Comments on: Advertising now that cocreation matters

By: Tomas Hrivnak

Tomas Hrivnak — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 01:10:11 +0000

Grant, in fact, EVERY AD is (or should be) a two-step process. Or even better, every ad should have the ambition to integrate the two perspectives: the “entertainment” perspective AND persuasion perspective. Or that’s what I’m being told by all major ad effectiveness research tools.

By: ken

ken — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:18:04 +0000

A better example might have been the Boulder guys who created the Burger King Flame A Friend ad on facebook – created a lot of buzz amongst people (and professionals) but Burger King is tanking

By: peter spear

peter spear — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:01:28 +0000

grant

it seems to me that you’ve been on fire lately and this post confirms it.
it reminds me of two things:
first, Pepsi’s stop motion doll “do-not-smoke-do-not-litter-do-not-use-cell-phone’ spot at the theater near me.
the voice performance of the female cel-phone character so totally nails the buffy/wasp/valley girl tonality that i am continually entertained.
it’s a credit to the writers, as well, (we imagine, in hindsight) to identify the moments that require the delicacy of these kinds of nuance.

and second, it seems that there is the kind of meme war that Kalle Lasn talked about happening in miniature in advertising. i wouldn’t imagine it hard to spot a number of advertisements who’s efforts to deliver this kind of co-creational moment fall terribly flat, yet whose intentions appear (at least to yahoos like us watching) nonetheless.

By: Rick Liebling

Rick Liebling — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:40:41 +0000

Consider how much commentary is being derived from this, a 15-second commercial. Great work by the agency here to pack so much into such a little time frame.

Ah but yes, will I buy a Snapple now? Tough question, I am a semi-regular Snapple drinker, but just as happy to drink Vitamin Water or Arizona Ice Tea or something else. This is a really tough category as the influx of competitors has created a commodity category for me. I look at cost first. Now, loyal Snapple-ites were going to drink Snapple regardless, so this ad isn’t for them. But for a guy like me, what am I seeing here (besides an entertaining spot) that is going to get me to drink a Snapple? I need a stronger reason to believe than just a clever wink and nudge.

By: everysandwich

everysandwich — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:50:01 +0000

Yes, there are spots with tiny little moments that seem to “make” a spot. (The one for me is the Nextel wedding commercial spot when the guy at the end flips the cue card that says “I do.”) But just so I follow, am I then a cocreating by sharing my opinion of that moment here? Incidentaly, the spot makes me no more likely to chose Nextel because of general experiencescell service shopping in which, no matter how I configure options, I end up paying the same.

By: Steve Portigal

Steve Portigal — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:45:44 +0000

I’m glad you had a link to the video so we could see what you are talking about. Because bad ideas don’t signify a bad brainstorm. I’d suggest the opposite, that they signify a good brainstorm, where people are being creative, thinking divergently, following that impulse that improv taps into to simply give voice to something in your head. But what this video shows is a bad brainstorm – the ideas are spat out quickly, to get the “right” idea ahead of the other person, there’s no building on the ideas of others, no one is “present” and thus able to be effectively divergent.

[I know it's just a damn commercial and it's a bit embarrassing to debating a close read of it, etc. but I'm going with it, so thank you]

I totally agree that it’s a bad brainstorm, but I didn’t appreciate that from your description alone. It makes me a little sad for all that we know and teach about what makes these things work, it’s really damn hard to have those wonderful flow moments where everyone is firing on all cylinders, in sync. I guess that’s why there aren’t a thousand Led Zeppelins, for example.