When Advertising Hurts a Brand
January 3, 2008 by Susan Gunelius
Filed under Marketing
I found a great example today of an ad concept that does nothing to help promote the brand being advertised. In fact, it does just the opposite by confusing the customer. The guilty ad is from Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) promoting their Chantix stop-smoking product.
Here’s the ad:
While this ad caught my attention (and I’m not a smoker, so the visual is working to capture internet user’s attention), it also confused me. If a customer buys Chantix is the turtle concept in the ad telling them that their road to becoming a nonsmoker will be long and slow? That’s how it comes across. I’m sure the intention was to communicate the road to becoming a nonsmoker is long and slow without Chantix, but the marketing team behind this ad missed the boat. The concept makes the message unclear.
The lesson to learn here is to make sure the concept of your ad further communicates your message to your target audience rather than detract from it or confuse it. Additionally, don’t let the concept of your ad damage your brand.
In this case, the internet ad is tied in to the television spots which have been running since before the product was actually announced. Do you remember when they were running those “find out how these two critters will change your life” ads?
While I agree that advertising has the potential to instantly undo years of careful branding, I can’t think of a better example. Instead, I’ll simply state again that internet advertising not only sucks, but it doesn’t work. Period.
I speak from deep within the world of pharmaceutical advertising. To be fair, the factor that isn’t taken into account is that every ad must pass FDA approval. The implication from the turtle image in this placement as well as the other ads running in the series is that quiting smoking is a long process that requires commitment and diligence. This is also underscored in the delivery of the sales message in other media. On the other hand, if Chantix had used the rabbit image from their other ads as the main visual rather than as a comparative, the FDA would have not allowed the ad because the “implied promise” is a “quick cure” or as usually stated by the FDA “an over promise” to patients.
To further be fair, I would think that it is safe to assume that the writer-a non-smoker-falls outside of the target demographic. Secondly, this isn’t targeted to the new smoker, but most likely to the smoker who has smoked for many years and has tried to quit multiple times. Again, even farther away from the demographic and psycho graphic target. I have smoked for over 20 years and, after having gone a year without smoking, I am smoking again, and I am in the process of quitting-again. I am the target. I see the ads on the channels I watch. In my case, I know the ad referenced. So rather than being confused, I am reminded. The banner has leveraged the television buy. So to me, as part of the target audience and as pharmaceutical advertising executive, I can say that it works from a branding perspective-but, to the writers point, not as a free standing banner ad.
I think the bigger problem exists in that as we as advertising professionals cross over into non-traditional advertising realms [interactive, internet] from traditional mediums [television, print, radio, etc.], we are quick to assume that a television ad will be instantly recognizable as a leverageable asset. We falsy assume that “everyone will remember the televison ad”. As recent trends show, television and traditional media are falling in comparison to internet usage.
So to the writer’s point, as the internet and new media continue to grow, there is a growing audience who may not see our TV ad. In some cases, we may have only one chance to tell a potential consumer of our client’s product. If it is obscure banner ad with no point of reference, or it is not created with the various new media in mind, to borrow from Prescott Perez-Fox, internet advertising will not only continue to suck, it will eventually die a horrible death.
I have to agree with you, Prescott. Internet advertising leaves a lot to be desired.
Mjhardin, you make some great points. Thank you so much for sharing your insight. I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote, I think the bigger problem exists in that as we as advertising professionals cross over into non-traditional advertising realms [interactive, internet] from traditional mediums [television, print, radio, etc.], we are quick to assume that a television ad will be instantly recognizable as a leverageable asset. We falsy assume that “everyone will remember the televison ad”. As recent trends show, television and traditional media are falling in comparison to internet usage.”
I think you’re absolutely right. The social web and word of mouth marketing are gaining ground, and a message started on TV is no longer guaranteed to generate recognition when it’s transitioned to online.
Great points! Thanks again.
I’ve been in marketing for a while, and it never ceases to amaze me how marketing folks overthink things and underestimate audiences. It’s not brain surgery. If people get it, “slow and steady wins the race.” “Chantix will help you get to the finish line” Great! They got it and were mildly amused. If people don’t know their fables, they were still drawn to the ad, thought “cute turtle” and if they are smokers, took the time to read the darn thing. I promise you only marketing professionals stared at it and thought “geez are they saying that quitting smoking with Chantix will be long a difficult?” Give me a break.