AdAge has reported that another American advertising icon may go the way of the Pets.com sock puppet, Mr. Whipple, and other characters, to enter advertising history. The Aflac duck is a familiar sight on U.S. (and Japanese) TV, but AdAge suggests that Aflac’s new CMO Jeff Herbert isn’t satisfied with that. He wants to get his message across, too. But Herbert may find out that reducing reliance on a strong branding icon is a tough challenge.

Aflac (American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus) is an American insurance company which derives most of its revenue from supplemental health and life insurance. While traditional medical insurance will cover medical bills, Aflac’s supplemental policies provide additional cash payments which can help pay for food, rent, or any other expenses.

The nature of Aflac’s product poses a tough communication challenge. First, the company needs to make people aware that their existing insurance will not cover all of their bills – a problem they would rather not think about. Then Aflac needs to pitch its services as the solution to the problem.

In 1999 the Aflac duck was introduced to take on this communication challenge in this commercial. The duck has since made its way into popular culture, meriting a long section in Wikipedia’s description of Aflac and an appearance in the film “Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events.”

There can be no doubt that the duck has done a good job of raising Aflac’s awareness. But unlike another insurance advertising icon, the Geico gecko, which I discussed in this post, the duck needs to do more than simply communicate that the company exists.

As Mr. Herbert states, “Our industry is a difficult one for the average consumer to understand.” Because of this, the duck actually becomes a “video vampire,” hogging the limelight at the expense of the message.

But Mr. Herbert faces a tough challenge to get that message across without the duck. A transition away from a campaign that features a strong branding icon is often difficult. A press release from Aflac suggests that he realizes this.

There are many precedents of brands trying to move away from a strong branding icon. In the U.K., Lloyds bank used a black horse in its advertising for many years. An obvious and well-known reference to the bank’s logo, the horse guaranteed strong branding but little additional communication. However, a move away from the horse led to people failing to recognize the sponsor of the campaign. The horse later returned to the bank’s advertising.

Like the Lloyd’s horse, the Aflac duck provides two ingredients which are key to advertising success.

1. It makes people want to watch the ad, since past viewings suggest it will be worth watching.
2. It leaves no doubt as to which brand is being advertised.

(And of course, for more considered purchases such as insurance, a third ingredient is usually necessary for success: the communication of a rationale for purchase or call to action.)

When a valuable icon is abandoned, the brand loses both its branding power and the attention it attracted. The new campaign must not only engage attention but firmly establish which brand is being advertised. 

So it will be interesting to see if the new Aflac campaign will successfully overcome the challenge of downplaying the duck and still getting the brand and the message across.

So what do you think? Would Aflac be quackers to get rid of the duck?
Š

Tags: Nigel Hollis, Aflac, Branding, duck, Jeff Herbert

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 21st, 2007 at 5:35 pm and is filed under Brands, Creative. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Print this Page