread the word as to what does happen.
It can work but I would want to know ahead of airing that people did find the ad compelling enough to take action.
Nigel
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:22 am
Hi Nigel,
Once again, you argue rather compellingly for positive resolution of any negative emotions used, and in my latest post I’m left clutching to a musical analogy as support for all-negative ads.
Yes, this question does warrant a good deal more attention and if I can think of a clever way to make use of your data resources then I would be most grateful for your help. Equally, if you have any interesting thoughts on how to approach the matter, please let me know and I will help in any way I can.
Thank you once again for treating this topic and I likewise look forward to continuing to read your blog.
Best,
David
February 5th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
When I worked for an ad agency, our creative philosophy was “Emotional Hard-Sell” — making an emotional appeal wrappped within a rational reason for purchase. We believed that a commercial worked best when “whip-sawing” emotions — aiming for some disturbance, but ultimately resolving it within a safe harbor. People would walk away much like getting off a roller coaster, exhilirated by being scared (not fear), but ultimately safe. Alas, that was before I believed in pre-testing, so we never were able to quantify how well it worked.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Hi Philip,
Thanks for this comment. Glad to know you now believe in pre-testing!
Nigel
February 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
The discussion here makes me think that the category and the consumer target would be rather vital to success.
For instance in the pharma area ads are often in a more melancholy style as the conditions they are talking about are quite serious and they have to balance a drugs benefit with its potential side effects. Given that someone who suffers from a condition is by nature highly interested in it, the journey of discovery that sad-vertising might begin could be quite successful.
The same positive result could also occur for a campaign targeting early adopters. By nature, that person is interested in trying something new so the curiosity aroused by a teaser could attract attention.
However, I’m a bit hard pressed to find an example in the more traditional FMCG realm where either category or consumer target would compel a reasonable ROI for this approach vs. something with a happier ending.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Interesting comments David, thank you. I would agree that pharma ads are often more downbeat when discussing the symptoms but don’t they also have to show the emotional end-benefit of curing or alleviating those symptoms to be effective?
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Here’s an example of a successful ad for an FMCG brand using ‘a confusion of positive & negative emotions’ (as David calls it), though I’d say the dominant emotions are more negative.
http://soapbox.msn.com/video.aspx?vid=b70a11a5-597d-4baa-ab48-fd011af0e8be
Diaopai is a local Chinese detergent powder brand, and in the late 90s used (very bravely, I feel) the scenario where factory workers were being laid-off.
The underlying emotions in this ad are one of sadness, guilt and anger, which the laid-off mother faces as her child ‘grows up’ and does the washing, and then writes a note saying “mom, my love for you will never be ‘laid-off’”. Again, this is not a ‘purely’ negative ad as you can sense the feeling of pride and family bonding in the mother. And Diaopai acts as the catalyst for this bonding.
Quite beautifully, they also managed to weave in a ‘value proposition’ into the product window where they talk about & show ‘using only a little’.
The ad was extremely effective, and Diaopai captured nearly a third of the market, despite charging a slight premium over other brands.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 am
Hi Praveen,
I think this is an excellent example of sad-vertising. Even without understanding the voice-over the bittersweet nature of the ad comes through loud and clear. As you suggest, the fact that we empathize with the mother’s feelings of love and affection at the end of the ad does mean it has a positive resolution.
Many thanks for suggesting this example to us.
Nigel
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I get the impression from my Asian experience that the execution is sentimental bordering on maudlin. Completely different dimensions if I was going to have a serious discussion about it. Schlockvertising anyone?
March 5th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Hi Charles, since my Asian experience is limited, I have to go with Praveen’s assertion that the ad was successful in-market. Maybe sentimental plays better than you might expect? Nigel