Filed under: Comment
In these highly commercial times, companies do all they can to either  maximise their revenue potential or  protect their revenue potential.
What this has resulted in is companies doing all they can to ensure the only brands that get exposure are the ones that pay for it.
Now I understand the reasoning behind it, but the problem is, in their eagerness to execute their ‘revenue guardianship’, they are inadvertently encouraging people to pay more attention to the brands they don’t want them to look at rather than the ones they do.
What do I mean?
Well, have a look at this …
Yes, it’s an ad for Johnnie Walker … but because they wanted to ensure their brand stood out most of all, they removed all the logos of the products surrounding it which – ironically – made me spend more time trying to identify who they were than pay attention to the whisky brand.
The same happens when TV shows blur out brand names in their programming. I get ‘why’ they are doing it, but it always ends up making me focus more on who the brand is they ‘don’t’ want me to see, than the one they are shoving in my face.
OK, maybe I’m the exception, plus in the case of the Johnnie Walker example, the fact is,  the only reason I noticed it is because the watch in the ad is the one I own and  I don’t drink so the chances of me ever buying a bottle was going to be small … however I can’t help but feel we tend to forget the way people often consume communication – and information – is through contextual cues and so in our attempt to ‘protect’ our clients investment, we actually end up doing the opposite.
Business decisions might be common sense, but people’s decisions often aren’t.
28 Comments so far
Leave a comment