Comments are closed.
Love it. Definitely makes a poweful point. But we should also remember all the external factors that can influence people’s reactions to creative. The Apple spot was obviously a huge hit in ‘1984’, but it is possible that the same TV spot today would not resonate the same way with today’s audience. I know ad agencies love to take all the credit for a successful campaign, but we have to acknowledge that there is some luck in regards to the timing of cultural events that take place in society that can greatly influence the perception/reaction of the campaign. On that note, what external factors (ie. social context) do you think are most important to consider when formulating a new piece of communication?
This is an extremely ignorant exercise. You take an ad that is 20 years old and incongrous with the brand’s current image, and then laugh at the respondents for panning it? Perhaps we should listen more closely to respondents (instead of quickly dismissing them). Consumers can’t always articulate the problem with ads…it’s up to smart agency people to read between the lines. Why do you think the Respondents asked for more color and a less dreary scenario? Maybe because Apple has recently poured millions of dollars into establishing color as an ownable icon? The marketing world is not static. A video like this just reinforces the idea that agency people sometimes just don’t get it.
More proof for the puding, Wieden + Kennedy, one of the most consistent creative agencies on earth, doesn’t sign clients unless they forgoe any testing prior to production. There’s plenty of Nike, Coke, and ESPN ads that became part of consumer culture that would have died without W+K staying true to that principle.
this makes me so angry. i think we all agree that the best research happens before the brief is written, but sometimes things just don’t work and it’s the job of a good moderator and a courageous planner to figure out why things resonate or don’t with consumers. following consumers blindly is ALWAYS a bad idea. but the following comments make me angry, because they’re blanket statements that have been around since the dawn of time:
1. Moderators can lead respondents. Duh. They’re bad moderators.
2. Alpha respondents can lead/sway the rest of the group. Again, the moderator’s responsibility to control.
3. Spots that are easiest to understand/most familiar often win out. There shouldn’t be ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in qualitative – if you want scores you’re being incredibly shortsighted as a client and you shouldn’t be doing groups in the first place. It’s as much the agency’s job to help the client understand what’s succeeding or not and why.
and so on.
Ugh. I just hate the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ dynamic that creatives set up within agencies when they feel threatened. Work at a place with smarter people then.
Apart from the fact that the original 1984 spot was conceived for the world as it was a generation ago, I had to laugh at his comment: “You can?t expect brand preference to go up after ONE viewing of a bad animatic.”
That spot ran exactly once. And look at the impression it made.
Stop feeling sorry for yourself.