Filed under: Comment
So I was flicking through some magazine recently when I came across [not the best choice of phrase] this …
As I was sat in the Doctor’s reception, I first thought it was an ad for water births, but on closer inspection – and accepting my French goes as far as asking where the tourist information is and how much is a kilo of pineapples – I worked out it’s simply an ad for a holiday destination.
At first I thought it was mad.
Then I realised it was genius.
You see so many tourist ads try and appeal to everyone.
They fill their full page ads and 30 second TV spots with snapshots/vignettes of as many varied activities as is physically possible to do … and all it ends up doing is looking like every other holiday ad that’s running at the time.
That’s why I loved the Tourism NZ campaign [“Pure”] because they talked about a single emotional benefit rather than a bunch of varied activities … even though they seem to have now succumbed to the ‘pile it high’ approach favoured by so many tourism destinations.
It’s also why I was so proud of the work we did for Taj, because we not only targeted a specific group of people [rather than everyone] we created the reason for them to actually come and it went way beyond just making some ads.
And it’s why I like the island of pregnant ad.
It focuses on a particular segment of society.
A segment of society who are very aware of their need to stay rested and relaxed … but even smarter, a segment of society who have husbands and families who – in the main – will do absolutely anything their wife needs/wants/asks [at least during the pregnancy] so they can feel they’re doing everything they can, to encourage a healthy, happy birth.
While I appreciate all brands want to gain as many customers as possible in the cheapest way as possible, this ‘one-size-fits-all’ ad approach is getting less and less effective, simply because they’re becoming more and more common.
Of course that doesn’t mean they all fail, but I find it interesting that many companies prefer putting all their eggs in one basket over maybe doing multiple ads, with each one focusing on a specific audience segment.
Sure that could add to the cost.
Sure, that could add to clutter.
Sure, that could add to confusion.
Sure, that could lead to a less-than-good brand experience.
But it doesn’t have to be that way … especially if the media you use is as targeted as the strategy.
And besides, ‘effectiveness’ isn’t about how much it costs up-front, it’s how much you get back from it.
Look, maybe what I’m saying is all complete and utter bollocks, but I still believe the difference between good advertising and wallpaper advertising is doing/saying something that is meaningful to someone … and at the end of the day, if you’re making communication that wants to attract and appeal to young, old, boys, girls, single men, single women, married couples and families, it’s highly unlikely you’re going to find – or say – something that is powerfully motivating and attractive to each and everyone.
Then, of course, there’s the fact that there’s nothing more likely to put people off going to a particular destination than the belief they’ll be spending their 2 precious weeks of holiday at a destination that is basically filled with all the people they come into contact with at home, just in a sunnier environment.
Unless that actually is what you’re looking for.
No judgements, just saying. Ahem.
At the end of the day, it’s worth remembering a target audience means having a target.
Sure, a rifle and a shotgun can both hit it … but one can do it from distance with stunning accuracy while the other only works if you’re standing up close and even then, leaves it in a tattered mess that’s no use for next time.
53 Comments so far
Leave a comment