This commercial makes Amp seem more than a little scary to me. If after drinking it I feel like I have the power to jack a car using stellar dance moves, I'd be a little concerned. Also, Amp and other energy drinks have gotten a lot of negative criticism because of all the sugar they contain, so seeing a rather over weight man drinking Amp makes me a little wary of drinking it. I'm sure that man didn't gain weight solely because he drank Amp, but after hearing stories of how much sugar one Amp contains, and knowing that excess sugar gets converted to fat in the body, I'm a little hesitant to buy it. I guess Amp now has a sugar free version, so I suppose a lot of the energy comes from caffeine rather than sugar in this drink. Fake sugars are also not great in large concentrations, and even sugar free Amp is ridiculously sweet so drinking sugar free Amp seems dangerous. I suppose Amp might be trying to spin itself as a brand for everyone. It's not just for athletes or teenagers. A lot of energy drinks focus on how energy can give athlete's power. Amp does too at times, but maybe this commercial is meant to counteract that image of them only being for major athletes who need all that energy. The guy is sorta average. Not in clothes or behavior, but in size and facial appearance. Every day normal Americans find themselves in exhausting situations or find themselves in need of a car jack, just like this man.
So why do people drink Amp rather than Red Bull or other energy drink brands? Is it purely out of necessity, they need energy and Amp is the biggest energy drink that gives the best energy boost? Or does Amp promote individuality and freedom? As ridiculous as these two commercials are, the actors are doing extraordinary things. Both of them are completely impossible for normal people to do if not impossible for everyone to do (start a car using dance moves?) Even though what the actors are doing in the commercials is out of this world what does it say about Amp? Is is it primarily to exaggerate the influence Amp has on a person? In some ways Amp has spun itself as allowing people to live on the extremes. They sponsor or have some kind of partnership with Dale Earnhardt Jr. a race car driver and they sponsor snowboarding. Their website has a "sports section" with "racing" and "snowboarding" under it. Both of these sports are extreme. By sponsoring them Amp seems to be pegging itself as a brand for people who not only like to be active but who push their limits, are adrenaline junkies, and don't mind have a racing heart beat. Amp coupled with race car driving seems like a horrible idea as with Amp your heart races very fast at times, and I can imagine driving a race car would raise your heartbeat so that would be a double whammy to the old ticker, part of that punch coming from a sugary caffeinated artificially flavored and died drink. The commercials showing normal, maybe unathletic people doing other crazy, potentially dangerous things adds to this image of Amp=extreme for everyone.
I wonder who wants to buy these drinks? I'm the only one out of my friends who has never bought Amp in order to stay up late, and many teenagers do. It seems like most of them buy it because it really does give them an energy boost, but why do they pick Amp. The Den only carried Amp energy drinks but they also had a lot of Starbucks energy drinks. Most people chose Amp. I suppose Amp might give a person a bigger energy boost, but I would imagine it would also provide a bigger energy crash. I guess if a teenager needed just two more hours to study and then planned to sleep, a perfectly timed Amp-induced energy deterioration would be perfect and put them right to bed. It's funny that the Amp commercials have nothing to do with studying, and I've never seen someone drink an Amp before a sporting event. A few people have said Amp makes them feel sick even without exercising. A lot of my friends at home drink Amp, even though they readily have access to grocery stores and pharmacies.
It seems as if the company is trying to make up for their reputation as being unhealthy. Even though teenagers do crazy things to their bodies, most can recognize when their bodies are becoming groggy or overloaded with sugars and fats, and many try to counteract that. Whether it's because spring break is approaching swiftly or because they have athletic competitions to prepare for, regular sugar binges can lead to needing a change. Amp has created a Sugar Free variety, and they now have Amp Energy Juice in Orange and Mixed berry flavors for the morning! It boasts being 100 percent juice so I don't understand what's so new or special about it, but I suppose an avid Amp drinker might choose an Amp OJ over a Tropicana one if they saw them next to one another.
Amp commercials and branding seem unoriginal to me. Many companies and products try to peg themselves as being extreme. A lot of times beer commercials show people doing crazy things as do car commercials. Why is Amp so successful? What is greater, the attraction to Amp they spark in consumers or their viewers need for extra energy on a regular basis? Are Amp commercials meant to just put the idea of Amp in the minds of stressed teenagers so that next time they need to study late at night they'll remember Amp? I wonder if Amp is slightly addictive too. I know caffeine is addictive, as people often get headaches if they don't drink coffee after months of drinking it in the morning. Even if Amp isn't physically addictive I wonder if it makes people think they need it. Do students believe that once they start drinking Amp they'll not be able to work past say eleven without it?
Amp's competitor Red Bull has a very similar approach to advertising. It's website focuses on extreme sports such as motorcycle/motorbike (I can't tell the difference!) racing and it shows girls jumping off a very high cliff into a stunning caribbean ocean. When you first enter the site it gives you the option of going to the redbullusa.com or the regular site. I can't tell the difference between the two, but maybe one is devoted exclusively to American athletes and the regular site to athletes from around the globe. Both sites have articles about featured athletes and teams and the vibe is very similar to that of Amp. Red Bulls commercials though tend to appeal less to athletes and more to people who lead busy lives.
The above commercial shows a normal business man trying to get to work after missing a bus or unsuccessfully hailing a taxi. Red Bull "gives him wings" and allows him to use the cans to move/fly/speed to work. He ends up drinking a Red Bull at the end, but the commercial doesn't show Redbull making him stronger. It shows Redbull being there for him. Redbull helps you when you need it most, it keeps you on track, and it recognizes that you aren't a major league athlete or Olympian and you have to go to work every day. Redbull likes the common man, and it understands that he needs energy too. This commercial distinguishes Red Bull from Amp and other drinks, although the advertising and marketing for the two companies still remains very similar.
Looking at these somewhat similar companies makes me wonder how they both stay afoot. Are they appealing to equal numbers of people? Why hasn't one of them launched some crazy campaign that targets a broader age group. It seems as though they've both stuck to the 15-30 group. Old people get tired more easily and a lot of them have to work! Now that the economy is such a train wreck I imagine people will retire later as they'll have to rebuild savings that have either disappeared or depreciated in this economy. Although there's a generation gap between Amp creators and the elderly, I'm sure they could find some way to appeal to the elderly. They've replaced coffee in young people, why haven't they tried to do the same in old people? I suppose this is me being entirely cynical and thinking that energy drink companies would have no problem with trying to sell their poison to the elderly. However, if they're willing to make people think they'll be a contortionist if they drink energy drinks, then it seems like they're not that worried about sticking to strong morals. I wonder if there are health problems that come with drinking Amp and could be worse for the elderly. This is all just speculation, but I wonder why one company hasn't come out on top. Maybe it has nothing to do with selling more drinks but is limited by the law. Do antitrust laws prevent one energy drink company from buying out another? I wonder if Amp or Redbull has the money to buy out the other but can't because they'd get thrown in jail or fined a trillion dollars.
According to topnews.in (http://www.topnews.in/red-bulls-growth-rate-halved-2008-2120124) Red Bull had sales of 3.32 billion euros (4.28 billion dollars) in 2008, but their growth rate was cut in half. They had a rise of 16.6 percent in 2006 but only 7.9 percent in 2008. It looks as if Red Bull is continuing to make the big bucks, but isn't really growing as much.
Amp is owned by Pepsi, which made $43 billion in revenues (rather than sales) in 2008, which is much greater than that of Redbull. I wonder if Pepsi wants to buy Red Bull out but just can't because of our country's monopoly preventing policies?
And what's there to say about Monster, another competitor of Amp and Redbull?
No comments:
Post a Comment