Advertising that wins awards

Profile picture of the author KingOfContentMarketing by KingOfContentMarketing Posted: 02/07/2013
#advertising #awards #wins

  • Profile picture of the author Moriarty
    Moriarty
    They're born every minute. They still think Branding is great advertising, win an award and pondlife like me wrap up the deals.

    Nice one, Joe!
  • Profile picture of the author Pusateri
    Pusateri
    Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post

    They're born every minute. They still think Branding is great advertising, win an award and pondlife like me wrap up the deals.

    Nice one, Joe!
    Branding IS great advertising. Problem is, lots of people creating so-called branding ads don't know what branding is.

    Branding is anchoring a positive emotional state to a stimulus.

    Attaching good feelings to a product or company.

    Remember Pavlov?

    He anchored the sound of the bell to the dog's love of food.

    Pavlov branded the bell in the mind of the dog.

    Pepsi consistently beats Coke in blind taste tests, but Coke far out sells Pepsi, despite equal product awareness.

    That's the power of branding.
  • Profile picture of the author lotsofsnow
    lotsofsnow
    Originally Posted by Pusateri View Post

    Branding IS great advertising. Problem is, lots of people creating so-called branding ads don't know what branding is.

    Branding is anchoring a positive emotional state to a stimulus.

    Attaching good feelings to a product or company.

    Remember Pavlov?

    He anchored the sound of the bell to the dog's love of food.

    Pavlov branded the bell in the mind of the dog.

    Pepsi consistently beats Coke in blind taste tests, but Coke far out sells Pepsi, despite equal product awareness.

    That's the power of branding.
    No, it's not!

    Here is how the largest brand did it:
    1886 - Drink Coca-Cola
    "1886" is not some fancy number it's the year. Yes, they did start early.

    That is a brand + an order which resulted in sales which made the brand.

    Them dummies now sit around there nice boardroom tables and try to create brands. LOL.

    Yes, can be done but it is very expensive.

    Coke did it the smart way!
  • Profile picture of the author Pusateri
    Pusateri
    Originally Posted by hpgoodboy View Post

    No, it's not!

    Here is how the largest brand did it:
    1886 - Drink Coca-Cola
    "1886" is not some fancy number it's the year. Yes, they did start early.

    That is a brand + an order which resulted in sales which made the brand.

    Them dummies now sit around there nice boardroom tables and try to create brands. LOL.

    Yes, can be done but it is very expensive.

    Coke did it the smart way!
    I can't tell if you're serious. Hope not.

    If you are, go check out the memorabilia markets for the two brands.

    That "drink" command doesn't make people spend hundreds, even thousands, for old Coke advertising stuff.

    It's an attachment to what the company stands for in their minds. That's branding.

    Business owners would up the long term value of their advertising if they would insist their copywriters engage in some damn brand building in direct response ads.

    Unless they're just doing one-shot transactional stuff. But why would anyone who plans to stay in business do that?
  • Profile picture of the author BudaBrit
    BudaBrit
    Originally Posted by Pusateri View Post

    Branding IS great advertising. Problem is, lots of people creating so-called branding ads don't know what branding is.

    Branding is anchoring a positive emotional state to a stimulus.

    Attaching good feelings to a product or company.

    Remember Pavlov?

    He anchored the sound of the bell to the dog's love of food.

    Pavlov branded the bell in the mind of the dog.

    Pepsi consistently beats Coke in blind taste tests, but Coke far out sells Pepsi, despite equal product awareness.

    That's the power of branding.
    Pepsi tastes rubbish over here...

    Which brings us to a valid point:

    Consistency.

    You can harm your business considerably with conflicting messages/images, so keep them consistent.
  • Profile picture of the author Moriarty
    Moriarty
    Okay, let's cut the crap. Pepsi had a challenge, and beat Coke hands down.

    Coke was distraught!

    Then - - - do you remember what actually happened? The people who changed to Pepsi returned to drinking Coke despite all the hype.

    Nobody could work out why. Even CocaCola themselves!!

    So tell me this: was all the money Pepsi spent on branding actually of any value to them in the long run?

    Nope.

    Everyone who liked Coke in the first place went back to it. Regardless of bells and dogs - and don't forget that those dogs could easily have been running a ring on poor Pavlov.

    Branding, when carefully used is effective. It should not be used as an offensive weapon though - doing that as Pepsi did will backfire because it takes no account of why people buy Pepsi and not Coke. Understanding why people buy Pepsi will make your branding attempts 100x more effective in real terms.

    That is why Branding is such rubbish advertising. Branding never takes account of what motivates people. It merely assumes in traditional cart-before-the-horse fashion that they are right because they think they are right.

    Oh, and why did people go back to Coke? Well, let's think about what Pepsi did. They had three glasses of coke. You took a sip of each and made your decision.

    Which is where they made their fundamental mistake. They had a bright idea, a brilliant breakthrough. A masterstroke that only a marketing department could make. They didn't think what people do when drinking coke.

    So why did Coke not understand why this was? Because their marketing departments didn't understand why people bought their product any more than Pepsi did. They had always asked the stupid questions that brain-dead branding managers ask -

    "is the label better in yellow or pink, do you prefer this typeface or that?"

    They lack the imaginative faculties to ask what it is that people do when drinking their product.
    It never entered their little heads!
    Only with substantial outlay and much scratching of heads did they realize that people actually sit down and enjoy an entire glass of coke when relaxing. The last thing any of them do is take a sip and leave the glass on the kitchen tabletop.

    Which is why everyone went back to buying Coke.
  • Profile picture of the author Pusateri
    Pusateri
    Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post

    Okay, let's cut the crap. Pepsi had a challenge, and beat Coke hands down.

    Coke was distraught!

    Then - - - do you remember what actually happened? The people who changed to Pepsi returned to drinking Coke despite all the hype.

    Nobody could work out why. Even CocaCola themselves!!

    So tell me this: was all the money Pepsi spent on branding actually of any value to them
    Objection. Straw man.

    The Pepsi challenge was not a branding effort. It was an intellectual appeal.

    Branding is an affair of the heart.

    People went back to coke because they were emotionally invested in the brand.

    Branding doesn't encompass everything that isn't direct response. There are other animals in the jungle.
  • Profile picture of the author angiecolee
    angiecolee
    If branding is such rubbish, why do manufacturers pay more for eye level shelf space? Once they're right in front of your face, that brand messaging they've been sending out for years is highly likely to sway your decision unless you shop on price alone. Unfortunately these days, many people are very aware that cheap is not always better and it's often better to buy a known brand (there's that consistency mentioned above) so they don't waste money.

    Does branding push direct sales in the way sales letters and coupons, etc. do? No. Of course not.

    Does it play a huge part in today's shoppers' purchasing decisions? Yes.
  • Profile picture of the author BudaBrit
    BudaBrit
    Angie, yes, of course. Branding is a massive, massive thing. In the high street. I'd argue that the focus on brand online has perhaps gone too far, though, although it does depend what you consider "brand" to be.

    Most buyers, online, look at price and reviews or they look at wants and needs. Unless they're buying a physical item, most of the time I don't think they'll pay too much attention to the actual brand, so long as the copy identifies with them.

    Saying that, being seen more and having higher authority will lead to "better", higher paying clients in the future, so I guess it does make a huge difference: depending on definition.
  • Profile picture of the author Moriarty
    Moriarty
    Pusateri
    The Pepsi challenge was not a branding effort. It was an intellectual appeal.

    Branding is an affair of the heart.

    People went back to coke because they were emotionally invested in the brand.
    Really? Intellectual was it? Hmmm ...

    The customers preferred the taste. When they sipped Pepsi, it tasted better. When they drank an entire glass - Coke tasted better than Pepsi. So much for emotion - at least where branding is concerned. Branding is part of the corporate problem - poor thinking.

    Angie Colee
    Does it play a huge part in today's shoppers' purchasing decisions? Yes.
    Do you have any independent shops left in your area - or is it just Walmart and other Supermarkets? If so, then there is little in the way of choice in any case.

    Believe me, those people who think branding is great fall for the copywriter's emotional sways every time. Why? Because branding is based on intellectual theories, and the results based on those. Dig deeper - where the intellect (reason/logic) no longer holds sway - and you find the things that really swing people's buying.
  • Profile picture of the author Pusateri
    Pusateri
    Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post

    Really? Intellectual was it? Hmmm ...

    The customers preferred the taste. When they sipped Pepsi, it tasted better. When they drank an entire glass - Coke tasted better than Pepsi. So much for emotion - at least where branding is concerned. Branding is part of the corporate problem - poor thinking.
    Yes, that is the quintessential intellectual appeal. It tastes better so you should buy it.

    Some people did and had a perfectly satisfactory experience. Then, back at the store, faced with the two brands side by side, the unconscious emotional associations take over and Coke goes in the basket.

    Remember that most Coke drinkers never took the Pepsi Challenge and never bought Pepsi. They were not switchable for any reason.

    No, the Pepsi Challenge was not a branding campaign. You are making the mistake of conflating branding with anything that is not direct response.

    Branding is always always always always emotion based.

    Since you seem to reject that, why don't you give us your definition of branding?
  • Profile picture of the author Moriarty
    Moriarty
    My definition of branding: attempting to speak to everyone, everywhere. Like the Walmart brand, CocaCola etc.

    Now, in my defense, the results I gave to the "Pepsi Challenge" were from a scientific study way back in a magazine like the Scientific American or New Scientist (science is my background, by the way). Their analysis was succinct and clear.

    Now, brand loyalty is a very large and real thing. So you would be right to claim big things for it. The problem is that when used at corporate level, most people working there will be of a similar mind. After all, CocaCola and Pepsi are rivals. They compete for much the same audience. That is when it gets expensive and ineffective.

    Now my turn: please define "intellectual appeal" and "taste". Then I can shoot you down because we are limited to small spaces in making attempts to describe things that are really quite amorphous.
  • Profile picture of the author Pusateri
    Pusateri
    Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post

    My definition of branding: attempting to speak to everyone, everywhere. Like the Walmart brand, CocaCola etc.

    Now, in my defense, the results I gave to the "Pepsi Challenge" were from a scientific study way back in a magazine like the Scientific American or New Scientist (science is my background, by the way). Their analysis was succinct and clear.

    Now, brand loyalty is a very large and real thing. So you would be right to claim big things for it. The problem is that when used at corporate level, most people working there will be of a similar mind. After all, CocaCola and Pepsi are rivals. They compete for much the same audience. That is when it gets expensive and ineffective.

    Now my turn: please define "intellectual appeal" and "taste". Then I can shoot you down because we are limited to small spaces in making attempts to describe things that are really quite amorphous.
    I need to be blunt. A worse definition of branding is not possible.

    Using that definition, anything you say on the subject will be spreading disinformation.

    By intellectual appeal, I mean just that. An appeal to the intellect. To reason. Logic.

    More horsepower. Less sodium. Lower price.

    In your attempt to shoot me down, you will probably make some argument about the intellect being the realm of the objective and taste being subjective.

    If that's where you're going, let me stop you. The Pepsi Challenge, by design, put an objective facade on the subjective experience of taste. It said, "Look! Pepsi tastes better. We have proof. You should buy some."

    The emotional (branded) response was, "No way, man. Coke is the REAL thing! It taught the world to sing!"
  • Profile picture of the author lotsofsnow
    lotsofsnow
    Isn't it nice how they all fight.

    LOL.

    Coke is the real deal by the way and Pepsi is just, well the other thing.

    This thread is about branding.

    Branding is important but it is a result.

    If you make branding the purpose of an advertising campaign it gets very expensive. Just wanted to say there is a better way to do things.
  • Profile picture of the author verial
    verial
    Originally Posted by hpgoodboy View Post

    Isn't it nice how they all fight.

    LOL.

    Coke is the real deal by the way and Pepsi is just, well the other thing.

    This thread is about branding.

    Branding is important but it is a result.

    If you make branding the purpose of an advertising campaign it gets very expensive. Just wanted to say there is a better way to do things.
    Pepsi outperforms Coke in blind taste tests. Ergo, it is the brand of the smart consumer (if you consider the act of drinking calorie-dense sugar-water smart).
  • Profile picture of the author lotsofsnow
    lotsofsnow
    Originally Posted by verial View Post

    Pepsi outperforms Coke in blind taste tests. Ergo, it is the brand of the smart consumer (if you consider the act of drinking calorie-dense sugar-water smart).
    I do not care about consumers that blindly tested this. I prefer Coke.
  • Profile picture of the author Moriarty
    Moriarty
    Pusateri
    By intellectual appeal, I mean just that. An appeal to the intellect. To reason. Logic.
    If you are appealing to logic, you are in for trouble. People make intellectual decisions long after the lizard brain* has come to its conclusions. (*as they term it in the US - to me it is way more subtle than that). The point about dealing at this coarse level of thinking is that it leaves too many questions unanswered. Such as "what motivated them to think this" - and it wasn't the color of the tin, was it?

    Because if a client comes to me and wants to break into a heavily branded market, I don't even break into it for them. There is always something their prospects do before looking for that brand. Find out what that is and get highly targeted clicks for 15c instead of $5.50. Do that a few times and you're in business, and those who are branding don't even notice that their market is being eaten away from under them.

    In your attempt to shoot me down, you will probably make some argument about the intellect being the realm of the objective and taste being subjective.
    The problem for you is that the intellect only appears to be the realm of the objective. The intellect is an isolated island in a sea of subjective thinking. Take a look at my article on Tom Thomson (a Canadian painter) to see what I mean. The subjective, engaged realm is as real for an academic as it is for the ordinary Joe Doe. Taste is subjective, yet funnily it is still common to all humans.

    Now, a little experiment for you. When you are thinking with your intellectual faculties, you are aware of the external world. Let us say that you can hear the clock ticking in the background. Only when you are watching your favorite movie, you won't notice that you have become absorbed in watching it. Everything you see and feel is on that screen. The rest of the world seems to disappear.

    And you can't hear the clock ticking - your critical faculties have been bypassed.

    Just try it.

    Employ such methods as a copywriter and believe me, people become engaged. They will click through at speeds that really pleases Google. You can imagine what happens to the bid price after that. (Even if the days of jetstreaming are long gone!).

    Now just as a codicil, I do know my academics. My father was a professor before he retired, and his thinking fits neatly into the category that yours does.


    HP Goodboy
    Just wanted to say there is a better way to do things.
    So how about you tell us a few, then instead of making trite remarks?
  • Profile picture of the author Pusateri
    Pusateri
    Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post

    If you are appealing to logic, you are in for trouble. People make intellectual decisions long after the lizard brain* has come to its conclusions. (*as they term it in the US - to me it is way more subtle than that). The point about dealing at this coarse level of thinking is that it leaves too many questions unanswered. Such as "what motivated them to think this" - and it wasn't the color of the tin, was it?

    Because if a client comes to me and wants to break into a heavily branded market, I don't even break into it for them. There is always something their prospects do before looking for that brand. Find out what that is and get highly targeted clicks for 15c instead of $5.50. Do that a few times and you're in business, and those who are branding don't even notice that their market is being eaten away from under them.
    Did you really think I was arguing in favor of intellectual appeals?

    I wasn't.

    I was just pointing out that the Pepsi Challenge was an intellectual appeal and not branding.
  • Profile picture of the author Moriarty
    Moriarty
    Struggling, are we? When you said

    In your attempt to shoot me down, you will probably make some argument about the intellect being the realm of the objective and taste being subjective.
    I knew you were inside the box.

    Moriarty
  • Profile picture of the author angiecolee
    angiecolee
    Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post


    I knew you were inside the box.

    Moriarty
    1. This is not the place for personal attacks. I don't know you from a hole in the ground, but I have much respect for Pusateri's work.

    2. You're arguing semantics at this point and we'll have to agree to disagree. You go on believing what you believe and appealing to the clients who want straight up ads. I'll go on targeting clients who want longevity and lifelong customers. Somehow, I have a feeling we'll all still make money.

Related discussions