There’s an Innocent campaign out and about at the moment. It consists of a bunch of lines that all end with ‘and’. These are the only two I remembered to photograph, but I think they give you the idea:
1) I guess the strategy is contained in that first execution; something about a ‘chain of good’, but I don’t really buy that. So you buy an Innocent smoothie and good thing happen beyond the vitamins you ingest? Or maybe the vitamins are part of the chain, and you get fewer colds, miss fewer holidays, enjoy yourself more, die happier…? Is that it? Then what’s the parking man got to do with it? Is it also metaphorical ‘good’ that is unrelated to the smoothie? Who knows? But I think the substantial scope for confusion isn’t much of an asset for an ad campaign.
2) How big was the media spend? I saw three executions. How many did you see? It does look like the campaign will improve if you see more of it, but I can’t say I was blown away way this continuation device. Ads that absolutely require you to see many of them are making life pretty hard for themselves, and if the satisfaction level is this so-so, is it worth it?
3) ‘Parking man’? Is that supposed to mean ‘traffic warden’? Are they not called traffic wardens anymore? When did that happen? Why are we separating by gender when most jobs (flight attendant, actor) are seeking to make themselves as gender neutral as traffic warden was?
Then again, I suppose I noticed the work, and talked about it, and blogged it, which is more than most posters get me to do.
But I won’t buy an Innocent smoothie because it’s basically a bottle of sugary water.