Copywriter: Alon Shoval, Charles Veprek
Art Director: Alon Shoval, Victor Anselmi

Would you be surprised to learn that the campaign is not targeted at the “average” consumer?

Which brings me to my next question. If the campaign was not created to reach the average consumer, but rather it was created to reach a much more sophisticated, self-directed, wealthy investor, would you still refer to this as “exemplary work”?

Matters of agreement
1. The investment world has historically represented something of a ‘private club’ closed except to those ‘in the know’ and culturally and financially elite.

2. The industry has for the most part been self-indulgent and focused on itself rather than being ‘consumer centric’ in its marketing communications

3. The use of celebrities is a risky one: the alternative to aspiration is alienation when the group of people to be influenced are confronted with someone who by his/her nature they can’t identify with

Matters of disagreement

Your analysis and commentary is based on the average consumer. I believe this to be in error.

1. Economically, it is not viable for investment companies to profitably manage the accounts of people with less than $250,000 in liquid assets (not net worth tied up in real estate for example). This means that investment campaigns like Smith Barney are decidedly not pursuing an average, mass market customer, indeed they are after an elite group, although far more emancipated that earlier generations.

2. While for ‘the average consumer there is something impenetrable about financial planning’ this relationship with the category cannot be extended or presumed for the ‘affluent investors’ (although the segment goes by different names). Indeed, this group while not professing to be experts themselves are very self-directed and involved in financial matters and decision making. This group is not one to be intimidated by their financial planner, and is a proactive and demanding client that challenges decisions and advice and does not delegate management.

3. While this group may not have any better insight into the mystery of ‘how money makes money’ I would posit that this does not represent an insufficient narrative because their orientation is very different from the average consumer. They don’t need to know how of money multiplies because they don’t trust that it will: they actively engage in behaviors that monitor progress in their accumulation of funds or in meeting their ‘life goals’ (as is the category-speak in vogue lately).

4. The need to understand ‘how things work’ also feels over-stated: in the modern consumption age we are surrounded by and rely on goods in our lives for which we haven’t the foggiest idea how they work, nor how to fix them if they go wrong. A coffee maker, watch, car and the laptop this is being written on are just a few examples. This does not result in angst or avoidance.