Innocent and…
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:
Questions, questions…
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.
It all appears to be linked with http://www.chainofgood.co.uk – so basically, making their corporate social responsibility work the cornerstone of their marketing.
Which I’ve seen fairly regularly from students who’ve just attended an earnest seminar about how brands and advertising can make the world a better place, but seen very rarely in real life.
Ben …Ben…Ben… when will you learn? It’s not about getting people to buy Innocent smoothies. It’s about getting people to have a conversation with the brand and to engage with their communications platform hierarchy.
And get likes.
We don’t have this juice here but knowing its brand language probably the logical way to continue the first line is “good and good and good…”
Or I am wrong and they are using the improvisational technique “Yes, and…” where you can put whatever you want creating unbelievable or funny story and…
Have you seen the TV ad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeXgxN24loc
Ah! The TV ad (which I hadn’t seen) explains it all.
Like I said, if it relies on you seeing a certain part of the campaign then that part of the campaign had better be EVERYWHERE, or you just end up with mildly grumpy blog posts like this one.
Also, I recall one of the other teams in my year at Watford doing a campaign just like this. We all thought it was very funny (as a pisstake).
Thanks, Innocent, but when I buy a Mars Bar 20% of what I pay goes to tax, which helps to pay the salary of a nurse, who empties the bed pan of Arthur Potts, stopping infections from killing him and everyone else in his ward, meaning that various grandkids don’t have to miss school to attend funerals, which means THEY realise THEIR dreams of becoming engineers.
My tax money might also go into the foreign aid budget to fund that guy on the bike in the Innocent ad.
So whatevs…
I don’t know about that shitty outdoor campaign, but these compliment things are lovely…
http://www.chainofgood.co.uk/passiton?utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=chain+of+good&utm_source=chainofgood&utm_content=banner&utm_campaign=chain_of_good_compliments
I did not get this at all. Saw one by the bus stop the other day and actually thought it was a typo. And I am in advertising. Doubt Joe Bloggs will make much sense of it.
Interestingly Ben, Innocent have campaigned in the not so distant past to be VAT exempt because fruit based drinks are good for you and fruit products are indeed exempt.
It’s also interesting how more and more brand owners are portraying themselves as agents of change today. Similar to the growth in social enterprises. Where businesses are set up with their main goal being to address a social issue.
Do we believe that P&G, Unilever and Coca Cola will solve big issues? Or should they just get better at making useful products?
I think they’re doing it because it sells products.
I also think that if killing puppies sold more boxes of Persil they’d be throwing the poor things off Tower Bridge all day long.
And much current research suggests that fruit-based drinks are barely better for you than Coca-Cola.
I think that TV ad is seriously condescending and
Will A, I agree. Which you’ll agree is probably the first time.
Yes… the queasy de-haut-en-bas portrayal of the poor black/African victim, helped out of the toilet by Johnny English and his smoothie is a bit vomit-inducing and
A controversial Save the Children ad is breaking at 10pm on ITV tonight.
Any chance of a post about it, Ben? I’m genuinely interested to know what people will say.
On the other and.
You can have that.
I reminds me of one of those games you play with kids in the car when they’re really bored. I saw two in a row and expected a conclusion. I was sorely disappointed.
@ Anonymouse: I’ll be busy at 10. Send me a link and I’ll see what I can do.
This just reminds me of Madonna.